Thursday, Jan. 13, 2005 | 9:25 a.m.
President Bush's inauguration isn't until next week, but already there is controversy. Some critics have said that it is unconscionable to lavish $40 million on such an ostentatious event when our country is at war and when people are suffering from the devastation caused by natural disasters around the globe. The $40 million for the inauguration, raised through private donations, will be spent on black-tie balls, concerts, a parade, fireworks and other entertainment.
We didn't originally plan to comment on criticism of the inauguration since these events historically have been a chance for a president's supporters to celebrate his victory. But we couldn't remain silent after learning that the White House has parted with tradition and refused to use federal money to reimburse Washington, D.C., for what it will cost to provide security for the inauguration. Instead, the Washington Post reports, the city will have to divert $11.9 million from its federal homeland security budget to carry out the job.
Rep. Thomas Davis, a Virginia Republican who is chairman of a House committee that oversees Washington, is appalled by the Bush administration's decision. "It's an unfunded mandate of the most odious kind," Davis' spokesman David Martin said. "How can the District be asked to take funds from important homeland security projects to pay for this instead?" We agree. The security costs very easily could be borne by the federal government or, more appropriately, they should be picked up by the inauguration's wealthy donors. Anything less would be wrong.
archive
