Clinton II Inauguration Vs. Bush II

President Bush and his inaugural committee are getting grief about the privately-financed $40 million dollar price tag.  This is from an AP story discussing some of his - er - second thoughts about aggressive statements:

Reporters at Thursday's round-table also asked Bush about the high price tag for his second inaugural celebration and suggestions the $40 million gala, which is being paid for by private donations — much of it coming from lobbyists and corporations — be scaled down.

I did a little basic research, something easily available to the reporters, and some off the top of my head calculation.  I looked up the cost of Clinton's second inaugural, in 1997, from this Washington Post story dated January 26, 2001.

In 1997, the inaugural committee for Clinton limited donations to $100 but waited until mid-April to disclose the names of those who bought tickets or made donations. Clinton's inauguration cost $29.6 million and took in $23.7 million. Money left over from his first inauguration was used to make up the difference.

The reliance on private contributors to help pay inaugural costs is fairly standard. Clinton's inaugural planners scaled back the practice in 1997 after some of those who gave to his first inauguration figured in Democratic fundraising controversies.

The Washington post didn't have a problem with private donations in 2001, looking back at the Clinton inaugural of 1997.  In addition, at 3% inflation, guess what $30 million turns into 8 years later?  That's right, roughly $39 million.

So I ask these reporters, please, stop already, before someone begins to suspect you have a double standard for Republicans vs. Democrats.

UPDATE: deacon has more on this at Power Line, and he puts the Clinton inaugural cost at $33 million; I'm not sure where that number comes from, but it then puts Clinton's cost ahead of Bush's, with inflation.

UPDATE: A reader has taken me to task, including an unnecessary derogatory name in his comment, claiming that the inflation data for Jan 1997 to Jan 2005 indicates an inflation rate of 16.5%, not 21%.  I checked his link - it does not work, so I'm not sure where his data comes from.  I will admit to not having time to look up the actual data when I posted, and guesstimating the level. Mea culpa.

I did check the inflation rate at the U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).  Using their inflation calculator only allows you to go year to year, and does not include 2005, obviously.  So calculating 1996 - 2004 yields a comparable cost of $35.6M vs. $29.6M in 1996.

However, I think a better comparison might be the Consumer Price Index for the Metro Washington DC area.  Conveniently Nov. 1996=100, and Nov 2004=120.9.  Using that data the rise in cost is from $29.6 M to $35.8M.  Their data for the CPI including the entire Northeast Urban corridor shows 11/96=165.4 and 11/04=202.6.  Using that data the cost changes to $36.2M.

The point is that the estimated $40M cost is roughly comparable with the Clinton '97 inaugural cost, we won't know if it's higher or lower until the final accounting is done after the fact, and if these same people were complaining every time money is spent for grand political events I'd be a little more likely to listen.

For instance, I don't recall any complaints from reporters over the price tag on the DNC Convention in Boston in July, another 3 day political event.  The final price on that came in at over $100M, with security costs of $40M.  In the end hosting the DNC is estimated to have cost the city $8.2M, whereas by hosting the RNC New York City saw economic benefit estimated at $163M.

I'd like to point out that I'm not complaining about the Bush Inaugural cost, I didn't complain about Clinton's Inaugural cost, and even though I live in New England and would like to have seen Boston do better with the economic impact of the DNC I didn't complain about that, either.  Just as Clinton was allowed to celebrate his win, so should Bush.

UPDATE: There is a more recent article on the topic, in the Washington Times. I also have a later post discussing it here.  It's unclear where the security costs figure.  I do recall reading, however, that the Clinton didn't pay his security costs, and neither will Bush...Nonetheless, the point is that these things do cost some money, Democrats and Republicans spend comparable amounts, they only happen once every four years, and the winner is, I think, entitled to celebrate being voted in as leader of the free world in the greatest nation in the world. (sorry for the jingoism)

(Redundant update deleted)

Comments

[Clif]

Yeah, but problem with your calculation is that the inflation rate between January 1997 and January 2005 is 16.4% (not the 21% you assume). (http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/InflationCalculator.asp). That bumps up $29.6 million to $34.5 million.

Using 3.52% (the current rate) for the remaining year and you get $35.7 which isn't roughly $39 million.

Stop playing with numbers, Bobo, before you hurt yourself or somebody else.

[Mighty Mouse]

Great post Joust. Very funny too. Are you related to Jest the Facts?

[Julee]

We weren't at war during either of Clinton's Inaugurations.

[Giacomo]

In response to Julee I could answer several ways.

One way would be to point out that Al Qaeda was at war with us, but that Mr. Clinton had not elected to fight back. Remember the 1993 WTC bombing?

One way would be to point out that many other celebrations have not been cancelled due to the war, such as the Democratic and Republican Conventions this summer, or major events like the Super Bowl and the World Series.

Yet another way would be to respond that the celebration is a boon to the Washington economy with tourism dollars spent abundantly.

Yet a final way would be to state that unless you would say the same thing if Kerry had been elected you really don't have a leg to stand on, do you?

If Kerry had been elected his supporters would have had a fine right to a celebration; so do Bush's. And the war will continue and be won, eventually, either way.

[DD]

Clinton isn’t exactly a bellwether for ethics in politics. Spending any money on a re-inauguration is problematic, regardless of party. When the inauguration's timing is such that it coincides with an increasingly expensive occupation of a foreign country and on the heels of a wide reaching natural disaster, then the criticism is even more justifiable.

Is the WaPo bein inconsistent with their criticism? You seem to have found a case for this. Is it committing partisan hackery? Not very effectively.

As for Kerry, I wouldn’t have minded a modest inauguration celebration, but not at the expense of corporate donors. My problem with corporate money is that it’s a conflict of interest. Big industry trade shows have big parties thrown by large corporations to woo people to their business. It becomes a big deal in that culture who is invited to which party. This is okay because those trade shows are expressly for building business.

When you start having these types of parties for government workers who make purchasing decisions – people who are supposed to be representing you and me – the parties can start impacting the decisions they make. The Secretary of Transportation was at the GM party last night, for example. Will a cozy relationship with GM influence his decisions? I hope not. But it seems like bad policy to let decision makers (Republican or Democrat) be put in a position of compromise.

[Giacomo]

Well, if we're going to modify the discussion to bring in whether or not people who do business with the government should be donating private funds to let politicians have fun, it may be better to start the discussions with lobbyists and congressional junkets, fancy dinners, gifts, etc. After all, those things take place all the time. Inaugurals only occur once every four years.

Meanwhile, it's not just corporate interests that buy influence. What, after all, did George Soros want for his $17M? Remember, this is guy who currency speculated on the British Pound to make his money.

Listen, I'm quite sure the Yankee fans didn't like the Red Sox celebrating their ALCS win on the infield of Yankee Stadium. But that's what happens when there is a winner and a loser.

Perhaps in this time of war, in the effort to spread democracy, showing the world the celebration of our own smooth democratic transitions (or continuations) is worthy in itself. To quote Clinton spokesman Barry Toiv, from 1997, "It's really a symbol to the world and has been for over 200 years, and it's worth celebrating."

[nunya]

Check out this story:

http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=2833413&nav=EyAzVOrH

It points out that the $40 million figure for the cost of the inauguration doesn't include the cost of security.

With security, Bush's total is around $58 million. Just thought you might want to take that into account when you're comparing the two...

p.s. Bush is apparently breaking with tradition by not paying security costs (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6839280/ ) This would seem to indicate that the figures for Clinton's inauguration already include security costs.

[Giacomo]

Based on this more recent Washington Times article it appears that the $40M pricetag may, I say may, include the cost of the security. So $40M would be the total cost, including security.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050119-103531-1062r.htm

[Venen]

Quite a bit of faulty logic here from the jouster of facts.

"One way would be to point out that Al Qaeda was at war with us, but that Mr. Clinton had not elected to fight back. Remember the 1993 WTC bombing?"

And how exactly would Clinton have achieved support for such a war from the WTC bombings? I'm sure we can agree the world dynamic changed in many ways after September 11th. Bush had a VERY easy time attacking Afghanistan(i.e. getting enough support).

Either way this is rather silly. What happened with the WTC bombings was a pin prick compared to September 11th. Hindsight 20/20 in regard to whether or not we should have attacked then.

"One way would be to point out that many other celebrations have not been cancelled due to the war, such as the Democratic and Republican Conventions this summer, or major events like the Super Bowl and the World Series."

The conventions have MUCH more importance to our democratic process than the SECOND inauguration of a president. Even the Super Bowl would arguably be more beneficial to society than spending 40 million on a second inaugural during wartime. But when we're talking about the Super Bowl, the President does not have any say on whether the Super Bowl goes on or doesn't. It would look somewhat silly for him to say "cancel the super bowl, we have a war going on". It's far less of an issue for him to tone down his OWN inauguration. And, just because many events have not been cancelled, does not rule out toning down a second inaugural during wartime.

"Yet another way would be to respond that the celebration is a boon to the Washington economy with tourism dollars spent abundantly."

I have a feeling that Tsunami aid victims need an "economic boon" a tad more than those in Washington DC do. The war in Iraq is also much more important than a short surge in the D.C. economy. This argument doesn't make a lot of sense.

This of course is assuming that it actually creates a sizeable boon in the first place for D.C.'s economy. It's very short in duration, and I think it's unlikely that these parties have a very sizable impact on D.C. economy, but correct me if you can find some facts and figures to back that up.

"Yet a final way would be to state that unless you would say the same thing if Kerry had been elected you really don't have a leg to stand on, do you?

If Kerry had been elected his supporters would have had a fine right to a celebration; so do Bush's. "

Another flawed argument based on the assumption that Kerry supporters would approve of it. I wouldn't have approved of Kerry spending 40 million on an inaugural in a time of war. Even so, it would have been his first inauguration which IMO is more important and noteworthy than someone who has already been in office for 4 years.

"And the war will continue and be won, eventually, either way"

$40 million is easily enough to work *towards* saving more lives in Iraq via better equipment and infrastructure. So I guess for you we can lose a few lives in the process if it means we can have a fancier second inaugural for Bush.

[Giacomo]

I'll start at the finish in this response. The sole reason the Bush inauguration costs came up at all is because people with anti-Bush sentiment wanted to find a reason to douse the celebration. The war, the tsunami, the economy - all of these are excuses What it really comes down to is another expression of Bush hatred.

This story:
http://www.redcross.org/pressrelease/0,1077,0_314_4043,00.html
indicates that the donations for Tsunami relief world wide have been quite generous, and in the eyes of the relief organizations at this time, sufficient. I'm certain that if more is needed, more will be donated. I did, and I will.

The military fighting this war support the President overwhelmingly. You don't find many of them complaining about the inauguration/cost. It's the anti-Iraq war people who were complaining, again as a way to snipe at Pres. Bush.

The conventions were important? The nominees were known in MARCH, the platforms never change, and as a result the conventions are essentially big celebrations. They are completely orchestrated now, with no real political work taking place. It's all set up ahead of time - it wouldn't do for either party to embroil themselves in controversy!

And, as regards Afghanistan, I seem to remember quite a bit of ant-Bush/anti-war/look what happened to the Russians/it'll be a quagmire talk coming from the left before the rapid success there.

[Venen]

"The sole reason the Bush inauguration costs came up at all is because people with anti-Bush sentiment wanted to find a reason to douse the celebration. The war, the tsunami, the economy - all of these are excuses What it really comes down to is another expression of Bush hatred."

Actually I think they came up for a number of reasons. The most obvious reason is the current world situation we have today. Certainly, a good number of people dislike Bush(and many have good reasons) and that may have added to the hype. After all, this is just one thing on top of an entire list of reasons to dislike Bush as President.

Excuses or not, the point remains that at least a portion of this money going to help out the war effort, or going to help out tsunami victims - would have not only been a symbol of generousity but would likely impact those overseas in a positive way.

"This story:
http://www.redcross.org/pressrelease/0,1077,0_314_4043,00.html
indicates that the donations for Tsunami relief world wide have been quite generous, and in the eyes of the relief organizations at this time, sufficient. I'm certain that if more is needed, more will be donated. I did, and I will."

That's great, glad to hear it. But it does in no way excuse the Bush administration from not making an additional effort on their part. 40 million dollars would be a rather large chunk in the 350 million dollars in aid we already proposed to send. And it would likely make a pretty sizable impact.

"The military fighting this war support the President overwhelmingly. You don't find many of them complaining about the inauguration/cost. It's the anti-Iraq war people who were complaining, again as a way to snipe at Pres. Bush."

Well, obviously we can't read all of their minds to figure out what they're thinking. But we do know that had President Bush decided to tone down the celebrations a bit, or maybe cancel a party or two, the money could have been used to help supply our troops with better equipment. Whether they are complaining or not is rather irrelevant - they either need the equipment or they don't. Period. And in this case they need it quite badly.

"The conventions were important? The nominees were known in MARCH, the platforms never change, and as a result the conventions are essentially big celebrations. They are completely orchestrated now, with no real political work taking place. It's all set up ahead of time - it wouldn't do for either party to embroil themselves in controversy!"

More important than the inauguration for a second term, certainly. Neither has a significant importance in the long term - that is correct. But as far as the democratic process is concerned, I would say the conventions have a much larger role than a batch of inaugural parties. Many voters claimed that they did not make up their minds about which candidate to pick until after the conventions(and debates as well). Conventions set the stage for how the election goes, at least in the public's eye.

"And, as regards Afghanistan, I seem to remember quite a bit of ant-Bush/anti-war/look what happened to the Russians/it'll be a quagmire talk coming from the left before the rapid success there."

I don't remember seeing a whole lot of that. Most of the protests from the liberal side began to take shape in early 2003 when the war drums were beating to go into Iraq. That's about the time that much of Europe and the world started to become much more critical of the U.S. and it's attitude towards the world. There's very little question that the Iraq war generated much more controversy than the Afghan war, unless you've been living in a cave =p

[Giacomo]

Several points nicely stated but worth answering in the comment immediately above. I'll start at the bottom.

1. Left wing sources that predicted quagmire in Afghanistan, all before the war in Iraq started:
Jeff Elkins at lewrockwell.com
http://www.lewrockwell.com/elkins/elkins75.html

Philip Locker at socialistalternative.org, who lists a lot of other sources for the idea.
http://www.socialistalternative.org/justice27/2.html

Jim Lobe in Foreign Policy in Focus
http://www.fpif.org/pdf/gac/0209afquag.pdf

Colin McMahon in the Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0109170207sep17,1,7426221.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Chris Deliso at antiwar.com
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/deliso11.html

And I could go on. And on.

2. The conventions have minimally more happening politically than an inauguration celebration. But not much. It's basically 3-4 days of free advertising, and partying.

3. With regard to the equipment in Iraq the best example I can think of in this debate is the furor when Rumsfeld was asked about armor for vehicles by a soldier wielding a reporter-planted question. As it turned out all the vehicles in his unit had armor by the next day.

http://www.tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/04/12/62929024.shtml

4. As regards the $350 million to be contributed by the U.S. government, don't forget that this does not include the pricetag of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and the naval personnel sent in the immediate aftermath to deliver relief, including the 900,000 gallons a day of fresh water generated on the ship.

[Venen]

Good links but I still insist that the Iraq war generated much more controversy was generated there than the Afghanistan war. The increased controversy was rightly placed - because Iraq did turn out to be much more of a quagmire than Afghanistan did. Liberals in general responded much more rigorously to the Iraq war than the Afghanistan war, as noted by the many different protests that took place in the runup and during the war.

"2. The conventions have minimally more happening politically than an inauguration celebration. But not much. It's basically 3-4 days of free advertising, and partying."

Advertising is the key here. Conventions leave the political pundits talking about this stuff for weeks on end for a reason. It's important because it could be argued that it can help decide who gets elected. It also helps set the tone for each party for a while. I can't think off the top of my head what a second inauguration accomplishes, other than getting support from people who already support you. Certainly an inauguration of a new president is important because it symbolizes a peaceful change of power. But there was no change of power here. I think that's part of the reasoning behind FDR's cutting the cost of his inaugural.

"3. With regard to the equipment in Iraq the best example I can think of in this debate is the furor when Rumsfeld was asked about armor for vehicles by a soldier wielding a reporter-planted question. As it turned out all the vehicles in his unit had armor by the next day."

But this doesn't explain away the overall problem of equipment being needed in Iraq. We need more equipment there, not less. We have had equipment problems there since day one, and it has been acknowledged by officials in various forms. It also doesn't mean that some of the money being spent on the inaugural couldn't have gone to help out the troops instead of making for a more lavish celebration.

"4. As regards the $350 million to be contributed by the U.S. government, don't forget that this does not include the pricetag of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and the naval personnel sent in the immediate aftermath to deliver relief, including the 900,000 gallons a day of fresh water generated on the ship."

Regardless of this, 40 million dollars is still a substantial amount of money alongside the 350 million dollar figure.