I was moments away from posting an item on the inauguration's costs when I got word that the Rather report had been released.

On the editorial page of Sunday’s Washington Post, Bernard Ries, identified in a different Post column as a former deputy chief administrative law judge of the National Labor Relations Board, objects to the expense of the upcoming inauguration:

What gives me pause is the decision to spend some $40 million-plus at this moment in history. When I first began mulling over this expenditure, I thought it quite unseemly that, at a time when so many Americans and countless Iraqis have been and will be killed and maimed, we should be mounting a spectacle said to celebrate our troops, replete with nine official balls, many unofficial affairs, a youth concert, a parade, a fireworks display, etc. (and, at the Ritz-Carlton, white chocolate cowboy boots). But now, with the appalling misery in Southeast Asia added to the scene, it seems even more obvious that an extravaganza is wholly inappropriate.


Previous presidents have chosen to continue the festive inauguration tradition during wartime. Lincoln was one, although he most certainly didn't spend the 1865 equivalent of $40 million. But I prefer the example of moderation set by Franklin Roosevelt in wartime 1945: a short speech at the White House, a buffet luncheon featuring chicken salad and pound cake — and that was it. No parade, not a single ball. FDR knew something about propriety.

Ries’ objection, at first glance, sort of feels sensible. The folks in South Asia sure could use as much help as we can get them. And when it’s contrasted with the mental image of white chocolate cowboy boots…

But after about a moment’s thought, you realize that his argument isn’t about seriously helping others, or about a high-minded appeal to propriety. It’s basically a more eloquent version of the Saturday Night Live character “ Debbie Downer” — a chronic pessimist who manages to ruin everyone else’s fun by reminding them of the world’s tragedies, like the fact that "feline AIDS is the number one killer of domestic cats."

First, Ries deserves the benefit of the doubt, and the assumption that he would be making the same argument if the nation’s capital was preparing for the inauguration of President Kerry. And let’s assume that Ries would be attending one of those inaugural balls, and that by calling for their cancellation, he’s sacrificing some of his own fun, not merely telling other folks to stop having fun.

His argument still essentially amounts to, “I know a better way for those other people to spend their money.” Ries is echoing Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, who said he voted for Bush, who called on the president to cancel the inauguration parties and donate the money saved - some $40 million - to the tsunami victims.

But New Year’s Eve celebrations in New York City went on, while relief efforts were just getting underway. The NBA season, the NFL playoffs, Hollywood’s endless awards shows — all of these could be canceled and the money that would have been spent on them “better spent” on tsunami relief.

But as horrific as the tragedy in South Asia is, life does go on, and we can’t — and shouldn’t — cancel all expressions of joy while others are suffering.

Ultimately, the ball-goers and inauguration celebrants choose how to spend their money. They’ve got a right to spend it any way they choose, just as Mark Cuban can choose to spend his money as he likes, and Ries can spend his money the way he likes.

If you take Ries’ thinking far enough, any luxury uses money that could be “better spent elsewhere.” How dare you treat yourself to that double latte — there are people in Southeast Asia who need water!

Americans have given plenty - publicly, privately, online, in a multitude of ways. Let’s ease up on the guilt trips from “more-compassionate-than-thou” voices.

UPDATE: The guys at CrushKerry.com looked at the tsunami giving of inauguration donors. So far, they have found "some $30 million was donated to tsunami relief efforts, not including in-kind distributions and donations of equipment and personnel were given by just 15 of the approximately 93 total Inaugural donors that we could verify."

UPDATE: More than a few readers point out that FDR's health wasn't tip-top shape in January 1945, and so he may not have been up for a big inaugural celebration anyway.