From this article in Salon.com by Eric Boehlert just four years ago, we read …

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.

Has anyone out there heard a news story complaining about the cost of this years inauguration? Hmm, neither have I. In fact, according to the Washington Times, the price of security is so high, that President Bush had to declare Washington DC a disaster area just to get enough money to provide security.

What about the cost, you ask? Well, in an article by the London Daily Mail, the cost of the inauguration this year will be over $160 million dollars. That’s 4 times the cost of President Bush’s inauguration.

Hey Eric Boehlert from Salon.com. Any problems with the cost this year?

Didn’t think so.

What is bipartisanship? Technically the definition is that two separate parties agree or support something. It seems that the definition has somehow been slightly changed to be equivalent to the word compromise. While both words are related, they do not mean the same thing. Compromise involves both parties conceding by degree to come to an agreement. That doesn’t mean that either party supports the same thing.

For example, I have a fundamental or core value that murder is wrong. Suppose that I have a peer who has the opposite core value, that murder is not wrong. Let us then attempt to make a policy regarding murder. I would propose that anyone who commits murder should go to jail. My peer would propose that since murder is not wrong, that no such punishment should be imposed. We now have two fundamental opinions that are opposite in nature. Since bipartisan means that we would both support or agree, then by definition, one of us would be required to cave in and “go along with” the other.

Therein lies the the problem with bipartisanship. In practical terms, someone must sacrifice their core value in order to support the other party. Why would they do this? It seems to me, that the goal of bipartisanship is to avoid hurting someones feelings, or “to get along”. Thus, the result of bipartisanship is nothing more than sacrificing a core value for some perceived civility.

I would like to see less bipartisanship in Washington DC, and more principle driven leaders that are willing to “not get along” while standing by their core value.

You may have seen or heard this before, but it’s worth repeating.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our [income] taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beers by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.’

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free, but once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!” “Yeah, that’s right,”exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got TEN times more than I!” “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something very important….they didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics University of Georgia

Ann Coulter has a column that postulates that the reason for the downfall of the Clinton campaign is Bill. I don’t care if you love or hate Ann, but no one can say that she doesn’t write well.

She says..

By contrast, in addition to not being able to get half the country to vote for him in two tries, Clinton’s connection to any other presidential candidate spells utter doom. Both his vice president and his wife have been defeated in elections they should have won, but lost because of their unfortunate association with him. The country has spoken. It wants to be rid of the Clintons.

My favorite quote in the article though is this one that draws a clear and understandable methaphor,

He’s like the creepy guy who graduated last year but still hangs around the high school cafeteria chatting up sophomores.

Well said Ann.