I'm throwing a party in your house, and you're paying for it.
Overview and Factual background
In the last week, the Bush administration has done two things that indicate that George thinks he is now bulletproof and invincible. One of them--the subject of this post--concerns this week's Inauguration (I will address another one in a separate post).
Now before any of you right wingers get bent out of shape, let me state what I will not be complaining about. I will not be arguing that since this is a time of war there should be no inauguration event. I will not be arguing that the money spent on the inauguration should be spent on anything like tsunami aid or Iraq. I am not taking a position on these matters. Please keep this in mind.
There will be many events this week, including, on January 20, the swearing-in ceremony, a massive fireworks display, the parade (and I have a major personal complaint about that), and nine official balls. But wait, there's more...According the Events Calendar on the official Inaugural website, "Other Inaugural events will likely include lectures, seminars, public entertainment, a prayer service and a presidential gala on the eve of the Inauguration." Here's a partial list:
TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2005
SALUTING THOSE WHO SERVE The MCI Center 2:00-4:00 p.m.
CHAIRMAN’S RECEPTION Mellon Auditorium 5:00-6:00 p.m.
AMERICA'S FUTURE ROCKS TODAY The Armory 5:00-7:00 p.m.
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2005
CHAIRMAN’S BRUNCH Mellon Auditorium 10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
A CELEBRATION OF FREEDOM The Ellipse 4:00-6:00 p.m.
CANDLELIGHT DINNER #1 Union Station 7:00-10:00 p.m.
CANDLELIGHT DINNER #2 The Washington Hilton 7:00-10:00 p.m.
CANDLELIGHT DINNER #3 National Building Museum 7:00-10:00 p.m.
The cost for all of this has been estimated at $40 million. And, according to a January 11, 2004, Washington Post article, this money will come from private donations. So what in the world do I have to complain about? After all, Rush Limbaugh his own self said from his lofty moral position on high (and yes, there is an intended pun there), "So we're going to spend $40 million on the inauguration. It's going to be all privately donated."
I might not have any complaint if all the costs of the Inauguration were included in the $40 million. Oxycontin Boy would have you believe that is the case, but, as usual, he is not speaking the whole truth. The headline from the Washington Post article indicates there are other costs: "U.S. Tells D.C. to Pay Inaugural Expenses." What does that mean? It turns out that the $40 million does not include the security and public services costs. Here are the datails from the article:
Complaint 1: My priority is the safety of Americans--unless I need money for a party.
This is indeed the first time that a President has refused to reimburse the District of Columbia for such expenses incurred because of an Inauguration. Let me clarify that a bit. Such reimbursement has been done through a separate appropriation from the federal government. In this case, Bush is refusing to allow such an appropriation. For instance, the federal government paid a total of $100 million to Boston and New York for the political conventions. However, for the Inauguration, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) "spokesman Chad Kolton said no additional appropriation is needed[.]"
Now I know what some of you right wingers are thinking: D.C. is in effect being reimbursed because it has already been paid federal money through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). That claim does make some sense, so let's examine it further. The Washington Post broke this story on January 11. As reported by the AP the next day, DHS sent a letter to D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams that said "$11.9 million in security and other costs are eligible to be repaid with the city's Urban Area Strategic Initiative grant. The rest of the city's costs can be covered out of the Emergency Planning and Security Cost Fund, which has been used in the past for events like President Reagan's funeral[.]" So in some ways it is not unreasonable to claim that D.C. is not going to be out any money for the Inauguration.
And then again, there is another side to this story. See, this plan means that money that was going to be used for long term homeland security projects now has to be diverted and instead spent on a big party for Bush. According to the Post, "The region has earmarked federal homeland security funds for such priorities as increasing hospital capacity, equipping firefighters with protective gear and building transit system command centers." As David Marin, spokesman for Congressman Thomas M. Davis III of Virginia (and he's a Republican), put it, "It's an unfunded mandate of the most odious kind. How can the District be asked to take funds from important homeland security projects to pay for this instead?"
So what's the big deal? For starters, let's review something that Scott McClellan said on January 12, 2004: "[The President] recognizes what his most important responsibility is; that's the safety and security of the American people." Now let's take notice of the fact that D.C. is one of the cities most at risk in terms of "homeland security." After all, it was attacked on 9-11, and it is where damn near the entire U.S. government is located. However, instead of providing for the long term homeland security needs of our nation's capital--and "the safety and security" of American people--Bush is requiring D.C. to use that money to pay for security for his party. There's one reason I am complaining.
Complaint 2: There are other ways to pay these costs.
Some might feel that under the current circumstances (record federal deficit, war in Iraq, etc.), taxpayer funds should not be spent to reimburse D.C. For now, I am not going to dispute this notion. However, that does not mean that I feel D.C. should not be reimbursed in whole or part. So, from where would the money come if not from the federal government? Well, there are at least two possibilities.
The statute is 2 U.S.C. 439a, and it reads in pertinent part as follows:
Then again, there is no law that requires an Inaugural extravaganza, so is it a duty of the President? I do not think any Republicans would say it is not a duty, for that would mean that this whole shindig is nothing more than a big, expensive, personal party, which would lend credence to the argument that under the current circumstances, there should be no gala multi-day celebration (and among those taking that position is Mark Cuban, billioniare owner of the Dallas Mavericks, who voted for Bush). The official "party" line is quite different. On December 15, 2004, Jeanne Johnson Phillips, Chairman of the Inaugural Committee, had this to say:
I say "some" because the money from the taxpayer-financed general election campaign fund cannot be transferred pursuant to 11 C.F.R. 113.1(a). That leaves the $2 million from Bush's private contributions and the $15 million in his legal compliance fund (which will not be used since Kerry did not challenge the election). That means that George could easily cover the $11.9 million that D.C. will otherwise have to divert from Homeland Security needs.
Does Bush have to do this? No. But he damn well should, and anyone who needs an explanation of that should never claim that Bush is a strong leader and a moral beacon.
In other words, if the Inaugural Committee solicited donations on these grounds, don't you think that these good Republicans would respond favorably? I certainly hope so. If they would not, what would that say about their choices and priorities?
Conclusion
I think this affair is disgraceful and hypocritical, especially given that there are ways to reimburse the District of Columbia without using public money. Even if Bush ends up implementing one or both of the possibilities discussed above, he will have done so only after being shamed into it. The last paragraph on the Events Calendar page of the Inaugural Committee's website says "Presidential Inaugurals set the tone for a new administration and reflect a president’s personality." Through this refusal to reimburse D.C., this Inaugural reflects Bush's hypocrisy and a refusal to take responsibility and lead by actions that match his words. A lot of us knew this about Bush before now. It's time the rest of you wake up and realize it.
In the last week, the Bush administration has done two things that indicate that George thinks he is now bulletproof and invincible. One of them--the subject of this post--concerns this week's Inauguration (I will address another one in a separate post).
Now before any of you right wingers get bent out of shape, let me state what I will not be complaining about. I will not be arguing that since this is a time of war there should be no inauguration event. I will not be arguing that the money spent on the inauguration should be spent on anything like tsunami aid or Iraq. I am not taking a position on these matters. Please keep this in mind.
There will be many events this week, including, on January 20, the swearing-in ceremony, a massive fireworks display, the parade (and I have a major personal complaint about that), and nine official balls. But wait, there's more...According the Events Calendar on the official Inaugural website, "Other Inaugural events will likely include lectures, seminars, public entertainment, a prayer service and a presidential gala on the eve of the Inauguration." Here's a partial list:
TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2005
SALUTING THOSE WHO SERVE The MCI Center 2:00-4:00 p.m.
CHAIRMAN’S RECEPTION Mellon Auditorium 5:00-6:00 p.m.
AMERICA'S FUTURE ROCKS TODAY The Armory 5:00-7:00 p.m.
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2005
CHAIRMAN’S BRUNCH Mellon Auditorium 10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
A CELEBRATION OF FREEDOM The Ellipse 4:00-6:00 p.m.
CANDLELIGHT DINNER #1 Union Station 7:00-10:00 p.m.
CANDLELIGHT DINNER #2 The Washington Hilton 7:00-10:00 p.m.
CANDLELIGHT DINNER #3 National Building Museum 7:00-10:00 p.m.
The cost for all of this has been estimated at $40 million. And, according to a January 11, 2004, Washington Post article, this money will come from private donations. So what in the world do I have to complain about? After all, Rush Limbaugh his own self said from his lofty moral position on high (and yes, there is an intended pun there), "So we're going to spend $40 million on the inauguration. It's going to be all privately donated."
I might not have any complaint if all the costs of the Inauguration were included in the $40 million. Oxycontin Boy would have you believe that is the case, but, as usual, he is not speaking the whole truth. The headline from the Washington Post article indicates there are other costs: "U.S. Tells D.C. to Pay Inaugural Expenses." What does that mean? It turns out that the $40 million does not include the security and public services costs. Here are the datails from the article:
D.C. officials said yesterday that the Bush administration is refusing to reimburse the District for most of the costs associated with next week's inauguration, breaking with precedent and forcing the city to divert $11.9 million from homeland security projects.And now let the complaining begin!
Federal officials have told the District that it should cover the expenses by using some of the $240 million in federal homeland security grants it has received in the past three years -- money awarded to the city because it is among the places at highest risk of a terrorist attack.
But that grant money is earmarked for other security needs, Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) said in a Dec. 27 letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Joshua B. Bolten and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Williams's office released the letter yesterday.
Williams estimated that the city's costs for the inauguration will total $17.3 million, most of it related to security. City officials said they can use an unspent $5.4 million from an annual federal fund that reimburses the District for costs incurred because of its status as the capital. But that leaves $11.9 million not covered, they said.
Complaint 1: My priority is the safety of Americans--unless I need money for a party.
This is indeed the first time that a President has refused to reimburse the District of Columbia for such expenses incurred because of an Inauguration. Let me clarify that a bit. Such reimbursement has been done through a separate appropriation from the federal government. In this case, Bush is refusing to allow such an appropriation. For instance, the federal government paid a total of $100 million to Boston and New York for the political conventions. However, for the Inauguration, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) "spokesman Chad Kolton said no additional appropriation is needed[.]"
Now I know what some of you right wingers are thinking: D.C. is in effect being reimbursed because it has already been paid federal money through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). That claim does make some sense, so let's examine it further. The Washington Post broke this story on January 11. As reported by the AP the next day, DHS sent a letter to D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams that said "$11.9 million in security and other costs are eligible to be repaid with the city's Urban Area Strategic Initiative grant. The rest of the city's costs can be covered out of the Emergency Planning and Security Cost Fund, which has been used in the past for events like President Reagan's funeral[.]" So in some ways it is not unreasonable to claim that D.C. is not going to be out any money for the Inauguration.
And then again, there is another side to this story. See, this plan means that money that was going to be used for long term homeland security projects now has to be diverted and instead spent on a big party for Bush. According to the Post, "The region has earmarked federal homeland security funds for such priorities as increasing hospital capacity, equipping firefighters with protective gear and building transit system command centers." As David Marin, spokesman for Congressman Thomas M. Davis III of Virginia (and he's a Republican), put it, "It's an unfunded mandate of the most odious kind. How can the District be asked to take funds from important homeland security projects to pay for this instead?"
So what's the big deal? For starters, let's review something that Scott McClellan said on January 12, 2004: "[The President] recognizes what his most important responsibility is; that's the safety and security of the American people." Now let's take notice of the fact that D.C. is one of the cities most at risk in terms of "homeland security." After all, it was attacked on 9-11, and it is where damn near the entire U.S. government is located. However, instead of providing for the long term homeland security needs of our nation's capital--and "the safety and security" of American people--Bush is requiring D.C. to use that money to pay for security for his party. There's one reason I am complaining.
Complaint 2: There are other ways to pay these costs.
Some might feel that under the current circumstances (record federal deficit, war in Iraq, etc.), taxpayer funds should not be spent to reimburse D.C. For now, I am not going to dispute this notion. However, that does not mean that I feel D.C. should not be reimbursed in whole or part. So, from where would the money come if not from the federal government? Well, there are at least two possibilities.
- First possibility: campaign funds
Bush finished the Nov. 2 election with $4.4 million left in his $75 million, taxpayer-financed general election campaign fund and $1 million in bills to pay. He had $15 million in a legal compliance fund that he could have tapped in the event of a recount fight, according to reports he filed Thursday with the Federal Election Commission.I will admit that I am not intimately familiar with federal campaign finance laws, so I might be wrong about this. However, I did some research on the matter and found a statute and two Federal Elections Commission regulations dealing with use of campaign funds.
The president also detailed the money raised and spent by his record-breaking primary campaign fund. He ended his private fund raising with $273 million collected, close to triple the then-record $106 million he raised for his 2000 primary campaign. The cost of television ads consumed much of Bush's money.
Bush was not allowed to use private contributions on his campaign after he was nominated Sept. 2 at the Republican National Convention in New York. That account had $2 million left as of late November[.]
The statute is 2 U.S.C. 439a, and it reads in pertinent part as follows:
Sec. 439a. - Use of contributed amounts for certain purposesThe statute then lists a variety of specific items considered to be a "conversion to personal use," but an Inauguration is not listed. Sec. 439a is the basis for the regulations from the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), one of which is 11. C.F.R. 113.2, which addresses "non-campaign use of funds:"
(a) Permitted uses
A contribution accepted by a candidate, and any other donation received by an individual as support for activities of the individual as a holder of Federal office, may be used by the candidate or individual -
(4) for transfers, without limitation, to a national, State, or local committee of a political party.
*******(b) Prohibited use
(1) In general
A contribution or donation described in subsection (a) of this section shall not be converted by any person to personal use.
(2) Conversion
For the purposes of paragraph (1), a contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or individual's duties as a holder of Federal office[.]
In addition to defraying expenses in connection with a campaign for federal office, funds in a campaign account or an account described in 11 CFR 113.3:So here's what I'm thinking...Bush could transfer his unused campaign funds to the GOP or the RNC, which could then in turn use that money to reimburse D.C. I have not yet found any express prohibitions for this. That does not, however, resolve the issue. Sec. 439a does prohibit conversion of campaign funds for personal use. The other regulation, 11 C.F.R. 113.1, contains a more extensive definition of "personal use," but still does not specifically mention an Inauguration. The regulation does say, in subsection (g)(ii), that
*******(c) May be transferred without limitation to any national, State, or local committee of any political party[.]
The Commission will determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether other uses of funds in a campaign account fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense that would exist irrespective of the candidate's campaign or duties as a Federal officeholder, and therefore are personal use.So the question now is whether a Presidential Inauguration is a "personal use." There is an advisory opinion from the FEC that addresses the issue of a retiring Senator transferring his campaign funds to the state party and whether that money would be used for any "personal use." That advisory opinion is not, as we say in the lawyer world, "on point" with what I am proposing, but it does basically say that it is O.K. for unused campaign funds to be given to a political party for any purpose which is not deemed to be a "personal use." Based on that opinion and the wording of the statutory definition, it seems to me that the Inauguration is NOT "any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or individual's duties as a holder of Federal office" for the simple reason that it would not be happening if Bush was not the President.
Then again, there is no law that requires an Inaugural extravaganza, so is it a duty of the President? I do not think any Republicans would say it is not a duty, for that would mean that this whole shindig is nothing more than a big, expensive, personal party, which would lend credence to the argument that under the current circumstances, there should be no gala multi-day celebration (and among those taking that position is Mark Cuban, billioniare owner of the Dallas Mavericks, who voted for Bush). The official "party" line is quite different. On December 15, 2004, Jeanne Johnson Phillips, Chairman of the Inaugural Committee, had this to say:
Inaugurals are one of our greatest American traditions, beginning with George Washington in 1789 in New York. But modern inaugurals are particularly important because they paint a picture, perhaps one of the best pictures in the world, one of democracy. They are a time when our nation stands together regardless of politics to embrace a new period in the life of our nation and, more importantly, to honor our traditions and reaffirm our own ideals.Wow! That certainly does not sound like a "personal use" for Bush. And recently the First Lady had similar comments:
Inaugurations, Mrs. Bush said, are "an important part of our history."Thus, my conclusion is that the Inauguration is not a personal use, meaning that there is nothing preventing Bush from transferring some of that excess campaign cash to the GOP or RNC and having them reimburse the District of Columbia.
"They're a ceremony of our history; they're a ritual of our government," she said in a round-table interview with reporters in the White House map room. "And I think it's really important to have the inauguration every time. I think it's also good for Washington's economy, for people to come in from around the country, for the hotels to be full, and the restaurants to be full, and the caterers to be busy. I think that's important."
She added: "I think there's a symbolic aspect of the inauguration that - and because of that, the symbol of the inauguration, you never want to - for any reason - cancel it or not have it."
I say "some" because the money from the taxpayer-financed general election campaign fund cannot be transferred pursuant to 11 C.F.R. 113.1(a). That leaves the $2 million from Bush's private contributions and the $15 million in his legal compliance fund (which will not be used since Kerry did not challenge the election). That means that George could easily cover the $11.9 million that D.C. will otherwise have to divert from Homeland Security needs.
Does Bush have to do this? No. But he damn well should, and anyone who needs an explanation of that should never claim that Bush is a strong leader and a moral beacon.
- Second possibility: donations to the Inaugural Committee
Federal law (on campaign finance) limits individual donations to $2,000 per election, and corporations cannot give from their own treasuries directly to candidates or parties. But for the inauguration, the law does not apply, and the administration has decided that private interests may contribute as much as $250,000 each. That is a 150 percent increase over the $100,000 maximum accepted during Bush's first inauguration four years ago.There is so much to discuss about this, but for now, I will simply point out that there basically is no limit on the amount of donations, meaning there is the potential to raise an extreme amount of cash. Indeed, the donor information page of the official Inaugural website shows that approximately $25 million had been raised by January 15. Some might say that is still far short of the $40 million goal, but the Inaugural Committee is not concerned about that. On January 14, Sharon Theimer of the AP filed this report:*******The only restraint on giving is the voluntary $250,000 limit, but that has been circumvented. In a few instances, both the parent company and its subsidiaries have donated. Marriott International Inc. delivered $250,000 to the committee, as did each of two units: Marriott Vacation Club International and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co.
In addition, Ameriquest, a mortgage company specializing in financing housing purchases in heavily minority neighborhoods, gave $250,000, along with $500,000 from two subsidiaries, for a total of $750,000.
The team raising money for next week's festivities marking President Bush's inauguration has taken in $25.5 million, mostly in donations from corporations, it reported Friday.Why couldn't the Inaugural Committee raise an additional amount to reimburse D.C.? This would be the perfect chance to let Republicans truly put their money where their mouths are. To explain this, I return once again to that prince of pill poppers, Rush Limbaugh. Rush was ranting over an AP article, and near the beginning of his diatribe, he said the following:
Bush's inaugural committee raised $7.5 million in the past week alone, donations posted on its Web site show. The committee isn't worried about reaching its goal of $30 million to $40 million, a spokeswoman said.
"We're on track with where we thought we'd be," Tracey Schmitt said. Bush's 2001 inaugural committee raised about $40 million for festivities that year.
The headline of the story: "Some Now Question the Costs of the Inauguration." Hells bells, folks, this story has been running since December in one form or another, but this one takes the cake. This one reads like a DNC press release. "President Bush's second inauguration will cost tens of millions of dollars — $40 million alone in private donations for the balls, parade and other invitation-only parties. With that kind of money, what could you buy?"(emphasis added). So, the people who have donated all this money have chosen to give the money for the purpose of the festivities. I certainly concur that anyone and everyone is and should be free to donate their money in any way they see fit. But don't you think that these good Republicans would also choose to donate money to help pay for Homeland Security needs in our nation's capital? Don't you think these good Republicans would want to donate their money to help ensure the safety of Americans? Don't you think these good Republicans would decide to make sure that their claims of wanting to provide for America's safety first and foremost rang true?
It's all irrelevant. It's all private money! It's all been donated. It's irrelevant. It doesn't matter. These are private citizens who decided, for whatever reason, they wanted to donate to the inaugural balls, to the festivities.
In other words, if the Inaugural Committee solicited donations on these grounds, don't you think that these good Republicans would respond favorably? I certainly hope so. If they would not, what would that say about their choices and priorities?
Conclusion
I think this affair is disgraceful and hypocritical, especially given that there are ways to reimburse the District of Columbia without using public money. Even if Bush ends up implementing one or both of the possibilities discussed above, he will have done so only after being shamed into it. The last paragraph on the Events Calendar page of the Inaugural Committee's website says "Presidential Inaugurals set the tone for a new administration and reflect a president’s personality." Through this refusal to reimburse D.C., this Inaugural reflects Bush's hypocrisy and a refusal to take responsibility and lead by actions that match his words. A lot of us knew this about Bush before now. It's time the rest of you wake up and realize it.
posted by WCharles @ 1/17/2005 04:04:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home