Tuesday, January 11, 2005
BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO FORCE D.C. TO PAY FOR THEIR PARTY (LvM): this seems to me, on first reading, at least, to be a profoundly bad and unjust idea. estimates for what the city will have to spend on the inauguration total $17.3 million (increased from the $8 million it cost them last time), $11.9 million of which, according to city officials, is not otherwise covered and will have to be diverted from homeland security projects. moreover, inauguration officials estimate that $40 million will be spent by private donors over four days, for events such as fireworks, the swearing-in, a parade, and nine balls. $40 million? far be it from me to attempt to force anyone to do anything with their money--but does this seem like a wise way to blow so much cash? finally, federal employees in the area get inauguration day (january 20) off of work as a holiday. the estimated cost of this for the capital area, according to the article? $66 million.
UPDATE: here is some commentary on this (via M) on the 'unfunded mandate':
regarding the $66 million--i was a little confused as to how the day off would 'cost' the city so much money. joyner writes:
but isn't it the case that they get paid an 'additional day's salary' in some sense, since they're not working and still getting paid? or do they not get paid for the day off? if they're federal employees and are still getting paid, that seems to mean that taxpayers must be paying them not to work on this day, which would mean money is going out for that day and nothing is coming in in return.
UPDATE: here is some commentary on this (via M) on the 'unfunded mandate':
I agree with Davis that this constitutes an unfunded mandate, although, so far as I'm aware, the federal government typically does not reimburse localities for the additional expenses incurred for presidential visits. Saying this would come out of "homeland security" funds sounds terrible--this is really just a giant party, after all--but the main reason D.C. gets so much homeland security funding is precisely because it's the seat of government and incurs huge expenses for this sort of thing. As Steven Taylor notes, the piece simply doesn't give us enough information to know for sure. Given the OMB's position, though, I'm presuming that inaugural security expenses were already factored in with the 2005 appropriations.
regarding the $66 million--i was a little confused as to how the day off would 'cost' the city so much money. joyner writes:
Although I'm not a federal employee, I'm a government contractor and do get the day off. However, there is zero "cost" associated with this holiday; it's not as if people get paid an additional day's salary. It is true that the taxpayers don't get a day of work in exchange for their money on holidays. On the other hand, work that has to be done somehow manages to get done.
but isn't it the case that they get paid an 'additional day's salary' in some sense, since they're not working and still getting paid? or do they not get paid for the day off? if they're federal employees and are still getting paid, that seems to mean that taxpayers must be paying them not to work on this day, which would mean money is going out for that day and nothing is coming in in return.
