D.C.'s $12 Million Tab

WE HOPE, IN light of his interview with The Post published on Sunday, that President Bush will reconsider his administration's decision to depart from past practices and require the District of Columbia to help pay for his inauguration. Until this year, the federal government has always been willing to reimburse the city for costs associated with this national celebration. To force city leaders to tap either locally raised tax dollars or homeland security funds to defray the District's inaugural costs runs contrary to the historical relationship between the D.C. and federal governments that both Republican and Democratic presidents have honored and respected.

Mr. Bush himself acknowledges that the 55th inauguration is not a District-sponsored venture, but rather a high-profile national event. "We've got people coming from all around the country," the president said at two points in his interview. The inauguration, as he pointed out, could be an attractive target for terrorists, hence the need for stepped-up security. District officials agree and have eagerly joined federal authorities in planning to reach the president's stated goal of making the event as secure as possible. The timing, scope and expense of the inauguration, however, are beyond the city's control. So should be responsibility for its costs.

There is little doubt that hotels, restaurants, caterers and limousine rental companies in Washington will benefit from the thousands of visitors coming to town to participate in the festivities -- a point the president also stressed in his interview. The extensive security measures taken for Mr. Bush's swearing-in, parade and parties should provide great comfort to the celebrants, tourists and onlookers. Of course, there's a downside to this week's events as well. The closing of major downtown arteries and restricted parking in a 100-square-block area will have an adverse impact on people who live and work there. But the issue doesn't come down to a cost-benefit analysis of the inauguration's effect on D.C. businesses and residents. The real question is whether the District of Columbia should be saddled with the costs of providing security and other services to a national event. Forcing the District to spend $12 million of its homeland security budget -- money set aside to provide for the protection of D.C. and area residents from terrorism -- for this week's inaugural festivities is so arbitrary, unfair and dangerous to residents of the nation's capital that we find it hard to believe that the president of the United States would knowingly sanction such an action.