Letters to the editor
Issue date: 1/23/09 Section: Opinion
Was the installation of Obama too costly?
It was most likely not something that Mr. Obama could have done much about. No one had probably given it much thought. The reason I started thinking about it was after reading that the new chancellor of a university of fairly modest means decided he did not want the costly ceremony of change of office. Instead, he decided to use the money to fund 50 students at $1,000 each. I sent him a card expressing thanks for his taking such a courageous step at a time when the country is mired in economic downturn.
I then thought about the installation of Barack Obama as president. At a minimum, the cost to the country, directly and indirectly, at personal and public levels, will be in excess of $100 million.
The mechanics of the transfer of power, or the change of officers, is simple. At the simplest level, on Tuesday, Jan. 20, Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama could have met on the White House lawn and had the keys handed from Bush to Obama. That is just about what the transfer means.
Obama advisers had most likely not given much attention to the total cost of the change. It is true that some storekeepers in Washington and in other businesses would profit heavily from the change in terms of what they have to deliver. But others would suffer because they would be forced to use up scarce funds that they could ill-afford to spend just to see this ceremony take place. They could assuredly see it on the television, as most of the people will.
There were schools that were begging money for their students to make the trek to Washington. Really, how many bands are required to provide music for the installation? The band from my old school needed close to $100,000 to make the trip, even with as many as four people living in a room along the way. There was no money in the budget for the trip, so it had to be begged from people who did not have much free cash in the first place.
I believe Obama would have shown through his rejection of such an expensive installation that he has great concern for the economics of the country and is conscious of the poor positions of many of the citizens. Had he chosen that position, his advisers might have thought otherwise.
Does history need to be that costly?
Gordon D. Morgan
Professor
Sociology
Kenyans pay high price to witness inauguration
Jan. 20, 2009, is a day that will be recorded in history books across the globe. On this day, the United States of America saw its first African-American president take the oath of office and begin serving a nation that has seen slavery, race riots and bigotry for decades. Due to the historical ramifications of this event, millions of people from across the country flooded to Washington D.C. to be a part of the proceedings.
However, the event drew not only Americans, but visitors from around the world, as well. One such group of foreigners happened to be a group of eight high-level Kenyans (Obama's father was from Kenya).
Because of current problems occurring in Kenya - famine, poverty and sickness - many Kenyans felt the trip, paid for by the Kenyan government, to be an extreme misappropriation of funds and a downright waste.
One can hardly disagree with the outraged Kenyans. Aside from the enormity of the cost in the first place, the officials were not even invited to attend the inauguration and instead watched the events unfold from their hotel rooms on television (much like many Americans and foreigners alike).
In their defense, the Kenyan officials insist that their presence will strengthen ties between the two governments and ultimately benefit their respective nation. I wonder … due to the presence of UA students at the event, can we Razorbacks expect better conditions here in Fayetteville? Absolutely not.
This event was and is an unfortunate display of a nation unable to avoid economic dents due to political miscues.
Dominic Box
Freshman
International Relations
It was most likely not something that Mr. Obama could have done much about. No one had probably given it much thought. The reason I started thinking about it was after reading that the new chancellor of a university of fairly modest means decided he did not want the costly ceremony of change of office. Instead, he decided to use the money to fund 50 students at $1,000 each. I sent him a card expressing thanks for his taking such a courageous step at a time when the country is mired in economic downturn.
I then thought about the installation of Barack Obama as president. At a minimum, the cost to the country, directly and indirectly, at personal and public levels, will be in excess of $100 million.
The mechanics of the transfer of power, or the change of officers, is simple. At the simplest level, on Tuesday, Jan. 20, Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama could have met on the White House lawn and had the keys handed from Bush to Obama. That is just about what the transfer means.
Obama advisers had most likely not given much attention to the total cost of the change. It is true that some storekeepers in Washington and in other businesses would profit heavily from the change in terms of what they have to deliver. But others would suffer because they would be forced to use up scarce funds that they could ill-afford to spend just to see this ceremony take place. They could assuredly see it on the television, as most of the people will.
There were schools that were begging money for their students to make the trek to Washington. Really, how many bands are required to provide music for the installation? The band from my old school needed close to $100,000 to make the trip, even with as many as four people living in a room along the way. There was no money in the budget for the trip, so it had to be begged from people who did not have much free cash in the first place.
I believe Obama would have shown through his rejection of such an expensive installation that he has great concern for the economics of the country and is conscious of the poor positions of many of the citizens. Had he chosen that position, his advisers might have thought otherwise.
Does history need to be that costly?
Gordon D. Morgan
Professor
Sociology
Kenyans pay high price to witness inauguration
Jan. 20, 2009, is a day that will be recorded in history books across the globe. On this day, the United States of America saw its first African-American president take the oath of office and begin serving a nation that has seen slavery, race riots and bigotry for decades. Due to the historical ramifications of this event, millions of people from across the country flooded to Washington D.C. to be a part of the proceedings.
However, the event drew not only Americans, but visitors from around the world, as well. One such group of foreigners happened to be a group of eight high-level Kenyans (Obama's father was from Kenya).
Because of current problems occurring in Kenya - famine, poverty and sickness - many Kenyans felt the trip, paid for by the Kenyan government, to be an extreme misappropriation of funds and a downright waste.
One can hardly disagree with the outraged Kenyans. Aside from the enormity of the cost in the first place, the officials were not even invited to attend the inauguration and instead watched the events unfold from their hotel rooms on television (much like many Americans and foreigners alike).
In their defense, the Kenyan officials insist that their presence will strengthen ties between the two governments and ultimately benefit their respective nation. I wonder … due to the presence of UA students at the event, can we Razorbacks expect better conditions here in Fayetteville? Absolutely not.
This event was and is an unfortunate display of a nation unable to avoid economic dents due to political miscues.
Dominic Box
Freshman
International Relations
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Bman
posted 1/23/09 @ 4:23 PM CST
What does "directly and indirectly, at personal and public levels" mean when $100 mill pops out? But let's say that's a reasonable estimate for pomp and circumstance and "transitional costs. (Continued…)
Post a Comment