Criticism of Bush Inauguration Borne of Hatred

The newest, worstest scandal of the Bush administration is the amount of money that is being spent on his inauguration while people suffer because of the tsunami. Among the left, this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Republicans have a cold, calloused heart and care about no one but themselves. After all, the $50 million they are spending on a party...a party!...could make a huge difference over there.

Problem is, the majority of that money came from private sources. It's not like there is a $50 million line item in the federal budget for the inauguration. And besides, if it weren't the tsunami that would cause them to make this observation, it would be the troops. And if it weren't the troops, it would be the victims of the Bush economy, which continues to be the worst in the history of the world (except for that blissful time known as the Carter administration).

If the inauguration were cancelled at this point, the Federal government would either have to pay the vendors anyway, in which case, most of the $50 million would still be spent, or it would have to spend a fair amount protecting itself from lawsuits. Not only that, it could severely damage many small businesses. Given that the inauguration is being held in Washington, at least some of those businesses would be run primarily by minorities.

But there is a deeper arrogance here. It is that the critics are the ones who know how money should be spent. A free economy disappears in their eyes, replaced by a carefully planned economy where money is dispersed based upon perceived value. The Mets, for instance, would be prohibited from spending $172 million for 11 combined years of Pedro Martinez's and Carlos Beltran's services. I mean, how can you pay that much money for that when teachers only get $45,000 a year?

Mel Gibson would be forced to give up much of the money he made from The Passion of the Christ so that social workers could be more handsomely rewarded. No word on whether Michael Moore would have to give up any of the money he made on his "documentaries."

The fact of the matter is, we probably could and should give more to the victims of the tsunami. And perhaps President Bush should pressure his donors to make contributions to tsunami aid in addition their donations for the inauguration. But those decisions are for the people who have the money. It is no more appropriate for the government or some conscience cabal to give someone else's money than it is for me to give one of Reggie Jackson's cars to the Salvation Army to sell. The changes these people want are changes of the heart that cannot be mandated by legislative fiat.

Hollywood spent a fair amount of money last night on The Peoples' Choice awards, which starts the annual spring throng of vapid awards shows. If Bush should give inauguration money and cancel his party, why should Hollywood not do the same? Why should the NFL not be shamed into cancelling its party scheduled for Jacksonville next month. After all, it's just a football game. If it were played at a high school stadium someplace, think of how much money could be give in tsunami aid.

But those suggestions are rarely made, and that is the ultimate hypocrisy. Many of the people making this criticism would not be had John Kerry won. After all, it is appropriate to have a big party after you dispose of a Republican. It is only celebrating a Republican victory that is repugnant. And as a bonus, you can use that victory to portray people as evil because they dare party while someone suffers.

The criticism is not about the tsunami victims--they are convenient pawns; it is about hatred.