Go home Scotty,and embrace your inner feminist side with Megyn Kelly, and talk about open borders.
So if this is such a great deal, why does the state have to finance it ? What about the ownership going to a bank ?
The “economic growth will pay for itself” argument is made for EVERY taxpayer funded stadium. And it rarely, if ever, turns out that way.
What a pathetic apologia.
Some Dems voting for something doesn’t mean there’s not a Republican crony tie.
$500,000 a year from a share of a ‘user fee’will not pay for “a large chunk of the arena”.
Any business channels income taxes into a state, but any state doesn’t pay such a business a half billion of its cost of doing business.
Claiming that such a giveaway will be in part paid for by cuts in spending elsewhere is also bogus.
Likewise, collecting more taxes from deadbeats is not “paying for” the arena.
And again the same on taxes raised on local parking.
Comparing it with the state funding a chemistry lab could hardly be more lame as well.
The complexity of the funding mechanisms do nothing to explain away that raising taxes and taking out humongous bonds for an arena are indeed public payment for a private business.
Shame on NR for even putting “Taxpayer Funded” in quotes in the title.
Hey, the state could buy me a house and just apply my taxes to the mortgage. See. I’m really paying for it myself. Yes, this is crony capitalism. If anything, the sport team owners should pay for the privilege of building the stadium to cover for the extra costs taxpayers will have to cover such as extra policing.
Except that the NBA players have been paying that since the Bucks entered the league and I assume it's gone into the general revenue fund. So if suddenly more than half of it will now be devoted to paying for the Bucks stadium then I assume the Wisconsin taxpayers are on the hook for making up for where that money was spent before?
Anyway you look at it taxpayer are funding a big part of the arena and the Bucks owners are making out on the deal. At least when Kansas City renovated the Truman Sports Complex they put the issue to the taxpayers in a referendum. And the taxpayers approved the spending. Tney didn't have it shoved down their throat by the legislature.
It’s taxpayer money. Period. Calling it offsets is merely a budget balancing magic trick. And while offsets often are real, even if they are ... it’s taxpayer money.
He wouldn’t be arguing “it would cost taxpayers more to lose them” (it wouldn’t) then keep them if he wasn’t using taxpayer money.
Taxpayer money for a billionaire’s sports arena? While I would vote for most of the GOP candidates (certainly not Jebby or Rubio) , I will never, ever vote for smarmy lap dog Walker.
In general, I oppose government subsides for commercial enterprises, but politicians are particularly attracted to these schemes. It has been going on forever in one form or another. If people don’t like it, they should vote out the bums, but most people seem to like these deals which, of course, is why politicians do it.
In our fair city, Wal Mart has been negotiating for tax abatements when they build a Wal Mart building. No one complains. When the abatement is scheduled to expire, Wal Mart builds another structure. We have had three different locations in 15 years and we will see another before long I am guessing.
As if all the Buck's taxes would go to the arena and not have been used for something else? This argument is patently absurd. Walker made the decision that a half a loaf is better than none. The Bucks are still getting the other half.
So sorry. All that article does is spin. Here are two more basic questions: why should taxpayers be on the hook to build a private sports stadium at all? And, Secondly, if its such a smashingly good deal, why would taxpayers in the state of Wisconsin need to be involved at all?
But its not crony capitalism. Oh no. Not that. Anything but that.
Walker is my second choice behind Cruz, but I absolutely oppose this and any other taxpayer funding of sports arenas. They always throw all these numbers around and try to make it sound as if the taxpayer isn't really paying for it, but in the end, we know they always do. The owners of these teams have hundreds of millions of dollars. They can bloody well secure any funding they need on their own. If it makes sense from a business perspective, they'll have no trouble gaining whatever funding they need. It's not like their credit scores suck.
Details of Walker’s Bucks arena deal. It’s a win/win for the State and for the taxpayers. Really.
Freep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
bookmark
Oddly the article doesn’t mention the financial losses that would have followed if the Bucks had been given to another city.
====”We’re still working on this estimate. We believe that if nothing is done, let’s just say nothing is done, the Bucks leave, where are we here. We estimate to just to be able to maintain for safety issues and basic maintenance, it will cost $100 million over the next 10 to 12 years,” Marotta said.==
state coffers would suffer the loss of an estimated $299 million in income tax collections over 20 years from the Bucks and visiting NBA players.
bkmk