Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: Scott Walker Hands $250 Million in Taxpayers’ Money to Billionaire Bucks Owners
Source:
Cato
URL Source: http://www.cato.org/blog/scott-walk ... money-billionaire-bucks-owners
Published: Aug 15, 2015
Author: David Boaz
Post Date: 2015-08-15 10:05:35 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 5172
Comments: 38
Scott Walker touts his record as a fiscal conservative. But this morning, reports the Associated Press, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker took a break from the presidential campaign trail Wednesday to commit $250 million in taxpayer money to pay for a new arena for the Milwaukee Bucks. Walker’s come under a lot of criticism from both left and right for his arena funding plan, including an article I wrote at the Huffington Post after he defended his plan on ABC’s “This Week.” Such deals are paid for by average taxpayers to benefit millionaire players and billionaire owners. But millionaires and billionaires have more influence than average taxpayers, and the pictures around stadium deals are great: Calling the new NBA stadium a “dynamic attraction for the entire state of Wisconsin,” Walker signed the bill at the Wisconsin State Fair Park surrounded by state lawmakers, local officials and Bucks team president Peter Feigin. The economics, not so good. Walker has claimed a ”return on investment” of three to one, which he says is “a good deal” for the taxpayers. Economists disagree. As Dennis Coates and Brad Humphreys wrote in a 2004 Cato study criticizing the proposed D.C. stadium subsidy, “The wonder is that anyone finds such figures credible…. Our conclusion, and that of nearly all academic economists studying this issue, is that professional sports generally have little, if any, positive effect on a city’s economy. The net economic impact of professional sports in Washington, D.C., and the 36 other cities that hosted professional sports teams over nearly 30 years, was a reduction in real per capita income over the entire metropolitan area. Republican voters are looking for fiscal conservatives and straight talkers. We’re hearing a lot of denunciations of corporate welfare and crony capitalism. And here’s a leading conservative candidate for president sitting down in front of cameras to sign a bill handing $250 million in taxpayers’ money (Bloomberg says $400 million with interest) to wealthy owners of a sports team (some of whom, no doubt coincidentally, are large donors to his campaign), in defiance of free-market advocates and virtually all economists. Will the other Republican candidates take him on? Will they denounce this wasteful extravagance? Or will we have to rely on John Oliver to do the job small-government Republicans ought to be doing? Poster Comment: Scott Walker is just another corrupt conartist.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Willie Green (#0)
It's a $500 million arena -- Wisconsin pays half, the owners pay half. Had Wisconsin refused, the Bucks would have relocated. Even if Wisconsin breaks even, it's a good deal.
From Bloomberg View: And then we get to the empty promises of investment returns, which Walker ludicrously estimates will be 3-to-1. At this point, the literature debunking the purported benefits that stadiums bring to local economies is too extensive to list at once. But to review: Initial estimates almost always understate true costs; the jobs such projects create are part-time, seasonal and temporary; money spent in sports stadiums is money that would have been spent elsewhere; and arena revenues and signage deals tend to line the pockets of team owners, not public coffers. It's this economic reality, coupled with some questionable political ties, that has brought together liberals, conservatives and libertarians in opposition to Walker's stadium deal. Walker's association with Jon Hammes, a Bucks minority owner and the national finance co-chairman for the governor's presidential campaign, has raised eyebrows on the left. Lasry's involvement in fundraising for Hillary Clinton has raised objections on the right. Libertarian groups like the Cato Institute have joined the chorus of those calling this what it is: corporate welfare. Walker's numbers are bogus. The deal is a scam... just another conjob misappropriation of public funds for Walker cronies.
Republicans in general suck at economics. They are crony capitalists who always blow up the economy.
Ugh. I'm not sure we can find governors of big states who haven't signed on to such deals. These stadiums are almost as big a scam as the Olympics swindles they pull on the local citizens.
You've convinced me. Let the team move. I think that $250 million would be much better spent on helping the poor. Why we can give 100,000 poor families $2500 each to lift them from poverty. Yes, I know the taxpayers would really like to take time off, relax and see their team play. But that's selfish. They think just because they pay taxes that gives them some right to tell the state how it should be spent?
These will be new taxes, imposed with the help of a low-tax GOP governor. It doesn't make Walker look any better to me. It's a minus.
You mean a higher income tax? Sales tax? Property tax? All three? You don't know. The answer is, there are no new taxes. I'm really surprised you didn't check with your comrades at NR. They actually have a good write up on the deal. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422452/scott-walker-milwaukee- bucks-arena-deal Walker's a good guy.
Since Wisconsin has had some budget surpluses to the tune of over 1/2 a billion the last few years I would say he shouldn't have to raise taxes, the money was already there...
Yes, I know the taxpayers would really like to take time off, relax and see their team play. But that's selfish. They think just because they pay taxes that gives them some right to tell the state how it should be spent? Considering they've gained over 150,000+ jobs the last few years the poverty numbers should look a lot better than they used to... Shit, you're only mad because that's 250 mill that can't be credited towards EBT cards... money that will never show a return investment. Just squandered on laziness, drug addictions and booze. This money will bring billions to the community in a return investment. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
It will only benefit those that work not him, which is the way it should be. I never like stadium deals. Ever. Walker's solution generally seems the best you can achieve. Of course, taxpayers will still be on the hook for the whole tab if something happens to the team, like moving to another city. Chances are pretty slim that will happen before the bonds get paid off. I still oppose stadium deals for billionaire team owners and players. It is an outrage what has been done in so many cities. Walker's deal is better than most but far from perfect.
No, it won't. No more than hosting the Olympics ever do. These things are always a scam. Always. But Joe Six-Pack loves stadiums and their millionaire players and tycoon team owners. It's stupid but the pols end up playing along because a key bloc of voters demand it.
You are full of garbage. Sporting events bring millions of money IN from people that travel to see them. Hotels, restaurants, ticket fees, bars and retail sales.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
They may benefit hotels and restaurants and such. And local tax coffers. But it never matches what the taxpayers paid to build the stadium. The taxpayers get fleeced in these deals. Always. The only thing worse is hosting an Olympics.
Democrats are the ones who suck. They take money out of the economy from the people who earned it. Then give it to deadbeats who refuse to work. In contradiction to Gods word. God said if you don't work you don't eat. As redleghunter redleghunter accurately pointed out. I don't think the government should fund sports arenas. It's not my biggest is issue though. Not by a long shot.
Say you are right. I'd say sometimes they do and sometimes they don't bring a return g return greater then the tax dollars spent. That is just my opinion. Here is the problem though. Everyone doesn't go to sporting events. I don't think it is the governments job to take tax money from person x so that pers person y can make some money. They built one of these sports stadiums in my town. I've been a few times to se see some baseball games.
I agree.
I don't think it is the governments job to take tax money from person x so that pers person y can make some money. I agree. 100%
No he didn't. Paul said that. And he said it within the context of freeloaders in a particular Church, which is not the same thing as people in poverty. Jesus actually said that his followers would reap what they did not sow. Of course, that doesn't mean freeload either.
The stadium will be used for YEARS... and special events on the off season like concerts and such. You have no clue how much of a draw a stadium is from non local people. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I agree with your ideology... BUT, I'd rather the 250 mill spent on something that will profit the community that coughed up the 250 mill then to be poured into making people dependent. That is the worst investment you can make I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Most of the people on welfare food stamps etc are just lazy. Not all but most. Most of those people on welfare would do better then the people in Jesus's day if they just got if they just got off their lazy asses. So I disagree with you on this one. It is the individuals responsibility to take care of themselves. When they can't it is the Church's job to help the poor. It shouldn't be as simple as I don't want to work so I go sign up and automati automatically get money. Money that is taken from the fruits of others labor. Others aren't entitled to the labor of anyone. It is up to individuals to voluntarily give to help those in true need. It is unchristian for the government liberals to steal money from person x to gi give to person y. Just like the stadium deal you agreed with me on.
I'll agree that it is better. It's not the worst thing the government does. So I don't get upset about it. I really don't care that much.
Not all but most. Most of those people on welfare would do better then the people in Jesus's day if they just got if they just got off their lazy asses. So I disagree with you on this one. It is the individuals responsibility to take care of themselves. When they can't it is the Church's job to help the poor. It shouldn't be as simple as I don't want to work so I go sign up and automati automatically get money. Money that is taken from the fruits of others labor. Others aren't entitled to the labor of anyone. It is up to individuals to voluntarily give to help those in true need. It is unchristian for the government liberals to steal money from person x to gi give to person y. Just like the stadium deal you agreed with me on. I'll let Jesus and YHWH continue to develop the larger theme on the other thread. For now, we agree on stadia.
Which means it will be fantastically profitable for the owners, and so the owners should take all of the economic risk and thereby derive all of the profits. Taxpayers should not be asked to bear the risk of loss. Stadium funding is typical "privatize the profits/socialize the risks and losses" crony capitalism.
It's ignorant to think 100,000 people that drive hours and hours from other states or across the state to watch an event that takes most of the day, to not know they use hotels, taxis, restaurants... some shop, some make a 3 day vacation... Do you have any idea how much money Madison Square Garden has brought to NYC from other states? The last time I traveled 5 hours to MSG to watch a NY Rangers game, I dropped 400.00 alone in NYC in restaurants, bars, taxis and hotels. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Great! Then the stadium owners can rake in all that profit by investing in hotels, taxis and restaurants. There is huge profit to be made here, and the private sector will be making all the profit. Therefore, the private sector should be taking all the risk. Now, of course, if the setup is that the state provides 50% of the funding, and gets 50% of the profit, that works fine. But the state paying interest on bonds, to just collect, maybe, some extra tax revenues, while bearing all of that risk on the public dime? Nope. No sale. You've made a compelling argument for profit galore. And that is a compelling argument for stadium owners to go into the private sector to get all of their funding, because hotel and restaurant owners and taxicab companies want all of that business, and will surely invest in a stadium in order to get it. This is not hard. Sports are purely private activities, and profitable for the private sector. And the private sector should finance them and bear 100% of the risks. If there is public funding, there should be public ownership and public profit participation just exactly as with any other source of funding for any other project. Casinos bring in a lot of money, therefore the government should fund them? Malls do too. Should government fund them? No. Government shouldn't fund any of it. If it's really that profitable, then government won't need to. I'm willing to compromise and allow government funding in exchange for government profit-sharing.
Who do you think paid the 250 mill in taxes? The EMPLOYED private sector. The stadium, hotels, restaurant owners and sports enthusiasts. You know, the people that work. No reason why government can't spend their hard earned tax dollars on something that will actually turn a profit for the city, thus eliminating future tax burdens on those same tax payers that paid the 250 mill in taxes. You know as well as I that if the 250 mill isn't spent on the stadium, it will be wasted on social programs. Welfare is a waste... and a very poor investment. It causes future lazy bums and generational economic drains. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Not all but most. Most of those people on welfare would do better then the people in Jesus's day if they just got if they just got off their lazy asses. So I disagree with you on this one. It is the individuals responsibility to take care of themselves. When they can't it is the Church's job to help the poor. It shouldn't be as simple as I don't want to work so I go sign up and automati automatically get money. Money that is taken from the fruits of others labor. Others aren't entitled to the labor of anyone. It is up to individuals to voluntarily give to help those in true need. It is unchristian for the government liberals to steal money from person x to gi give to person y. Just like the stadium deal you agreed with me on. Good post, all of it. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
They'll pay the taxes anyway, and if the city doesn't fund it, that'll be $500 million in the coffers instead of the $250 million.
Indeed Paul did comment to the Thessalonians on idle freeloaders and not on those who could not physically sustain themselves nor their families. I thought I made that clear in the thread where we discussed the topic. Paul did preface his epistle to the Thessalonians as authoritative and from God. Paul was very specific when he was offering advice vs. what was revealed to him from the Holy Spirit. On idleness notice below Paul invokes Chirst: 6 In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9 We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” He also goes in great detail to Timothy on the matter which I will share tomorrow Lord willing. We also should remember the NT church did not give "prescriptions" on how government should treat the poor. That is clearly seen in the NT as a mission for the ekklesia. We also know that in the NT church that charity was done in the Name of Christ. It was Christ centered. As with anything considered "good", if it does not glorify God, it glorifies or props up something else. This could lead, no matter how "good" to some upholding an entity other than God as god. "When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
You did. He ignored it. He'll probably ignore it again.
The $250 mil is being raised by selling 20-year muni bonds. There will be no increase in taxes for the residents. The bonds will be retired with taxes on the franchise. Plus, the franchise is putting up $250 million for construction. This is a big plus for the City of Milwaukee and the State of Wisconsin. The people who are trying to spin this negatively simply hate Walker and what he has done for that state.
Actually, this does force the players/owners to contribute to and perhaps eventually cover the costs of the stadium. In the meantime, those taxes they are paying will not accrue to the state's general treasury for the next 20 years. So it is a compromise, at least marginally better than forcing the taxpayers to buy them a stadium out of a sales/property tax combo for free.
Nor will their existing taxes disappear from the state's general treasury had they moved. Which would have resulted in a tax increase on the citizens to make up for the lost revenue. You can bet the knives would have been out for Walker had that happened. So let's give credit where it's due. This was a good deal.
Well, there you have it. Money paid by the team that will bring big dollars towards the tax base. Give Willie and a few others a box of tissues. They'd rather the sports team be taxed 250 million and used towards social programs. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Meh. It becomes a bootless argument about what would have happened (but now never will happen). IOW, essentially a theological argument. Not a dispute you can resolve with real-world data as applied to Wisconsin. Walker made his choice. It doesn't dent my interest in him. There are no pols I agree with 100%. If this is the worst Walker has done, he would be a rare candidate IMO. Politics ain't beanbag.
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
Even if Wisconsin breaks even, it's a good deal.
#3. To: Willie Green (#0)
#4. To: Willie Green (#0)
The economics, not so good. Walker has claimed a ”return on investment” of three to one, which he says is “a good deal” for the taxpayers. Economists disagree. As Dennis Coates and Brad Humphreys wrote in a 2004 Cato study criticizing the proposed D.C. stadium subsidy, “The wonder is that anyone finds such figures credible….
#5. To: Willie Green (#2)
"The deal is a scam... just another conjob misappropriation of public funds for Walker cronies."
#6. To: misterwhite (#5)
Yes, I know the taxpayers would really like to take time off, relax and see their team play. But that's selfish. They think just because they pay taxes that gives them some right to tell the state how it should be spent?
#7. To: TooConservative (#6)
"These will be new taxes, imposed with the help of a low-tax GOP governor."
#8. To: All (#0)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#9. To: misterwhite (#5)
You've convinced me. Let the team move. I think that $250 million would be much better spent on helping the poor. Why we can give 100,000 poor families $2500 each to lift them from poverty.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#10. To: Willie Green (#2)
Walker's numbers are bogus. The deal is a scam... just another conjob misappropriation of public funds for Walker cronies.
#11. To: GrandIsland (#10)
This money will bring billions to the community as a return investment.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#12. To: misterwhite (#7)
I'm really surprised you didn't check with your comrades at NR. They actually have a good write up on the deal.
#13. To: GrandIsland (#10)
This money will bring billions to the community in a return investment.
#14. To: TooConservative (#13)
#15. To: GrandIsland (#14)
You are full of garbage. Sporting events bring millions of money IN from people that travel to see them. Hotels, restaurants, ticket fees, bars and retail sales.
#16. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter (#3)
Republicans in general suck at economics.
#17. To: GrandIsland (#14)
You are full of garbage. Sporting events bring millions of money IN from people that travel to see them. Hotels, restaurants, ticket fees, bars and retail sales.
#18. To: TooConservative (#12)
I never like stadium deals. Ever.
#19. To: A K A Stone (#17)
Here is the problem though. Everyone doesn't go to sporting events.
#20. To: A K A Stone (#16)
(Edited)
God said if you don't work you don't eat.
#21. To: TooConservative (#15)
But it never matches what the taxpayers paid to build the stadium.
#22. To: A K A Stone (#17)
don't think it is the governments job to take tax money from person x so that pers person y can make some money.
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
which is not the same thing as people in poverty.
#24. To: GrandIsland (#22)
BUT, I'd rather the 250 mill spent on something that will profit the community that coughed up the 250 mill then to be poured into making people dependent. That is the worst investment you can make
#25. To: A K A Stone (#23)
Most of the people on welfare food stamps etc are just lazy.
#26. To: GrandIsland (#21)
he stadium will be used for YEARS... and special events on the off season like concerts and such. You have no clue how much of a draw a stadium is from non local people.
#27. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
(Edited)
Which means it will be fantastically profitable for the owners,
#28. To: GrandIsland (#27)
It's ignorant to think 100,000 people that drive hours and hours from other states or across the state to watch an event that takes most of the day, to not know they use hotels, taxis, restaurants... some shop, some make a 3 day vacation... Do you have any idea how much money Madison Square Garden has brought to NYC from other states?
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#28)
(Edited)
Therefore, the private sector should be taking all the risk.
#30. To: A K A Stone (#23)
Most of the people on welfare food stamps etc are just lazy.
#31. To: GrandIsland (#29)
Who do you think paid the 250 mill in taxes?
#32. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone, GarySpFc, liberator (#20)
No he didn't. Paul said that. And he said it within the context of freeloaders in a particular Church, which is not the same thing as people in poverty.
#33. To: redleghunter (#32)
I thought I made that clear
#34. To: GrandIsland (#29)
"Who do you think paid the 250 mill in taxes? The EMPLOYED private sector."
#35. To: misterwhite (#34)
This is a big plus for the City of Milwaukee and the State of Wisconsin. The people who are trying to spin this negatively simply hate Walker and what he has done for that state.
#36. To: TooConservative (#35)
"In the meantime, those taxes they are paying will not accrue to the state's general treasury for the next 20 years."
#37. To: misterwhite (#34)
The $250 mil is being raised by selling 20-year muni bonds. There will be no increase in taxes for the residents. The bonds will be retired with taxes on the franchise.
#38. To: misterwhite (#36)
Nor will their existing taxes disappear from the state's general treasury had they moved. Which would have resulted in a tax increase on the citizens to make up for the lost revenue.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]