Economic downturns and the $170 million Inauguration

With working-class Americans struggling to stay a float as the country prepares to fall off of the proverbial “fiscal cliff,” one may wonder why so much money was spent on the 57^th Presidential Inauguration ceremony and if it all was even necessary.

According to the United States Constitution, the only mandatory event on Inauguration Day is the President must make the oath of office before he can enter on the execution of the office of the presidency. Which leaves many to wonder, if the country has such a poor economic outlook, why spend money on elaborate parades, balls and other ceremonies? In a time where working-class Americans have to cut back in order to survive financially shouldn’t the government have made the choice to cut back on all of the elaborate celebrations?

This years Inauguration festivities were a four-day event. A private swearing in ceremony occurred on Sunday, January 20^th, followed by a public ceremony the next day with parades, lunches and balls.

According to ABCnews, the 2013 presidential inauguration cost 170 million dollars. A significant increase from the 75 million dollars spent in 2009.

As the years pass by, the inauguration ceremonies seem to get longer and longer with a larger price tag. The long 2009-inauguration day activities featured the collapses of two prominent Senators. Senator Edward Kennedy and Senator Robert Byrd both collapsed during the luncheon. Senator Kennedy’s collapse during the event was later attributed to exhaustion. Which also makes one wonder if all of the ceremonies have created too long of a day that endanger the participants and public. President Ronald Reagan’s inauguration was the coldest on record with a noon temperature of seven degrees.

President Obama stated in his inaugural address Monday, “An economic recovery has begun.” With the American working-classes taxes increasing all over the country while the government argues over money and spends 170 million, it may not seem to many that recovery has begun.  

“We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class,” said President Obama in his inaugural address. “We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship.” 

If prosperity rests upon the shoulders of the middle class and working class then shouldn’t they be rewarded for their hard work and not have their taxes rise? The 170 million dollars spent on the various ceremonies could have been spent to help absorb some of the tax increases on hard-working Americans.

 A simple recitation of the oath of office used to be the only event featured on inauguration day. It was quick and to the point without excessive spending. Today it just seems like more and more money must be spent in order to turn the day into a massive spectacle.

Monday’s inauguration day featured a morning worship service, procession to the capital, vice president’s swearing-in ceremony, presidential swearing-in ceremony, inaugural address, inaugural luncheon, inaugural parade and several inaugural balls. On inauguration day in 2009, President Barack Obama attended ten official balls.

Is it really a necessity to attend ten inaugural balls? The day exists to officially start the presidential term. However, with all of the lavish events, it seems more like a giant party instead of getting down to business and running the country.  

With all of the pageantry, I feel that Inauguration Day has lost its true meaning. Yes the President gave the oath but then the rest of the day is one big party. While the president’s inauguration speech outlined several points to address and correct over the next four years, including financial crises, the pageantry is what people remember the most at the end of the day.

If American citizens spent money the way the United States government did for the excessive events, they would be homeless with not even a single cent to their name. Yet the government can keep spending money like it’s going out of style and expect the hard-working middle class to suffer with tax hikes and a smaller paycheck. It seems as though Washington, D.C. has an endless supply of money to help themselves and have fun while the working-class cannot.

If United States Presidents in the future were willing to save money by reducing the number of ceremonies and even get the ceremony back to what it was originally, just the oath of office, then average, working-class Americans may feel that politicians are more like them, willing to take cuts when necessary. The working-class people are always the first ones to suffer during an economic downturn and if the government shows it is also willing to make sacrifices then I believe the country as whole would function more smoothly.

Four years later we will probably be right back in this same situation though, unfortunately it will more than likely come with a bigger price tag. The American people will continue to suffer and pay for whatever the United States government wants to spend money on, even if it big parties that take away from the true meaning.

While all of the pageantry may offer a nice break from the every day life and only occurs every four years, given the country’s current financial and economic situation, I feel less money and time should be spent on inauguration ceremonies.  The focus should have been on the country’s financial difficulties and the pressure being placed on the hard-working middle class.  

Is it really fair to ask hard-working Americans to help foot the bill for such a lavish events when they can barely afford food for their families? I don’t think so. Maybe the next time politicians want to spend so much money on events that aren’t even necessary they should remember the nations history and the simple oath. That oath used to be enough but yet it isn’t any more. Why is that? Because we’re a country obsessed with constantly having to have the newest, most expensive everything. I think it’s time we got back to our roots and focus on our history. Return to the simpler ways when everything seemed to run more smoothly. 

Column Proposal: Are Elaborate Inauguration Events Necessary?

RE: Story Outline: Are elaborate Inauguration events necessary?

Subject: Inaugurations cost more money each year as the elaborateness increases, while the country is struggling financially, is an elaborate Inauguration really necessary or should actions be taken to try and cut costs.

Scope: I will research the rise in cost of Inauguration ceremonies throughout the years while showing how the ceremony has evolved through the years. The ceremony used to be held on a different date and only included the oath of affirmation.  Today, the ceremony is a daylong event that includes ceremonies, parades, speeches and balls.  I will also examine if all of the extra events that have been added over the years really add anything to the importance of the ceremony. With recent pushes for gun control and the fiscal cliff, should more focus be placed on these than on elaborate events? Should the ceremony go back to its roots and just include the oath of affirmation?

Need: In a time when the United States is struggling financially, people should know how much the ceremonies, parades, speeches and balls cost.  Also, some the cost falls on the shoulders of the American people. Many people are unaware that they help foot the bill for the event and with the country and its people in a time of financial and economic uncertainty, they should be informed of the cost to the government as well as them. With working class American’s fitting part of the bill, should they have a say in cutting extravagant expenses from the ceremony.

Methods: I will be using the Internet and Marshall University databases to gather information about the history of the Inauguration as well as costs throughout the years. Also, I could research the history and cost in books in the Morrow as well as Drinko libraries on Marshall University’s campus.

Sources: I will be using information from published articles such as the New York Times as well as other trusted publications. Also, I will be interviewing people who have watched the Inauguration to get their opinion on whether or not all of the elaborate events are needed for the Inauguration process.

Presentation: This is a one-part story on the significant cost of the Inauguration ceremonies and the response from the American public to the cost.

Follow-up: When the final cost of this year’s inauguration ceremony is revealed, there could be outrage from the American public over the cost of the ceremony as well as politicians who call for the next ceremony to be less elaborate. 

New York Times Op-Ed Columns - Assignment #2

Nicholas D. Kristof – Is Delhi So Different From Steubenville?

Nicholas Kristof has written about violence against women and sex trafficking previous to this column.  Kristof has also visited India on multiple occasions and tagged along on a raid of a brothel while focusing on the story of a 15-year-old and 10-year-old imprisoned at the brothel. This column was different however.  Kristof compared the repeated rape of a 16-year-old girl in Steubenville, Ohio to the gang rape in India as well as a similar situation in West Africa. Kristof’s tone throughout the column is disappointment in Congress for failing to renew the Violence Against Women Act and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. While Kristof did applaud Hillary Clinton for trying to put these issues on the global agenda, he still expresses disappointment that situations like these are still allowed to occur without a whole lot being done to prevent them in the future.

The lead and first few paragraphs outline the events that happened in India, West Africa and Steubenville, Ohio.  The fourth paragraph is where Kristof first expresses his disappointment in Congress for failing to show their concern for sexual violence with the failure to renew the Violence Against Women Act.

Kristof tries to show how big of a problem gender violence is throughout his piece.

“Gender violence is one of the world’s most common human rights abuses,” Kristof writes. “Women worldwide ages 15 through 44 are more likely to die or be maimed because of mail violence than because of cancer, malaria, war and traffic accidents combined.”

Kristof also used quotes from medical professionals to drive home his main point of how big of a problem gender violence is throughout the world.

“When I treat a rape victim, I always advise her not to go to the police. Because if she does, the police might just rape her again,” said former president of the Soceity of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Pakistan, Dr. Shershah Syed.

The article was published on January 12, 2013 and is still timely because many other major news organizations are continuing to follow the situation in Delhi as well as Steubenville. 

Joe Nocera – How to Shoot a Gun

Joe Nocera’s column describes his experience shooting a gun for the first time to try and understand why gun owners are so passionate about their guns. Nocera’s lead sets the scene for the rest of the column.  Nocera describes the environment of Bud’s Gun Shop in Lexington, Ky. on a cold Wednesday following the Newton massacre and President Obama’s reelection. Nocera describes his nervousness about being at the gun shop and about to fire a gun for the first time.  The tone of his column is confusion about why guns are so popular. Nocera tries to understand the popularity, but each time is left without understanding.  However, Nocera writes that people who grew up around guns have a completely different viewpoint than him.

The first paragraph of Nocera's column is very descriptive about his nervousness walking through the doors of the gun shop for the very first time. Nocera also expresses his surprise to how many people were in the gun shop in the middle of a work day. With the way the first paragraph is written, you get a visual and sense of what it was like for Nocera to be there at the gun shop. 

In the third paragraph, Nocera introduces the daughter of one of his local friends.  Unlike himself, she grew up around guns. With the introduction of Gena, Nocera offered multiple viewpoints on a very controversial subject.

In the final paragraphs, Nocera states following the gun range experience he still did not understand firearms appeal to so many people however, he was able to see why it would be so difficult to change the gun culture.

“Did I discover on Wednesday afternoon why shooting a gun appeals to so many people? Not really,” Nocera wrote. “But I did get a glimpse of why it will be so difficult to change America’s gun culture.”

“You can say until you’re blue in the face that a gun owner or his family is far more likely to be hurt or killed by that fun than an intruder,” wrote Nocera. “But people like Gena – decent, honorable citizens who grew up around guns – will never believe it. They will always think of guns as the great equalizer.”

Nocera talked to a variety of people to include a variety of viewpoints.  While he offers his confusion to the popularity of firearms, he tried to take steps to be able to understand it.  He also interviewed the gun shop owner and a woman who grew up around guns.  The columns offering of a variety of viewpoints showed the research he put into the column. Also, Nocera went to a shooting range for the first time to conduct his own research as to why firearms are so popular in the American culture.

The article was published on January 11, 2013 and therefore was timely because the massacre in Newtown is still fresh in American's minds as well as new gun legislation was just passed this week in New York State as well as talk of legislation at the federal level.

First Day

First time blogging. Should be interesting!