This must be a lie

Inaugural price tag in line with history

First of all, I don’t care if Bush’s inauguration was the most expensive in history.

Second of all, it wasn’t.

Bill ‘Balanced Budget’ Clinton’s second inauguration apparently cost $42 million in 1997 compared to W’s $40 million yesterday. That means, in an apples-to-apples, inflation-adjusted world, Bill’s 1997 bash cost about 25% more than George’s 2005 bash.

Is this story just plain inaccurate? How could this possibly be missed by all of those harping on Bush? I mean, the media wouldn’t distort something like this intentionally, would they?

In fact, with all the added security, I’m shocked that it isn’t easily the most expensive ever.

Request for those who confronted me personally (as in ‘to my face’) on this: Please explain your position to me again. I think I must have misunderstood what you were getting at.

UPDATE: Ooops. This was via Wizbang.


  1. I have similar compaints about recording breaking movie sales…which disregard number of actual tickets sold, increased population of moviegoers etc. Statistics lie.

  2. Sam: Yeah. People get caught up in the numbers and don’t pay attention to the *sort* of numbers they’re using. A site that adjusts movie grosses for inflation is torcik: You are right on the money. It’s the way people use statistics or the selective choice of statistics that can turn solid ‘fact’ into ambiguous ‘spin’. That being said, are the numbers quoted about Clinton’s second inauguration and W’s second inauguration not apples and apples? I don’t know. I’m asking. As my headline states, I don’t think that they can be.