Hannity advances false comparison of inauguration costs
SUMMARY: Ignoring the additional costs of security, transportation, and other expenses incurred by federal, state, and local governments in conjunction with former President Bush's 2005 inauguration, Fox News' Sean Hannity allowed former Gov. Mitt Romney to claim that "[President] Barack Obama spen[t] three times" what Bush spent on his 2005 inauguration. In doing so, Hannity allowed his show to become the latest media outlet to promote the false comparison between the costs of Obama's inauguration and Bush's 2005 inauguration.
During the January 21 edition of Fox News' Hannity, host Sean Hannity allowed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) -- who Hannity asserted has "an incredible background in economics" -- to claim that "[President] Barack Obama spen[t] three times" what former President Bush spent on his inauguration. In doing so, Hannity allowed his show to become the latest media outlet to promote the false comparison between the costs of Obama's January 20 inauguration and Bush's 2005 inauguration. In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, in claiming that Bush's second inaugural cost about $40 million, media ignore the additional costs of security, transportation, and other expenses incurred by federal, state, and local governments in conjunction with the events in 2005 -- which reportedly reached $115.5 million -- while including them in the projections for the 2009 events. When the costs incurred by the federal government and the District of Columbia are factored in, the total cost of Bush's 2005 inauguration was reportedly around $157 million, as Media Matters senior fellow Eric Boehlert noted. Many media outlets have failed to show any evidence to support their estimates, as Boehlert has also noted.
The Washington Post reported in January 2005 that the cost of Bush's second inauguration, which the Post reported to be $40 million, "does not include the cost of a web of security, including everything from 7,000 troops to volunteer police officers from far away, to some of the most sophisticated detection and protection equipment." Further, The New York Times reported on January 5 that in 2005, "the federal government and the District of Columbia spent a combined $115.5 million, most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony, cleanup and for a holiday for federal workers."
From the January 21 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: Well, why do I doubt that if it were a Republican nominee, Governor, that they would be as forgiving as they are, meaning the Democrats? Now, we also have an illegal immigrant problem, and every other nominee in the past has had to withdraw their nomination, but not this time.
ROMNEY: Well, there's no question but that the Democrats are of course going to stand by the choice of their president, and for that matter, most members of the media that represent a more liberal viewpoint are going to look the other way. I mean, you have no question about the bias that exists in some newspapers. I saw some headlines from President Bush's inauguration -- they were sent to me today -- talking about how he was spending approximately $40 million, an outrageous amount of money in the inauguration. Barack Obama spends three times that much, and no one ushers [sic] a word.
HANNITY: Yeah.
ROMNEY: You're going to have the same issue with regards to the nominations that come forward from his administration.
HANNITY: Governor, you have an incredible background in economics. The number one concern every American, rightly so, has is about the state of the economy.
ROMNEY: Barack Obama spends three times that much, and no one ushers [sic] a word.
Then why won't this bogus story go away?
It's being replaced by the missing Bible.
You have to wonder if this is all filler content trying to pass the time until he does make a big screwup, or something disastrous happens during his Presidency.
And, an observation from over a long period of time...when you read transcripts from Hannity's show when Romney is a guest it's hard to distinguish Romney's words from Hannity's. Romney is one of the WORST (best?) Republican liars around. Can you imagine what he's going to do to Sarah Palin if she stands in his way to the Republican nomination?
Now that will be fun to watch. Sarah Palin's Evangelical Troglodyte army vs. Romney's Mormon Troglodyte army. Bring your popcorn and watch the fireworks. They won't be throwing much love around.
Because no media outlet will address it in an honest manner, using it only as a stick against the new admin.
These douchebags remind me of a of chihuahua yapping hysterically through the screen door as a Great Dane trots down the street.
HANNITY: Governor, you have an incredible background in economics.
I do like to give credit where it's due, and point out exceptional behavior. This is one of the most honest things I've ever heard from Hannity. Mitty has been a slobbering cheerleader for Reaganomics and the Reality-Free Market, and nothing could be less credible than a background based on that.
And I'd like to give credit to Governor Romney for not being a polygamist. ;>)
I can honestly say that Hannity and Romney are two of the most incredible guys on earth.
Incredibly repulsive, IMO... but I know what you're saying.
The "incredible background" thing caught my eye, too, Col.
But I think Hannity was going easy on him - there's more than just his background in economics that's hard to believe.
Hannity -- The. Dumbest. Guy. In. Media.
Put 'em together and you almost have the IQ of an average person (granted an average person with extensive brain damage).
What is interesting is MMFA does not even attempt to calculate the final costs of the Obama inauguration. Without that, how can one argue that the inauguration didn't cost double or triple the amount? There were 13,000 service personel plus 8,000 police, (correct me if I am wrong). There was the concert over the weekend and about a mllion or so people on the Mall during the inauguration. Many roads and bridges were shut down, causing delays for people trying to work. It defies logic to think that Obama's inauguration did not cost more.
On a positive note, as far as I heard, everything went smoothly. (Thank God!) Anybody hear of any security issues?
Barn, how long after an event like that is over would you think it takes to accurately analyze the cost?. The idea that this website hasn't calculated the cost could only be considered "interesting" to somebody with absolutely no critical thinking skills.
Forget for a moment that the real issue we're complaining about is a false comparison of numbers when no one seems to have a handle on any correct numbers from either the Bush or Bama inaugurations. Barack Obama's inauguration was an historic moment in history. I heard one African American woman, who drove a great distance to be at the inauguration, say that she didn't care if only her toe was touching D.C. soil at the moment of Obama's inauguration she wanted to be there. What the right wingers can't seem to grasp is the legitimate outpouring of respect and affection for Barack Obama among most Americans. The right wingers would rather say it's all driven by the left wing media. They don't get it. Personally, I don't care how much Obama's inauguration cost. It was an historic moment and people - AMERICANS! - wanted to be there to share that moment.
And you'd think these same kvetching Conservatives would demand to know what happened to that missing 9 billion dollars that was "misplaced" in Iraq... but you'd be wrong.
Irony,
Forget for the moment that you have no idea what right wingers would rather say. I too recognize Obama's inauguration as a water-shed moment in race relations. I am as proud as anyone that we have an African American President.
However, I do believe the blank check you gave Obama for the inauguration is way too generous. My feeling is not because of Obama, I have the same opinion regarding all the other recent inaugurations. They are inaugurations, not coronations. These excesses of self congratulations every four years are huge waste of time, resources, and money.
Yep, this one was rather special because of the symbolism, but lets try to remember that the President is only an elected official serving a four year term. We do not see the same pomp and circumstance for the election of any other office. I prefer we move back in that direction.
I also think you have blinders on to the giddiness that presently pervades this country over finally being rid of George W. Bush. Obama's inauguration wasn't a coronation...it was a celebration that the country may finally have a chance to move forward from the insanity that controlled it for eight years. It was a twofer...we got rid of Bush AND we got a good man to sit in the office. I am willing to look aside at the cost of the inauguration...it was good for the country. Cleansing, if you will...
Besides, the cost of the inauguration is equivalent to about a half a day of funding for the Iraq debacle.
More false outrage. Noted and dismissed.
If it's really that big a deal, I'm sure we could solicit donations from other countries who were thrilled to watch the change of power.
You'll notice, Foghorn, that Barney completely avoided mentioning the missing 9 billion, and continued whining about the inauguration.
What's that, the cost of about 60 of Tuesday's parties, just disappeared, and not a peep. Pretty selective outrage.
Fog,
Nice try, but the war in Iraq is a separate issue. To try to make a comparison between a war and an inauguration is just plain silly. You might as well compare the cost to medicaid, the space program, or social security. You are simply making a false comparison of apples and oranges.
Besides, one could object to both the cost of the inauguration and to the cost of the war. With that in mind your argument falls apart.
One last thing. I never said I was outraged. So your strawman argument has been noted and dismissed.
I sorry, What is a Right wingers? If someone does not agree with your views is that person automatic a wacko some kind.
Crap was thrown at Bush for spending too much money, it was justified by his side. Crap is now being thrown at Obama for spending too much money, it was justified by his side.
Drop it people, alot worse things are about to happen to our country and government.
We can talk about.
The best known estimate of Bush's 2005 inauguration is around 150 million, I believe. Unless the concert and added personnel totalled 150-300 million, anyone can argue that this inauguration did not cost double or triple the amount.
Besides, it's not relevant to what was actually said. He's claiming that Bush's inauguration cost 40 million, which doesn't include security and transportation. Unless you can find something that shows Obama's inauguration cost 120 million without security and transportation, then Romney had no basis for making such a claim. And then it's clear that he's using two different standards to compare costs, which is clearly misleading.
Without that, how can one argue that the inauguration didn't cost double or triple the amount?
Extraordinary claims should be proven by those making them, not disproved by those attacked by them.
What really disgusts me is these righties who complain about excessive costs for an inauguration that drew 1.8 million people to DC.
How much of that money went to pay the OT for the cops, firefighters, EMTs and other first responders?
Why does the right have a problem with working people trying to put food on their families?
Why does the right have a problem with working people trying to put food on their families?
Yea...the same people would probably complain about OB-GYN doctors practicing their love with their patients. ;>)
Ha. Agreed. Isn't the Rush thread about people not spending money? The inauguration brought a ton of revenue into DC. Economic stimulus!
Exactly. It was a virtual bonanza for the Obama memorabilia vendors. Some of them probably made enough money to become Republicans.
nerzog,
Sometimes you amaze me. That was pretty funny!
Doesnt this idiot Romney have anything better to do than be on Sean Hannitys show every week.he is such a joke and I am so damn sick of their sickening obsessions over Reagan The guy was a horrible president he hated unions and put this country in such debt wth his Reagonomics .I really conservatives so much and the people who still beleive in them are just as sickening.i really hope and pray we will seee the end o this party and movement soon
I think it is a little harsh to call Romney and idiot. This blog might be taken more seriously if such ad hominem attacks were avoided. Neocon talks shows do a good enough job with that!!!! I am not saying I don't agree with you.
The fact that Romney and so many other conservatives appear on shows by Hannity, Limbaugh and the others is one BIG reason behind (neo) conservatism's demise. Let them keep appearing!
Hannity, Limbaugh and so many of the others have little education beyond high school and comment on the issues primarily from hate filled rhetoric that is nothing more than propaganda. The 2006 and 2008 elections may be a reflection of this. It should be no suprrise that the dinner (at George Will's house?) with Obama and other leading educated conservatives excluded these "entertainers."
I think a more cogent comparison would be number of estimated attendees vs. total cost of inaugural spending. Maybe we could get that figure rolling around our objective liberal media.
Eric Boehlert over at Country Fair puts it at: Bush "04" $392/per person. Obama "08" $88/per person.
Wow, EW, one day into the Obama administration, and efficiency is already improved over 300% ! He should back off a little, that's just showboating.
Pacing is all Col, thinking fast on your feet helps too.
We ran out of hate horses and had to put a former democrat on a hate wildebeast a couple threads up. Hope its ok, the paperwork was signed off by an anonimous Supreme Court Justice. They do seem to be bonding well. The wildibeast and the papers that is.
EXACTLY!
It seems that so much of the cost is due to the sheer magnitude of the event.
It would be derelict to not provide adequate overisight.
MMFA seems to forget what was written in the past. This is from Salon, one of the many websites the liberals use around here.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01/20/media_on_inauguration
For the media, simply reporting on the cost of the inauguration proved to be a challenge. Most major outlets stuck to the lower, albeit still unprecedented, figure of $40 million, which the Presidential Inaugural Committee said it hopes to raise from private donors. But a more accurate figure may be $50 million. That's the amount cited by the Washington Times (which is plugged in to GOP circles). But even that number doesn't take into account the nearly $20 million that's being spent for security, putting the real cost at closer to $70 million, instead of the media's preferred $40 million.
I guess since the Obama supports do no approve of the war, then you do not report these types of numbers in your reporting.
"And it might have been helpful in the limited media debate that did take place about the inauguration's costs to point out that if the $40 million to $50 million raised for the GOP's parties had been donated to the war effort, as some have suggested, the money would have covered only about six hours of the U.S. military's operations in Iraq. (Costs are running roughly $110,000 per minute there.) Also interesting but unnoted is that between the 2001 and 2005 inaugurations, Bush and his supporters have spent roughly $115 million total on parties and parades. " I wonder how much money the Obama supporters will spend on parties the next 4 years in the economic downturn?
No doubt an item of intense future interest. Make sure the accountant is certified.
Ugh, I am SO sick of Reagan References! The man was president 30 YEARS AGO!!! Who in their right mind (which the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh are NOT) could possibly think that conditions from that long ago apply to the world TODAY? How I wish someone would put that to those people. Indeed, I think this is the main reason the right has fallen off a cliff: In the election, they were too busy looking backwards to see where they were headed!