The AP on “extravagent inaugurations” then versus now

Newsbusters’ Rich Noyes reports on how the Associated Press treated Bush’s “extravagent” inauguration in 2005 with Obama’s inauguration – which is said to be the most expensive in history:

Four years ago, the Associated Press and others in the press suggested it was in poor taste for Republicans to spend $40 million on President Bush’s inauguration. AP writer Will Lester calculated the impact that kind of money would have on armoring Humvees in Iraq, helping victims of the tsunami, or paying down the deficit. Lester thought the party should be cancelled: “The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?”

Fast forward to 2009. The nation is still at war (two wars, in fact), and now also faces the prospect of a severe recession and federal budget deficits topping $1 trillion as far as the eye can see. With Barack Obama’s inauguration estimated to cost $45 million (not counting the millions more that government will have to pay for security), is the Associated Press once again tsk-tsking the high dollar cost?

Nope. “For inaugural balls, go for glitz, forget economy” a Tuesday AP headline advised. The article by reporter Laurie Kellman argued for extravagance, starting with the lede:

Read the rest here.

Only the best for The One, right?

I really don’t understand why it’s so expensive. I mean, PEBO already has his own presidential seal, his own customized presidential plane, his own Greek temple/WH set

Comments are closed.