Sorry, but I needed to get
your attention. It’s dangerous being confined
to quarters with nothing to do but watch the Hallmark Channel (Christmas is
past but the Marathon continues.)
Here’s what I’m pondering………..
Let’s say that your daughter
is going to be married. As excited as you are about the wedding of these two
young lovers, you have some concerns about the wedding plans. The happy couple
has no money, and is already in debt to you by many digits. You are also in
serious financial straights, as are your other 5 children, all of whom are
dependent on you for some degree of monetary support that – despite tightening
your belt - you are no longer able to provide.
The couple is planning a grand
soiree with a large wedding party and many splendid activities surrounding the
event, all which will take place in (of course!) Hong Kong! Most, if not all,
of your daughter’s 10 bridesmaids are un- /or under- employed. The same applies
to the 10 groomsmen. You are worried about their ability to afford this, and about
your ability to go further into debt to make this happen. How does one pay for
travel, clothes, lodging, festivities, décor, music, to and in one of the most
expensive cities in the world? And what about the time off work for those lucky
enough to have jobs? Oh, and did I mention that this this daughter has been
married before? To the same guy?
Are you thinking what I’m
thinking?
Well, what I’m thinking is,
why in the hell are we spending money we don’t have, on an Inauguration for two
guys who are already in office?
Please don’t call me names,
because I have always thought this was a stupid practice. As someone born and raised in
the District of Columbia, I love the political pomp and ceremony as much as
anyone, and I love the excitement of an Inauguration, even if it’s not for my
personal political choice. But why do this twice for the same people in the
same office? There is no reason for a re-do other than political backslapping,
and it costs money that we don't have and cannot afford to spend.
Please don’t tell me it makes
money for the businesses in D.C. because it doesn’t. It actually loses money
for them. Yes, it brings a lot of people into town but, guess what? There are
always a lot of people in D.C. And it costs the D.C. government and the federal
government a huge pile as well. Now, you may hear that the Inauguration is
being paid for by the Inaugural Committee (the winning party solicits funds for
this), and it certainly pays for some of it- maybe the “official” functions –
but it’s not going to pay for the government workers who have time off because
they can’t GET to work, or the infrastructure “fixes” that need to be done by
the city to get the streets ready and looking like the capitol of the free
world, and to clean up after it’s over. It doesn’t pay for the teachers who
have time off because schools are closed. It doesn’t pay for the security necessary
to protect all those folks on the west front of the Capitol, or watching
everyone coming into and out of town via every possible method of transport.
Who pays for state and local
politicians to join the celebrations? Who pays the hotel bills, the restaurant
checks and the bar tabs for them? And, for what? To celebrate the exact same
thing we paid for them to celebrate four years ago! If a state delegation wants
to have a party I suggest it be a state with a huge budget surplus (there are
still a few of those.) But if the State of California delegation wants a party,
it had better be the Donner Party (I will volunteer to cater).
And how about the DC police? Does
the Inaugural Committee pay for all the overtime required by these events,
traffic control, drunken revelers (some of whom are office holders), building
security, the fire department, the hospitals having to be ready for any and all
emergencies? I don’t think so.
And if it happens to snow?
You don’t even want to know.
I know that this is the way
that we always do it, but does anyone ever think to ask “Why?” It’s not for legal reasons. I
don’t remember the Oath of Office having an expiration date but, even if it
did, I think there’s actually often/always a private swearing in before the
public one – so why do we need a public one? Perhaps it’s just to celebrate
with all those big donors who put the winners over the top. Let them come!
Invite them to the White House! Have a sleep-over in the Blue Room! Let them try the Bowling Alley! Screen "Bedtime for Bonzo" in the Theater! Ply them
with booze and cuisine! But let THEM pay for it.
I’m ok with paying for the
post-swearing-in Lunch in the Capitol for the Congress, and if they want to have
a Ball or two in the evening (this year they are cutting back to two Inaugural
Balls from the 10 held last time) all right, but let the people attending pay
for it.
Forget the rest! We don’t
need the parade! Have you ever watched the Inaugural Parade? I didn’t think so.
Guess what? It is a lousy parade! The TV coverage is 95% who’s in the
Presidential Box, and 5% what’s parading by. The Rose Parade is less than three
weeks earlier and THAT’S A PARADE! And it doesn’t cost us anything unless we’re
attending it! If D.C. folks need a parade I suggest they wait until April 13
for the perfectly lovely Cherry Blossom Parade. The weather will be much better
and a seat in the Grandstand is only $20 (please pay for it yourself).
Certainly, times have changed, but we need to make rational changes too. Both sides of the aisle can’t seem to
find spending cuts to make. I suggest we cut this redundant wedding. I think
the only person who can do this is the President himself. It’s his party after
all. I know the financial impact it’s a drop in the bucket, but a lot of drops eventually fill that bucket up! Wouldn’t it be a great symbolic
gesture? And there will still be plenty of opportunity in the next for years for
Michelle to wear the clothes. He could spend that afternoon playing golf. And Hillary could get her hair done.
No comments:
Post a Comment