Wingnut bloggers, right on cue, are playing the tired old tune of "But Clinton Did It Too" in justifying the cost of George W. Bush's "Ha Ha Suckers You're Stuck With Me" party by claiming that "Mr. Bush's will cost less than President Clinton's second inauguration in 1997, which cost about $42 million."
In case you needed proof that news now consists of just Making Shit Up.
But the intrepid Eric Boehlert at Salon shoots this load o'horseshit full of holes:
the Times claims that Clinton's second inauguration cost $42 million, and adjusted for inflation, that means it cost $49 million in 2005 dollars. And voila, Clinton spent more than Bush. The only problem is, according to a vast array of news accounts (Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, Newsday, St. Petersburg Times), Clinton's 1997 inauguration cost $30 million or, more precisely, $29.7 million. Even adjusted for inflation, that puts the '97 cost at less than $35 million, well behind the $40-$50 million the Bush camp will spend.
The only way the Times can boost the Clinton cost to $42 million is if it adds in the approximately $12 million spent in '97 by the Defense Department, the National Park Service, the General Services Administration and the government of the District of Columbia, which traditionally chip in to cover inauguration costs. But then the Times would have to add the roughly $20 million being spent this week by the federal government, which would boost Bush's tally toward $60-$70 million. Any way you look at it, the Times' lame defense does not add up.
But who cares what's true, as long as you can have the double-whammy of justifying Bush's coronation AND nailing Bill Clinton for something at the same time? I mean, that's the wingnut equivalent of an orgasm, isn't it?
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire