Here's a plan for raising all necessary revenue to correct: state and local budget shortcomings, infrastructure projects, health care, housing, and credit markets:
Increase taxes on the wealthy, scale back tax exemptions, close tax loopholes, increase the capital gains tax, and implement a Tobin Tax on financial transactions.
It really is that simple. 95 percent of the population earning under $150,000 annually would be largely unaffected by the tax increases.
By sharing a little more now, The Haves could accelerate the economic recovery's pace, thereby improving their own business prospects. For the owners, this is basically an investment in their own future. Even though a lost decade hurts low-income families the most, such a long period of stagnation can take quite a bite out of a corporation's balance sheet and stock value.
This back-and-forth, dog-and-pony show we're receiving from the Mainstream Media and Congress (basically a PR firm for big business) is exactly that, a show. A rather elaborate production with the drama of a soap opera, corruptly masking dubiousness and misappropriations.
It's really not that hard to get things done. FDR sure did get quite a bit done in 1933.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Eschweiler & Milwaukee Architecture
Kudos to Chris Liebenthal, of Cognitive Dissidence and Milwaukee County First, for illuminating the sorry shape of the County's Eschweiler buildings.
Milwaukee has a treasure trove of historically significant architecture. For us to willfully sit by as they disintegrate is sad and shameful.
For Further Reading:
Eschweiler Buildings
Historic Milwaukee Architecture 1, 2, 3
Milwaukee Architecture
Here's a few more examples of Eschweiler architecture:
Milwaukee has a treasure trove of historically significant architecture. For us to willfully sit by as they disintegrate is sad and shameful.
For Further Reading:
Eschweiler Buildings
Historic Milwaukee Architecture 1, 2, 3
Milwaukee Architecture
Here's a few more examples of Eschweiler architecture:
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Historic Milwaukee Architecture
The residence above is a Tudor Revival. The name is in reference to the Tudor dynasty, which reigned from 1485 to 1603. In America, this was a popular style between 1890 and 1940. The style is based on English Renaissance architecture from folk houses and Late Medieval mansions; sometimes containing Craftsman trademarks.
Within the Tudor style, there are sub-styles - Jacobean (1603-1625), Elizabethan (1558-1603), etc. This particular dwelling, built in 1912, was designed by Ferry & Clas. It's Tudor elements include: half-timbering, facade with cross gables, exposed rafters, and arched entryway.
Friday, December 25, 2009
The Blind Leading The Naked
Why don't we build anything anymore? Why have imports skyrocketed while our exports have tanked? Why has the percent of value added by manufacturing as a percentage of GDP shrunk from 25 percent in 1947 to 11 percent today?
Upper Mismanagement
Upper Mismanagement
Equity Illusion
From The Equity Culture Loses It's Bloom:
- In the 1970s investors...held conservative portfolios that were heavy on bonds...The advent of individual retirement accounts and other defined contribution plans would change that in the coming decade. In 1985 individuals held $750 billion in IRA and DC plans; by the market peak in 2007, that number had rocketed to $9.2 trillion.
- The Standard and Poor's 500 index soared from 131.05 to 1,565.153, or 1,194 percent.
- As of September 30, long-term Treasury bonds had beaten U.S. stocks over the past 28 years.
- "Equities depend on capital gains, but income-producing assets, such as infrastructure, are pretty reliable through different economic cycles," notes David Richardson.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Historic Milwaukee Architecture
The residence above is a Georgian Colonial Revival. The name is in reference to the Georgian Period (George I through IV; 1714-1830). In America, this was a popular style from the 1890s to the 1930s. This style tips it's hat to sixteenth century Italian architecture. Many other fine examples abound in Milwaukee's Upper East Side and North Point.
This particular dwelling was built in 1901; designed by notable Milwaukee architects George Bowman Ferry and Alfred Clas. Common colonial elements, and some particular embellishments, present in this example are: symmetrical facade, keystones above the windows, quoins accentuating the exterior corners, modillioned cornice, red brick and white trim, front door sidelights, roof balustrade encompassing a roof-top deck, and a marble-tread front stair.
Limp Logic
Sunday, December 6, 2009
New Firms Are No Job Engine
John Torinus, of the Journal Sentinel, assures us that new firms are the key to our recovery. Encouraging new firms using the typical incentives (job credits, small business loans, investment credits, grants, using pension fund money for speculative investment, etc.), he believes, will create jobs.
He also uses the education-as-magic-bullet talking-point to paint the image of a miraculous market machine, infused with newly educated college graduates, encouraged by credits and grants, creating new firms, thereby growing employment.
Yet, Torinus even points out that one-third of young companies fail to make it through a second year; what he calls a "messy churn." But lets ignore that fact, it would expose the false premise concocted in the article.
As Doug Henwood notes, "Small firms pay less than large ones, are less likely to offer health, pension, or child care benefits, and are often more dangerous to workers. With few exceptions, they're not all that innovative technologically...37% of the labor force changes its employment status every year...new jobs do not sprout in the greatest numbers at either fresh start-ups or small firms...Smaller employers do generate plenty of jobs, but they also destroy them in great quantities. If you add together creation and destruction, no clear picture emerges."
The recovery hinges on the destruction of neoliberal policies and a reclamation of the public good.
He also uses the education-as-magic-bullet talking-point to paint the image of a miraculous market machine, infused with newly educated college graduates, encouraged by credits and grants, creating new firms, thereby growing employment.
Yet, Torinus even points out that one-third of young companies fail to make it through a second year; what he calls a "messy churn." But lets ignore that fact, it would expose the false premise concocted in the article.
As Doug Henwood notes, "Small firms pay less than large ones, are less likely to offer health, pension, or child care benefits, and are often more dangerous to workers. With few exceptions, they're not all that innovative technologically...37% of the labor force changes its employment status every year...new jobs do not sprout in the greatest numbers at either fresh start-ups or small firms...Smaller employers do generate plenty of jobs, but they also destroy them in great quantities. If you add together creation and destruction, no clear picture emerges."
The recovery hinges on the destruction of neoliberal policies and a reclamation of the public good.
Oblique Journalism
The Journal Sentinel has an inanely meandering editorial - Not a tax hell, but state still needs better revenue mix - pushing for decreased taxes, service maintenance, alongside "innovation and entrepreneurial spirit," hinging on increased educational outcomes. Many good talking-points and topics-of-the-moment, but the editorial is quite sparse on actual numbers, comparisons, evidence, or needed actions.
The editorial incorrectly opines, "...as the state's taxpayer base ages, the ability of these citizens to pay for the increased services they will need will be limited even as the number of workers supporting them will be fewer." This is the same reasoning used by those selling the Social Security crisis. As I've noted previously, tax issues are primarily problems of incidence not burden.
Should we remove our manufacturing machinery and equipment tax exemption? Should we discontinue funding projects like the Moderne and Miller Park? Should we raise taxes on the wealthiest? Should we increase capital gains and corporate taxation? Or should we continue to cut programs and services, to lower our quality of life?
People expect services, coinciding with an increasing standard-of-living (paid for with taxes). To simply state property and income taxes are too high (a nebulous statement unless some type of comparison or operationalization is provided), may sell papers, but it does not explain or contribute anything to the discussion.
And, to throw in the (paraphrasing) Education Will Save Everything slogan is pointless. "A smarter, better-prepared workforce, after all, would be better able to compete and command higher wages." The problem is not a lack of skills, it's a lack of jobs.
To keep pushing the "Wisconsin taxes are a major deterrent to businesses locating here" mantra also conflicts with reality. And, as I've stated before, "If, as a nation, we are so concerned with taxation, then we need federally standardized tax rules, equally written and applied to all states. Not our current hodge-podge of individually state-controlled breaks, bribery, and favoritism." If these are crucial matters to the progress and growth of our local and national economy shouldn't we be cooperating on a more federal level, rather than continuing to operate under beggar-thy-neighbor policies?
The Journal also implies years of arduous taxation, in general, has been holding Wisconsin back. Nowhere is there mention of Wisconsin's lack of a modern transportation infrastructure as a hindrance to business location decisions. Newsflash: Infrastructure matters to business.
But then the editors offer a stunning conclusion, "Political leadership should work to keep taxes in check and to put the property tax on a diet. More important, they should ensure that schools and other essential state services are able to meet their obligations." There you have it; circular logic at is best. No real point, no real insight. The Fourth Estate has no clothes.
For Further Reading:
America's Granny Bashers
Hands Off Social Security
Obama Suggests Defaulting on National Debt
State Comparisons
The editorial incorrectly opines, "...as the state's taxpayer base ages, the ability of these citizens to pay for the increased services they will need will be limited even as the number of workers supporting them will be fewer." This is the same reasoning used by those selling the Social Security crisis. As I've noted previously, tax issues are primarily problems of incidence not burden.
Should we remove our manufacturing machinery and equipment tax exemption? Should we discontinue funding projects like the Moderne and Miller Park? Should we raise taxes on the wealthiest? Should we increase capital gains and corporate taxation? Or should we continue to cut programs and services, to lower our quality of life?
People expect services, coinciding with an increasing standard-of-living (paid for with taxes). To simply state property and income taxes are too high (a nebulous statement unless some type of comparison or operationalization is provided), may sell papers, but it does not explain or contribute anything to the discussion.
And, to throw in the (paraphrasing) Education Will Save Everything slogan is pointless. "A smarter, better-prepared workforce, after all, would be better able to compete and command higher wages." The problem is not a lack of skills, it's a lack of jobs.
To keep pushing the "Wisconsin taxes are a major deterrent to businesses locating here" mantra also conflicts with reality. And, as I've stated before, "If, as a nation, we are so concerned with taxation, then we need federally standardized tax rules, equally written and applied to all states. Not our current hodge-podge of individually state-controlled breaks, bribery, and favoritism." If these are crucial matters to the progress and growth of our local and national economy shouldn't we be cooperating on a more federal level, rather than continuing to operate under beggar-thy-neighbor policies?
The Journal also implies years of arduous taxation, in general, has been holding Wisconsin back. Nowhere is there mention of Wisconsin's lack of a modern transportation infrastructure as a hindrance to business location decisions. Newsflash: Infrastructure matters to business.
But then the editors offer a stunning conclusion, "Political leadership should work to keep taxes in check and to put the property tax on a diet. More important, they should ensure that schools and other essential state services are able to meet their obligations." There you have it; circular logic at is best. No real point, no real insight. The Fourth Estate has no clothes.
For Further Reading:
America's Granny Bashers
Hands Off Social Security
Obama Suggests Defaulting on National Debt
State Comparisons
Saturday, December 5, 2009
The Giveaway
The Liability Con
Some enlightenment concerning recent deficit hysterics:
1994
Baselines, Counterfactuals and the Stimulus
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Deficits
No Exit
Notes on the Dollar Panic
The Budget Deficit Crisis
The meme that deficit spending, always, crowds out private investment and is, in general, morally wrong, is both short-sighted and misleading. We are a country - private citizens, business, and government - that has used debt to live a better standard of life, grow companies, and finance operations, especially since WWII. During recessionary episodes, the government accumulates debt to restore employment, fix crumbling bridges, improve water and air quality, provide health care, etc. All quite worthy and important causes for investment.
This false debate about rates, deficits, and "big," "bad" government is deceptive drivel. Just more smoke and mirrors of class warfare. The rich in this country have slowly lowered their tax burden, frozen wages for laborers, and methodically steered more of the country's wealth toward their own pockets. As public money (which would have been used for public goods) finds it's way into private pockets, less of the public commons is maintained. We all end up worse off. As is evidenced by the continually decreasing standard of living for most Americans.
America Without a Middle Class
Household Debt Service
Poverty Facts and Stats
U.S. Business: The American Way of Debt
1994
Baselines, Counterfactuals and the Stimulus
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Deficits
No Exit
Notes on the Dollar Panic
The Budget Deficit Crisis
The meme that deficit spending, always, crowds out private investment and is, in general, morally wrong, is both short-sighted and misleading. We are a country - private citizens, business, and government - that has used debt to live a better standard of life, grow companies, and finance operations, especially since WWII. During recessionary episodes, the government accumulates debt to restore employment, fix crumbling bridges, improve water and air quality, provide health care, etc. All quite worthy and important causes for investment.
This false debate about rates, deficits, and "big," "bad" government is deceptive drivel. Just more smoke and mirrors of class warfare. The rich in this country have slowly lowered their tax burden, frozen wages for laborers, and methodically steered more of the country's wealth toward their own pockets. As public money (which would have been used for public goods) finds it's way into private pockets, less of the public commons is maintained. We all end up worse off. As is evidenced by the continually decreasing standard of living for most Americans.
America Without a Middle Class
Household Debt Service
Poverty Facts and Stats
U.S. Business: The American Way of Debt
Heal Thy Self
A very interesting article from Wired magazine, Placebos are getting more effective. Drugmakers are desperate to know why.
It raises some very good issues regarding the commercialization of pharmaceuticals, the real effectiveness of the medicine, and the power of the body to heal itself.
It raises some very good issues regarding the commercialization of pharmaceuticals, the real effectiveness of the medicine, and the power of the body to heal itself.
Historic Milwaukee Architecture
This is the first in a periodic series of Milwaukee residential architectural gems. Milwaukee has an assortment of historically significant home styles. I will showcase some of the more elaborate and stylistically-accurate examples Milwaukee has to offer.The residence above is of the Victorian persuasion. The name is in reference to Britain's Queen Victoria, whom reigned from 1837 to 1901. In America, this was a popular style between 1860 and 1900. This was also an era of growing industrialization, which allowed the mass production of doors, windows, roofing, siding, and decorative detailing.
Within the Victorian style, there are many sub-styles. This particular dwelling, built in 1886, has many Queen Anne elements. Such as: the asymmetrical facade, the (nearly) full-width porch, cross-gabled roof, the square tower extending above the entryway (although typically at a corner of the front facade), decorative spindlework balustrades, the bay window, and the spindlework frieze of the front porch.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Money For Nothing
Workers need to sacrifice, unions must make concessions, programs and services must be cut...belts need to be tightened.
Unless it applies to the highway lobby, then we've got $22 million (which will likely end up much more) available for temporary fixes. Subsidizing the sprawl of business and people with large highway interchanges at the edge of cities, enabling the auto-dependent life to continue, must stop.
How about a tax or a toll, so that those who use these concrete eyesores have to pay for them? If you must build on the edges, out in the middle of greenfields, miles and miles from other developments, a fee, a tax, whatever you care to call it, should be applied. There is no free lunch (or so they say).
Yet, suburbanites, through massive highway building, cheap gas, and weak environmental standards, have had their entire lifestyle highly subsidized. It should not be cheaper to build on open space than it is to reuse an existing, blighted inner city building. Our planning principles should be encouraging reuse. If a developer concludes he/she must build on open space, the cost should reflect this environmentally unwise choice.
It's many of the same suburban conservatives whom feel they shouldn't have to pay anything in taxes that primarily benefit from such highway building. Taxes actually do pay for a lot of things, which we obviously take for granted. Now because of years of disinvestment due to a "starve the beast" mentality (organized by anti-tax zealots: think Reagan) we're finding ourselves in need of repair and advancement of infrastructure we built during WWII.
Many important regional/national businesses are located near the interchange. They are important to the future of the region. But to persist in building highways to deal with our transportation needs does nothing to improve the situation. In fact, it encourages continued sprawl and auto-dependency.
If the Zoo interchange must be done, do a complete project now. And, tie it into other modes of transportation in the region, connecting it to businesses and neighborhoods. During a time when many people, businesses, and neighborhoods are hurting, this would be a dose of much-needed deficit-spending to ensure improved job numbers now, and a healthier overall outlook for the future.
Why Wisconsin doesn't have a holistic plan for a regional transportation system in place - efficiently and sustainably connecting metropolitan Milwaukee's airport, rail, buses and highways with Madison, Kenosha, Racine, Green Bay, etc. - is inexcusable. What have we been doing since it was announced federal money was available for transportation infrastructure? $51.2 billion was made available for transit in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
If we have financing available for the Moderne, the Bookends, Miller Park, and a host of other ancillary development, we should have funding available for a 21st century transportation infrastructure.
Unemployment has been climbing. Infrastructure projects create jobs, and they make locations more marketable and sought after for businesses and homeowners. We need some leaders and visionaries to step forward in the planning and infrastructure realm. The lack of imagination, the inability to make bold decisions, the unwillingness to invest in light rail, and the tunnel vision of continuing to follow the same unsustainable development patterns will lead to the irrelevance of Milwaukee and the region.
For Further Reading:
Center for Neighborhood Technology
Economic Development and Smart Growth
Making The Connection
Mixed-Income Housing Near Transit
Transit Oriented America
Unless it applies to the highway lobby, then we've got $22 million (which will likely end up much more) available for temporary fixes. Subsidizing the sprawl of business and people with large highway interchanges at the edge of cities, enabling the auto-dependent life to continue, must stop.
How about a tax or a toll, so that those who use these concrete eyesores have to pay for them? If you must build on the edges, out in the middle of greenfields, miles and miles from other developments, a fee, a tax, whatever you care to call it, should be applied. There is no free lunch (or so they say).
Yet, suburbanites, through massive highway building, cheap gas, and weak environmental standards, have had their entire lifestyle highly subsidized. It should not be cheaper to build on open space than it is to reuse an existing, blighted inner city building. Our planning principles should be encouraging reuse. If a developer concludes he/she must build on open space, the cost should reflect this environmentally unwise choice.
It's many of the same suburban conservatives whom feel they shouldn't have to pay anything in taxes that primarily benefit from such highway building. Taxes actually do pay for a lot of things, which we obviously take for granted. Now because of years of disinvestment due to a "starve the beast" mentality (organized by anti-tax zealots: think Reagan) we're finding ourselves in need of repair and advancement of infrastructure we built during WWII.
Many important regional/national businesses are located near the interchange. They are important to the future of the region. But to persist in building highways to deal with our transportation needs does nothing to improve the situation. In fact, it encourages continued sprawl and auto-dependency.
If the Zoo interchange must be done, do a complete project now. And, tie it into other modes of transportation in the region, connecting it to businesses and neighborhoods. During a time when many people, businesses, and neighborhoods are hurting, this would be a dose of much-needed deficit-spending to ensure improved job numbers now, and a healthier overall outlook for the future.
Why Wisconsin doesn't have a holistic plan for a regional transportation system in place - efficiently and sustainably connecting metropolitan Milwaukee's airport, rail, buses and highways with Madison, Kenosha, Racine, Green Bay, etc. - is inexcusable. What have we been doing since it was announced federal money was available for transportation infrastructure? $51.2 billion was made available for transit in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
If we have financing available for the Moderne, the Bookends, Miller Park, and a host of other ancillary development, we should have funding available for a 21st century transportation infrastructure.
Unemployment has been climbing. Infrastructure projects create jobs, and they make locations more marketable and sought after for businesses and homeowners. We need some leaders and visionaries to step forward in the planning and infrastructure realm. The lack of imagination, the inability to make bold decisions, the unwillingness to invest in light rail, and the tunnel vision of continuing to follow the same unsustainable development patterns will lead to the irrelevance of Milwaukee and the region.
For Further Reading:
Center for Neighborhood Technology
Economic Development and Smart Growth
Making The Connection
Mixed-Income Housing Near Transit
Transit Oriented America
Friday, November 27, 2009
Tax Spanking
Enough of this bullsh@# trying to paint Wisconsin as a "tax hell." The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, in step with their corporate cronies, complains continually about the taxes in Wisconsin. (The latest article states Wisconsin has improved, but, nevertheless, still implies we're onerous.)
[And, seriously, if, as a nation, we are so concerned with taxation, then we need federally standardized tax rules, equally written and applied to all states. Not our current hodge-podge of individually state-controlled breaks, bribery, and favoritism.]
We have a good standard of living and quality service-provision in Wisconsin. The total tax burden isn't the problem here, it's the tax incidence (who pays?).
For Further Reading:
Measuring Tax Burden by Progessivity and Social Justice
Shifting Tax Burden
Tax Burden Illumination
Tax Burden Shifting: Exemptions
Tax Fairness and Uniformity
Wisconsin Tax Truths in the Land of Tax Trickery
[And, seriously, if, as a nation, we are so concerned with taxation, then we need federally standardized tax rules, equally written and applied to all states. Not our current hodge-podge of individually state-controlled breaks, bribery, and favoritism.]
We have a good standard of living and quality service-provision in Wisconsin. The total tax burden isn't the problem here, it's the tax incidence (who pays?).
For Further Reading:
Measuring Tax Burden by Progessivity and Social Justice
Shifting Tax Burden
Tax Burden Illumination
Tax Burden Shifting: Exemptions
Tax Fairness and Uniformity
Wisconsin Tax Truths in the Land of Tax Trickery
Smart Growth?
It's great that back in 1999 Wisconsin got on the Smart Growth bandwagon and required Wisconsin counties and communities to adopt a growth plan within 10 years. But how serious were we?
A month or so before plans are due many communities will fail to make the deadline. The State may lengthen the deadline to 2012, with no penalty. Another sign of how seriously we take our environmental responsibility.
Nine specific areas were to be addressed in the growth plan:
Can we really say we have a "smart" growth plan when we continue to ignore the elephants in the room - the continued growth of edge cities, the enabling of resource (water) starved exurbs, and our dependence on highways and automobiles?
And, yet, after all of this, many are certain there will be lawsuits over the development rules.
Smart growth is something that has to be done at the state-level. Otherwise parochial shortsightedness will rule the day and we'll accomplish nothing, other than costly courtroom battles for generations.
A month or so before plans are due many communities will fail to make the deadline. The State may lengthen the deadline to 2012, with no penalty. Another sign of how seriously we take our environmental responsibility.
Nine specific areas were to be addressed in the growth plan:
- Housing
- Transportation
- Utilities & Community Facilities
- Agricultural, Natural and Cultural Resources
- Economic Development
- Intergovernmental Cooperation
- Land Use
- Issues and Opportunities
- Implementation
Can we really say we have a "smart" growth plan when we continue to ignore the elephants in the room - the continued growth of edge cities, the enabling of resource (water) starved exurbs, and our dependence on highways and automobiles?
And, yet, after all of this, many are certain there will be lawsuits over the development rules.
Smart growth is something that has to be done at the state-level. Otherwise parochial shortsightedness will rule the day and we'll accomplish nothing, other than costly courtroom battles for generations.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Eat The Rich
Great article by Sam Pizzigati, fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, Have The Rich Won?
Excerpts:
Excerpts:
- Americans in the bottom 90% saw their average incomes increase a meager $47 a year between 1974 and 2007.
- The top 1% households made 12 times more income than the bottom 90% households in 1974, 42 times more in 2007.
- In 1955, our 400 highest incomes averaged $12.3 million...they paid over half their incomes, 51.2% in federal income tax. In 2006, the top 400 averaged an astounding $263 million each in income...paid, after loopholes, just 17.2% of their incomes in federal taxes.
- Between the 1940s and the mid 1960s, America's richest faced at least a 91% federal tax rate on earned income over $400,000. The top rate today: 35%.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Walk(er) Away
Scott Walker rode into town, full of right-wing talking points, promising glory and growth for Milwaukee County.
He's failed. County could face another budget crisis in 2010.
He's gutted services, flip-flopped on serving only one term, terminated family-supporting jobs, all while digging a deeper budgetary hole for the county.
Scott should forget about being governor, go back to school and finish his college degree, then (try to) become a productive member of society. Public service is not his forte.
Scott, I'm sure CRG or WPRI will bring you aboard. You've robotically perfected parroting conservative one-liners.
He's failed. County could face another budget crisis in 2010.
He's gutted services, flip-flopped on serving only one term, terminated family-supporting jobs, all while digging a deeper budgetary hole for the county.
Scott should forget about being governor, go back to school and finish his college degree, then (try to) become a productive member of society. Public service is not his forte.
Scott, I'm sure CRG or WPRI will bring you aboard. You've robotically perfected parroting conservative one-liners.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Laughable Curve
Tax cuts as public policy prescription for economic growth have been empirically proven ineffective for decades. Arthur Laffer's curve is a laugher indeed.
As James Rowen highlights, John Kovari, of the Public Policy Forum, finds more corroborating evidence to support this conclusion.
The fact that we as a society and as policy makers have to point out, over and over again, that tax cuts are not a panacea for growth is depressing. As Oliver Wendell Holmes stated, taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.
It's time we revert back to an evidence-based policy-making environment. We cannot allow the Republicans, and the pliant media, to keep telling us black is white. This debate should have ended long ago.
(Blind faith in the tax cut mantra...yet another reason Scott Walker is unfit for governor.)
For Further Reading:
Because I Said So Is Not An Answer
Failing To Pass The Laffer Test
Scott Walker Puts Milwaukee County Residents at Risk
Slippery Scott Selling Snake Oil
Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues
Tax Cuts: Myths & Realities
Who's Laffer-ing Now?
As James Rowen highlights, John Kovari, of the Public Policy Forum, finds more corroborating evidence to support this conclusion.
The fact that we as a society and as policy makers have to point out, over and over again, that tax cuts are not a panacea for growth is depressing. As Oliver Wendell Holmes stated, taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.
It's time we revert back to an evidence-based policy-making environment. We cannot allow the Republicans, and the pliant media, to keep telling us black is white. This debate should have ended long ago.
(Blind faith in the tax cut mantra...yet another reason Scott Walker is unfit for governor.)
For Further Reading:
Because I Said So Is Not An Answer
Failing To Pass The Laffer Test
Scott Walker Puts Milwaukee County Residents at Risk
Slippery Scott Selling Snake Oil
Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues
Tax Cuts: Myths & Realities
Who's Laffer-ing Now?
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Drama Queen
Sarah Palin claims to not like drama. She’s much too sophisticated for such pettiness. Yet, every chance she has, she amplifies the drama.
This is all done, obviously, to keep her name in the media, to ensure book deals and speaking engagements, and to keep attention on someone whom, without such drama, would be a non-entity.
Update:
Stephen Colbert comments on Sarah Palin's "steaming pile of s@#%" that is her book.
For Further Reading:
Sarah Palin's Top 10 Falsehoods
The 18 Biggest Falsehoods in Sarah Palin's Book
Monday, November 16, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Job Creation
Two good articles from the Journal Sentinel (here and here) highlighting the need for job creation programs. This should be the focus of the next stimulus package.
For Further Reading:
It's About Job Shortage, Not Skills Mismatch
It's No Time To Cut Public Investments
Job Creation Versus Training
Potential Funding Sources for Public Job Creation Initiatives
Promising Findings From Ten Public Job Creation Initiatives
The Challenge of Job Creation
For Further Reading:
It's About Job Shortage, Not Skills Mismatch
It's No Time To Cut Public Investments
Job Creation Versus Training
Potential Funding Sources for Public Job Creation Initiatives
Promising Findings From Ten Public Job Creation Initiatives
The Challenge of Job Creation
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Watering Down Corporate Accountability
Lately, there's been a big push for making Milwaukee a water research hub. Richard Meeusen, CEO of Badger Meter Inc. and board member of WMC, has been one of the number one cheerleaders behind such efforts.
In 2003, Badger Meter paid $125, 728 in corporate income taxes. In 2004, they paid $418,391. 2009 net earnings of Badger Meter were $14.35 million; alongside $60.8 million in sales. The IRS recently allowed Badger Meter "a tax break on operations in France the company discontinued in 2006." Badger Meter has also outsourced some research and development as another cost-savings measure. Next year, the company will move one-third of it's factory jobs to Mexico. Even though Badger Meter's sales were down 11.6 percent from 2008 ($68.83 million) to 2009 ($60.81), their net income was up 146 percent ($5.83 million to $14.36 million).
In 2007 Richard Meeusen was compensated $842,331 (1.2 percent of earnings; 14.4 percent of net income). In 2008 he made $1,082,133 (1.8 percent of earnings; 8 percent of net income).
Are these the types of companies we want to lead our community forward? Public-private partnerships (taxpayers partially fund the costs, private entities get the profits) are the norm. But knowing this, why would we continue to push this inverse Robin Hood scheme of having general taxpayers finance private sector speculation? In this case, pumping private dollars into facilities and research and allowing the transfer of this knowledge to private entities for their profit. Why must the knowledge and discoveries of our universities and public sector be spun off to private entities? Why would we allow such efforts to be outsourced to Mexico? In the long-run it seems such efforts would be better kept in public hands under local control. Especially in the case of water, which is now recognized as our most valuable resource.
Badger Meter benefits heavily, already from the tax code. Now they are positioning themselves for yet another subsidy, by piggybacking the frenzied environment of "water research" in the City.
The same companies that benefit from such public investment are usually the ones barking in the media about a "government takeover," "socialist policies," and the unfairness of social programs and policies that support the neediest. (Even those these programs are only 1 percent of the State budget.) Contrarily, they never fail to have their hand out.
If these companies would also be promoting living wages, secure retirements, universal health care, unionization, and other social goods, I'd have no problem with a portion of public dollars investing in such responsible, community-oriented companies. Sadly, this is rarely the case. Therefore, it's time to turn off the subsidy/tax-break spigot and allow these companies to operate in the "free" market they so adore.
Update:
The Journal Sentinel gave an editorial platform to Richard Meeusen and Paul Jones, CEO of AO Smith, to disparage the University of Wisconsin investigating whether or not to implement water programs at 13 of the university's campuses. They feel it would dilute the efforts and spread the initiative too thin.
[If this water research initiative is the end-all, be-all, why hasn't their been any discussion and debate about it? The only opposition to putting all our eggs in one basket, came from UWM professor Marc Levine. The reaction to his research, which completely debunked the idea of an entrepreneurial university and Milwaukee as water research hub, was derision and unresponsiveness. UWM's water program deserves investment. (So do many other university programs.) But this isn't about whether or not they are deserving, it is precisely about placing all our bets on one roll of the dice. Being such astute businessmen, I'm sure Meeusen and Smith can appreciate portfolio diversification.]
I don't completely disagree with Meeusen and Smith's reaction. Although their view may have more to do with concentrating the efforts and investment near their businesses in Milwaukee, than with a truly altruistic dedication to water research. Campuses such as Green Bay, Superior, and Parkside, which are also on/near Lakes Superior and Michigan, could be valuable partners in water research.
In 2003, Badger Meter paid $125, 728 in corporate income taxes. In 2004, they paid $418,391. 2009 net earnings of Badger Meter were $14.35 million; alongside $60.8 million in sales. The IRS recently allowed Badger Meter "a tax break on operations in France the company discontinued in 2006." Badger Meter has also outsourced some research and development as another cost-savings measure. Next year, the company will move one-third of it's factory jobs to Mexico. Even though Badger Meter's sales were down 11.6 percent from 2008 ($68.83 million) to 2009 ($60.81), their net income was up 146 percent ($5.83 million to $14.36 million).
In 2007 Richard Meeusen was compensated $842,331 (1.2 percent of earnings; 14.4 percent of net income). In 2008 he made $1,082,133 (1.8 percent of earnings; 8 percent of net income).
Are these the types of companies we want to lead our community forward? Public-private partnerships (taxpayers partially fund the costs, private entities get the profits) are the norm. But knowing this, why would we continue to push this inverse Robin Hood scheme of having general taxpayers finance private sector speculation? In this case, pumping private dollars into facilities and research and allowing the transfer of this knowledge to private entities for their profit. Why must the knowledge and discoveries of our universities and public sector be spun off to private entities? Why would we allow such efforts to be outsourced to Mexico? In the long-run it seems such efforts would be better kept in public hands under local control. Especially in the case of water, which is now recognized as our most valuable resource.
Badger Meter benefits heavily, already from the tax code. Now they are positioning themselves for yet another subsidy, by piggybacking the frenzied environment of "water research" in the City.
The same companies that benefit from such public investment are usually the ones barking in the media about a "government takeover," "socialist policies," and the unfairness of social programs and policies that support the neediest. (Even those these programs are only 1 percent of the State budget.) Contrarily, they never fail to have their hand out.
If these companies would also be promoting living wages, secure retirements, universal health care, unionization, and other social goods, I'd have no problem with a portion of public dollars investing in such responsible, community-oriented companies. Sadly, this is rarely the case. Therefore, it's time to turn off the subsidy/tax-break spigot and allow these companies to operate in the "free" market they so adore.
Update:
The Journal Sentinel gave an editorial platform to Richard Meeusen and Paul Jones, CEO of AO Smith, to disparage the University of Wisconsin investigating whether or not to implement water programs at 13 of the university's campuses. They feel it would dilute the efforts and spread the initiative too thin.
[If this water research initiative is the end-all, be-all, why hasn't their been any discussion and debate about it? The only opposition to putting all our eggs in one basket, came from UWM professor Marc Levine. The reaction to his research, which completely debunked the idea of an entrepreneurial university and Milwaukee as water research hub, was derision and unresponsiveness. UWM's water program deserves investment. (So do many other university programs.) But this isn't about whether or not they are deserving, it is precisely about placing all our bets on one roll of the dice. Being such astute businessmen, I'm sure Meeusen and Smith can appreciate portfolio diversification.]
I don't completely disagree with Meeusen and Smith's reaction. Although their view may have more to do with concentrating the efforts and investment near their businesses in Milwaukee, than with a truly altruistic dedication to water research. Campuses such as Green Bay, Superior, and Parkside, which are also on/near Lakes Superior and Michigan, could be valuable partners in water research.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Save Our City
We are finally beginning to publicly discuss UWM's "entrepreneurial" strategy, specifically their proposed engineering school on County grounds near Wauwatosa. Too bad much of the dialogue is condescending and superficial. The cabal of power brokers hell-bent on pushing forward with the suburban location are rather dismissive and disdainful of anyone questioning such a move.
Their well-reasoned and sound analysis, supporting such a suburban locale, comes in such stellar verifications as, "may offer," "difficult to measure," and "there is no guarantee that new research will bear fruit." Alongside such airtight assurances, platitudes such as, "Milwaukee needs to take a risk," and "we have to get in the game," are paraded out by sympathetic cheerleaders.
The "long-term potential is very strong," claims Rita Cheng, UWM vice chancellor for academic affairs. Just saying so, they seem to feel, makes it so. And, in the same article, Tom Daykin of the Journal Sentinel reports Michael Lovell, dean of UWM's College of Engineering and Applied Science, agrees. What a surprise that the dean of an engineering school would agree with an massive infusion of investment dollars into his department.
Their sloganeering and incessant boosterism is reminiscent of the lottery: "You gotta get in it, if you want to win it!" The problem is, the chances of UWM and Milwaukee winning with this investment are similar to the odds of actually winning the lottery. Faced with an actual analysis revealing the experience of the majority of universities over the past few decades attempting an "entrepreneurial" strategy has been a poor return on their investment, the cabal, like Pollyanna, bury their collective head in the sand and reaffirm, Stick To The Plan.
For an urban university to march forward with expansion plans in the suburbs, in this age of environmental awareness, borders on criminal. Growing within the City and encouraging others to do such...talk about an opportunity to have a long-lasting, sustainable, and community-friendly impact.
There is nothing quite as intellectually dishonest as academics, supposedly schooled in the scientific method, showing an aversion to data collection and analysis, open debate, and allowing the research to lead us to the most optimal conclusions. No. The cheerleaders will have none of that.
The Journal Sentinel editorial, as usual, is right behind, beating the drum. They believe UWM is "right to stick to the plan." They never corroborate why UWM must stay the course, provide any research findings or data collection of their own, or quantify why this facility, at this location, is a can't-miss and a must-do for Milwaukee.
The Journal editorial is a collection of anecdotes. The Journal, along with fellow boosters, completely ignores the actual return other universities have experienced regarding such developments [not] initiating collaborative efforts and [nor] attracting venture capital. All this in addition to the fact that the other supposed outcomes these snakeoil salesmen are promising have not been the results for the majority of other universities.
This doesn't mean not to build new facilities somewhere, or that the programs are somehow undeserving of investment. But maybe they can be scaled back a bit. Let's possibly revitalize older buildings or blighted strips in older neighborhoods of the city. (Which could spur investment in the most needy areas of the city, while also moving the university forward.) The investment could also be spread out over more of the departments at the university, capitalizing on numerous strengths, rather than putting all the eggs in one or two baskets.
There are more options available. There is no need to rush ahead with the suburban proposal. The University and the City need to look at this a bit more carefully before they make any decisions that will affect our City and it's largest public university for many generations to come.
Their well-reasoned and sound analysis, supporting such a suburban locale, comes in such stellar verifications as, "may offer," "difficult to measure," and "there is no guarantee that new research will bear fruit." Alongside such airtight assurances, platitudes such as, "Milwaukee needs to take a risk," and "we have to get in the game," are paraded out by sympathetic cheerleaders.
The "long-term potential is very strong," claims Rita Cheng, UWM vice chancellor for academic affairs. Just saying so, they seem to feel, makes it so. And, in the same article, Tom Daykin of the Journal Sentinel reports Michael Lovell, dean of UWM's College of Engineering and Applied Science, agrees. What a surprise that the dean of an engineering school would agree with an massive infusion of investment dollars into his department.
Their sloganeering and incessant boosterism is reminiscent of the lottery: "You gotta get in it, if you want to win it!" The problem is, the chances of UWM and Milwaukee winning with this investment are similar to the odds of actually winning the lottery. Faced with an actual analysis revealing the experience of the majority of universities over the past few decades attempting an "entrepreneurial" strategy has been a poor return on their investment, the cabal, like Pollyanna, bury their collective head in the sand and reaffirm, Stick To The Plan.
For an urban university to march forward with expansion plans in the suburbs, in this age of environmental awareness, borders on criminal. Growing within the City and encouraging others to do such...talk about an opportunity to have a long-lasting, sustainable, and community-friendly impact.
There is nothing quite as intellectually dishonest as academics, supposedly schooled in the scientific method, showing an aversion to data collection and analysis, open debate, and allowing the research to lead us to the most optimal conclusions. No. The cheerleaders will have none of that.
The Journal Sentinel editorial, as usual, is right behind, beating the drum. They believe UWM is "right to stick to the plan." They never corroborate why UWM must stay the course, provide any research findings or data collection of their own, or quantify why this facility, at this location, is a can't-miss and a must-do for Milwaukee.
The Journal editorial is a collection of anecdotes. The Journal, along with fellow boosters, completely ignores the actual return other universities have experienced regarding such developments [not] initiating collaborative efforts and [nor] attracting venture capital. All this in addition to the fact that the other supposed outcomes these snakeoil salesmen are promising have not been the results for the majority of other universities.
This doesn't mean not to build new facilities somewhere, or that the programs are somehow undeserving of investment. But maybe they can be scaled back a bit. Let's possibly revitalize older buildings or blighted strips in older neighborhoods of the city. (Which could spur investment in the most needy areas of the city, while also moving the university forward.) The investment could also be spread out over more of the departments at the university, capitalizing on numerous strengths, rather than putting all the eggs in one or two baskets.
There are more options available. There is no need to rush ahead with the suburban proposal. The University and the City need to look at this a bit more carefully before they make any decisions that will affect our City and it's largest public university for many generations to come.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
The Funnies
Lies, Lies, Lies
As is their wont, the right-wing is energetically espousing revisionist and false views, and accomplishing their objective of having these lies envelop and permeate public discourse, thereby, sadly, steering the debate.
Complaints regarding President Obama's employment numbers are simply petty, bitter, and nothing less than an attempt to besmirch the President and score political points.
First, stimulus policies have stabilized what could have been a second Great Depression. And, let's not forget which party was in office the last eight years, not dithering, but actively encouraging the bubble economy by continuing to deregulate, loosening monetary policy, and a completely disregarding any oversight.
Second, to expect the Obama administration to overcome this economic juggernaut of a mess in the ten months they have been in office [some started complaining merely weeks into his first term] is not only mind-boggling, it shows a complete lack of understanding of economics, business cycles, and previous economic downturns and their recoveries.
How many jobs did George Bush create per year while he was in office? 375,00 - the worst total among U.S. presidents. Unemployment increased from 4.2 to 7.2 percent during the Bush reign. This all after inheriting a surplus from the Clinton administration. The fact that Bush pissed that away with giveaways and tax cuts to his cronies didn't help matters.
These facts are never mentioned by the right and their sheep. They pretend Barack Obama created all of these problems since taking office. And, let's not forget, the initial $700 billion bailout was initiated by the outgoing Bush administration.
During an economic recovery, the initial-phase success gauge is "jobs saved." One can not seriously expect some magical initiative to simply revert the economy back to full employment overnight. Or are these cranks advocating a Public Works Program?
The general idea, and hope, is to return to a more stable and sustainable economy. Slowly returning to full employment, with the ability to create steady growth while maintaining less volatility in the market. Thus enabling, again, full employment.
To pretend trillions of dollars, due to the collapsed bubble, in lost wealth can be re-created within a few months is disingenuous and counterproductive to our discourse. These critics have two choices (as I see it): sit back, enjoy unemployment, and wait for the market to correct everything, which could take a while; or, allow the government to create public jobs (repairing infrastructure, etc.) and spend on needed policies and programs to make up the difference now.
Complaints regarding President Obama's employment numbers are simply petty, bitter, and nothing less than an attempt to besmirch the President and score political points.
First, stimulus policies have stabilized what could have been a second Great Depression. And, let's not forget which party was in office the last eight years, not dithering, but actively encouraging the bubble economy by continuing to deregulate, loosening monetary policy, and a completely disregarding any oversight.
Second, to expect the Obama administration to overcome this economic juggernaut of a mess in the ten months they have been in office [some started complaining merely weeks into his first term] is not only mind-boggling, it shows a complete lack of understanding of economics, business cycles, and previous economic downturns and their recoveries.
How many jobs did George Bush create per year while he was in office? 375,00 - the worst total among U.S. presidents. Unemployment increased from 4.2 to 7.2 percent during the Bush reign. This all after inheriting a surplus from the Clinton administration. The fact that Bush pissed that away with giveaways and tax cuts to his cronies didn't help matters.
These facts are never mentioned by the right and their sheep. They pretend Barack Obama created all of these problems since taking office. And, let's not forget, the initial $700 billion bailout was initiated by the outgoing Bush administration.
During an economic recovery, the initial-phase success gauge is "jobs saved." One can not seriously expect some magical initiative to simply revert the economy back to full employment overnight. Or are these cranks advocating a Public Works Program?
The general idea, and hope, is to return to a more stable and sustainable economy. Slowly returning to full employment, with the ability to create steady growth while maintaining less volatility in the market. Thus enabling, again, full employment.
To pretend trillions of dollars, due to the collapsed bubble, in lost wealth can be re-created within a few months is disingenuous and counterproductive to our discourse. These critics have two choices (as I see it): sit back, enjoy unemployment, and wait for the market to correct everything, which could take a while; or, allow the government to create public jobs (repairing infrastructure, etc.) and spend on needed policies and programs to make up the difference now.
Development Idea(s) Vacancy
More hilarity from the Journal Sentinel in Right Place, Right Time.
Yes, more development boosterism. They editorialize about the Moderne, on Third and Juneau, being a project that will "kick-start" the Park East. And it will only cost the city "about $10 million."
They quote a Wally Morics' (City Comptroller) report, "The City is not a bank, and the loans would set a precedent for city support." Newsflash: that precedent was set decades ago. Public-private partnerships are old hat. Taxpayers have been funding a whole host of private playgrounds for years.
We've been using, primarily, our bonding to fund private real estate speculation, rather than having our money invested in public transportation, sick leave, a living wage, and other more specifically public uses.
The article rambles on about, "special circumstances," and "the quality of this project." It's 203 apartments and 14 condos. How such a project addresses the "special circumstances" or is of such high "quality" is unknown.
The editorial also implies a need for more downtown apartments. No analysis is given to support such claims. Then, in the very next sentence, they talk of how the condo market isn't doing very well. Won't some of the vacant condo projects, that are already out there, be rented as apartments? We should subsidize more vacant space? Is that the best use of our investment dollar?
Yes, more development boosterism. They editorialize about the Moderne, on Third and Juneau, being a project that will "kick-start" the Park East. And it will only cost the city "about $10 million."
They quote a Wally Morics' (City Comptroller) report, "The City is not a bank, and the loans would set a precedent for city support." Newsflash: that precedent was set decades ago. Public-private partnerships are old hat. Taxpayers have been funding a whole host of private playgrounds for years.
We've been using, primarily, our bonding to fund private real estate speculation, rather than having our money invested in public transportation, sick leave, a living wage, and other more specifically public uses.
The article rambles on about, "special circumstances," and "the quality of this project." It's 203 apartments and 14 condos. How such a project addresses the "special circumstances" or is of such high "quality" is unknown.
The editorial also implies a need for more downtown apartments. No analysis is given to support such claims. Then, in the very next sentence, they talk of how the condo market isn't doing very well. Won't some of the vacant condo projects, that are already out there, be rented as apartments? We should subsidize more vacant space? Is that the best use of our investment dollar?
Luring Lunacy
The Journal Sentinel's 'bend over and take it for business' boosterism is on full display in Tax Credits, Loans Luring Entrepreneurial Start-ups.
The article basically rounds up the cast of giveaways Wisconsin (and others) uses to try to attract and retain business. It then concedes they work wonderfully and we need more. Yet the rankings and dollar amounts they highlight in the article hardly support any such conclusion.
There is no discussion in the piece regarding this 'site-consultant, tax break, war-among-the-states' paradigm upon which the development world operates. It is simply presented with no contemplation of alternatives. There could have been some deliberation or opposing viewpoints describing this system as inefficient bribery and blackmail, distorting more optimal and effective outcomes and locational decisions.
Does the Journal Sentinel report anymore or are they just corporate PR shills?
The article basically rounds up the cast of giveaways Wisconsin (and others) uses to try to attract and retain business. It then concedes they work wonderfully and we need more. Yet the rankings and dollar amounts they highlight in the article hardly support any such conclusion.
There is no discussion in the piece regarding this 'site-consultant, tax break, war-among-the-states' paradigm upon which the development world operates. It is simply presented with no contemplation of alternatives. There could have been some deliberation or opposing viewpoints describing this system as inefficient bribery and blackmail, distorting more optimal and effective outcomes and locational decisions.
Does the Journal Sentinel report anymore or are they just corporate PR shills?
A Giant Sucking Sound
Half of the $1.4 trillion in commercial real estate mortgages due in the next five years currently owe more than they're worth.
We're not out of the woods yet. We should listen to Joe Stiglitz, nationalize bad banks, and get these toxic assets out of the system already.
For Further Reading:
Commercial Real Estate Is Next
Yet Another Bubble
We're not out of the woods yet. We should listen to Joe Stiglitz, nationalize bad banks, and get these toxic assets out of the system already.
For Further Reading:
Commercial Real Estate Is Next
Yet Another Bubble
Holding Cities Hostage
The Institute for Wisconsin's Future has the whole story of the Mercury Marine debacle.
For Further Reading:
Mercury Marine Twisted Saga
For Further Reading:
Mercury Marine Twisted Saga
Soak 'Em
Shouldn't the water rate increase difference between the City and the suburbs be a disincentive for persons or businesses to locate in the suburbs? I can accept higher water rates as a City resident. But suburban rates should be substantially higher, to dissuade further sprawl. Shouldn't the cost of water be one of the main tools used in nudging greater density and more environmentally conscious development? [Kind of like the cost of gasoline, but that's for another day.]
The current City proposal wants to increase the City 28.5 percent and the suburbs 36 percent. The average City resident will pay about $.47 more per day. While the average suburban resident will pay $.59 more per day. Hardly enough to discourage unsustainable development.
Yet, even this minuscule increase has the suburbs up in arms. They feel they shouldn't have to pay more to "support Milwaukee's general fund, since they would see no benefits from more money for general city operations."
Yes, I guess the suburban leaders are really that ignorant. They believe their growth was in spite of and not due to or aided by Milwaukee. Freeways do nothing to help cities, since they allow the majority of traffic to bypass city streets. Yet, we keep building them to the benefit of the suburbs. Their shortsightedness and selfishness is really appalling.
Rather than offering free water to attract businesses to the City, they could just put in place a rate structure which would make the City the obviously better choice. Thus, making such a site selection decision a no-brainer because of the evident savings.
If the suburbs want/need Milwaukee water, I say, "Soak 'em!"
The current City proposal wants to increase the City 28.5 percent and the suburbs 36 percent. The average City resident will pay about $.47 more per day. While the average suburban resident will pay $.59 more per day. Hardly enough to discourage unsustainable development.
Yet, even this minuscule increase has the suburbs up in arms. They feel they shouldn't have to pay more to "support Milwaukee's general fund, since they would see no benefits from more money for general city operations."
Yes, I guess the suburban leaders are really that ignorant. They believe their growth was in spite of and not due to or aided by Milwaukee. Freeways do nothing to help cities, since they allow the majority of traffic to bypass city streets. Yet, we keep building them to the benefit of the suburbs. Their shortsightedness and selfishness is really appalling.
Rather than offering free water to attract businesses to the City, they could just put in place a rate structure which would make the City the obviously better choice. Thus, making such a site selection decision a no-brainer because of the evident savings.
If the suburbs want/need Milwaukee water, I say, "Soak 'em!"
Friday, November 6, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Impatience
After eight years of shit, and Obama being unable to bring the world back from the brink of destruction in ten months, we need to keep banging our head against the same old wall.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Fair and Balanced Puerility
"A man-child...a large ego...narcissistic..."
The negatives, outlandish claims, and petty personal insults are aplenty in this "educational" interview.
Guess who?
Impetuously, and without a trace of self-awareness, that is Rush Limbaugh describing President Obama to Chris Wallace.
The negatives, outlandish claims, and petty personal insults are aplenty in this "educational" interview.
Guess who?
Impetuously, and without a trace of self-awareness, that is Rush Limbaugh describing President Obama to Chris Wallace.
Taking The Long View
John Gurda has a great article with some thoughtful points regarding the future of Milwaukee, the public sector, taxes, and the irrelevancy we will face if we keep making the wrong choices.
All Wet
Do we have to give our water away?
The City of Milwaukee is considering giving free water to businesses that locate in the City and create jobs.
We have a comparative advantage in water and lower water rates than most of the country. This means "water-intensive" industries locating in Milwaukee would pay cheaper rates than they would in alternate suburban or water-starved areas. This is already a cost-savings for business.
The "low-cost" option, reduced rates for a defined period of time (contingent upon job creation and retention over that period) may be understandable as an additional attraction incentive. But completely free water seems a bit much.
In this new era of water wars, a reduced rate, alone, should attract business.
Water is a finite resource. Lets not give it away.
The City of Milwaukee is considering giving free water to businesses that locate in the City and create jobs.
We have a comparative advantage in water and lower water rates than most of the country. This means "water-intensive" industries locating in Milwaukee would pay cheaper rates than they would in alternate suburban or water-starved areas. This is already a cost-savings for business.
The "low-cost" option, reduced rates for a defined period of time (contingent upon job creation and retention over that period) may be understandable as an additional attraction incentive. But completely free water seems a bit much.
In this new era of water wars, a reduced rate, alone, should attract business.
Water is a finite resource. Lets not give it away.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Growth At Any Cost
Just pondering here...
Our local "watchdog," the Journal Sentinel always supports (if not outright, at minimum with a subdued advocacy): real estate development, stadiums, convention centers, pretty much any spending proposed by our private sector growth machine.
I'm all for the unionized jobs created by projects. Especially if they're publicly-supported projects, they need to be employed with union workers. I just think there are projects that are more important and make more sense for our economy, now and in the long-run.
Do we need more apartments and condos? If so, how about we repair blighted buildings, rather than building anew. Why not steer the investment toward the most depressed and needful areas of our city? Aren't there more important issues to address, which will also provide a better return on investment?
Conversely, why is the Journal Sentinel always against: sick leave, prevailing wage clauses, community benefits agreements, union workers, pretty much any public-sector-related (or moral) issue, program, or project?
For Further Reading:
Sick Over Sick Days
Our local "watchdog," the Journal Sentinel always supports (if not outright, at minimum with a subdued advocacy): real estate development, stadiums, convention centers, pretty much any spending proposed by our private sector growth machine.
I'm all for the unionized jobs created by projects. Especially if they're publicly-supported projects, they need to be employed with union workers. I just think there are projects that are more important and make more sense for our economy, now and in the long-run.
Do we need more apartments and condos? If so, how about we repair blighted buildings, rather than building anew. Why not steer the investment toward the most depressed and needful areas of our city? Aren't there more important issues to address, which will also provide a better return on investment?
Conversely, why is the Journal Sentinel always against: sick leave, prevailing wage clauses, community benefits agreements, union workers, pretty much any public-sector-related (or moral) issue, program, or project?
For Further Reading:
Sick Over Sick Days
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The Middleman's Cut
One-third of the cost of our health care system is purely waste.
That's private sector efficiency for you. It's efficient at steering money into the capitalists' and their cronies pockets. But it doesn't do much for the rest of us.
Cutting out the wasteful, private-sector middle-man, by itself, would pay for universal medical coverage.
That's private sector efficiency for you. It's efficient at steering money into the capitalists' and their cronies pockets. But it doesn't do much for the rest of us.
Cutting out the wasteful, private-sector middle-man, by itself, would pay for universal medical coverage.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Stadium Swindle
The rumblings have been increasing for a few years now. Another boondoggle is about to be thrust upon the Milwaukee metropolitan area taxpayers: public subsidization of a new basketball arena for the Milwaukee Bucks. (The Bucks just received $5 million, over two years, for renovations from the State in the latest budget.)
The usual story-line is being presented. Many of the same characters and boosters of the Miller Park swindle are involved in securing public money to build a new private basketball stadium. Many of the same mantras and "benefits" are blathered about and claimed whether the project is a stadium, a convention center, an industrial park, a research park, and a host of other supposed economic "game changers" and "engines."
We need to do this. If we don't, the Bucks may leave. The team can't compete with such an outdated stadium. We have to keep the team to remain a "major league" city. [Whatever would we do with our leisure time and money if we didn't have a professional basketball team?] If you build it, many jobs will be created, it will attract tourists, and it will drive other business creation nearby the stadium and throughout the region.
In a few cases, this is true. In the majority of cities, these claims are demonstrably false. The modern-day, largely publicly-financed stadium is a white elephant representing regressive urban tax and economic policy. The primary beneficiaries of new stadium construction are the team owners and players.
The Bradley Center is Non-Union
Facilities built with public money should employ unionized workers earning a living wage, with health care benefits, a stable retirement plan, and the ability to collectively bargain. Public dollars should not be used to subsidize low-wage, seasonal employment.
Job Creation and Spillover
Economists whom have gathered the employment numbers of census tracts, cities, metro areas, and zip codes near newly built stadiums have found no meaningful improvement due to the construction of a new stadium. My own research uncovered declines in employment in the sectors most linked to stadium commerce (retail, restaurant, etc.) in the years up to construction and following completion.
These jobs are primarily seasonal, lacking benefits, and do not pay a living wage. Actively subsidizing such employment attracts less-skilled workers and does nothing to improve the future prospects for a highly-skilled, high value workforce.
New Business Creation
Likewise, the sectors most linked to stadium commerce also show no significant increase in new businesses. Again, many cities actually have experienced a decline. Most new stadium developments are self-contained islands with shopping, food, parking, and numerous other retail activities. People come to the games, park on expansive (and environmentally insensitive) parking lots, spend money within the stadium, and then drive home. Many newer stadiums are located off exit ramps; there is no pedestrian-friendly element that ties the stadium to the adjacent neighborhood. More often, the stadium becomes a competitive drain on other local taverns, restaurants, and retail stores nearby.
Intangible "Major League" Status
It sounds cool to say, "We're in the big leagues!" But what does it really mean? And how is it measured so that we may understand, quantitatively, how it is benefiting us. Policy and investment decisions should be based on rigorous analysis and visible rewards, not wishful thinking and snappy sloganeering.
Tourism Delusions, Realignment and Substitution
The majority of those attending games come from within the metropolitan area. For a city, or a region, to actually experience growth, to achieve some sort of gain from hosting games, people need to come from outside the region. Otherwise attendees are merely realigning their spending within the area; no growth is taking place. And, even if someone from Chicago does attend a game in Milwaukee, if the money they spend is money they would have otherwise spent in Chicago, there is no net gain for the region as a whole. Unless attending the game is money they otherwise would not have spent, growth is not occurring. A zero sum game.
"Fantasy City" Investment Strategy
Every city can not be a sports mecca, a convention behemoth, nor a tourism magnet. The more every city keeps trying to emulate each other with the same, largely unsubstantiated, development strategies, more will be losers. Development needs to build on comparative advantages, sectoral strengths, and labor force skills. Trying to mold a city's future to meet the successes of another with a completely different set of historical circumstances and skill-sets is lunacy. Largely, throwing money down the drain.
Opportunity Cost
Millions spent on stadiums can not be spent on other, more pressing, needs. Money given to the Bradley Center and Miller Park is money we can't use on replacing the Hoan Bridge, redeveloping the Pabst Brewery, cleaning up the Kinnickinnic River, building a high-speed rail network, cleaning up the Great Lakes, along with a litany of more important investment choices.
Conclusion
It's time private entities, especially those as extracurricular as sports, paid their own expenses. This is yet another sector of the economy where we've allowed a 'too big to fail' model hamstring our development options and leave us open to bribery and threats of leaving. Federal legislation is needed to end this war among the cities and to break up the cartel that is major league sports.
For Further Reading:
A Public Plan
Drowning in Delusions
Loot, Loot, Loot For The Home Team
Nudging Away Nonsense
Professional Sports Subsidies
Should Cities Pay For Sports Facilities
Stadium Subsidies
Subsidy Resources
Welcome to Walmart
The usual story-line is being presented. Many of the same characters and boosters of the Miller Park swindle are involved in securing public money to build a new private basketball stadium. Many of the same mantras and "benefits" are blathered about and claimed whether the project is a stadium, a convention center, an industrial park, a research park, and a host of other supposed economic "game changers" and "engines."
We need to do this. If we don't, the Bucks may leave. The team can't compete with such an outdated stadium. We have to keep the team to remain a "major league" city. [Whatever would we do with our leisure time and money if we didn't have a professional basketball team?] If you build it, many jobs will be created, it will attract tourists, and it will drive other business creation nearby the stadium and throughout the region.
In a few cases, this is true. In the majority of cities, these claims are demonstrably false. The modern-day, largely publicly-financed stadium is a white elephant representing regressive urban tax and economic policy. The primary beneficiaries of new stadium construction are the team owners and players.
The Bradley Center is Non-Union
Facilities built with public money should employ unionized workers earning a living wage, with health care benefits, a stable retirement plan, and the ability to collectively bargain. Public dollars should not be used to subsidize low-wage, seasonal employment.
Job Creation and Spillover
Economists whom have gathered the employment numbers of census tracts, cities, metro areas, and zip codes near newly built stadiums have found no meaningful improvement due to the construction of a new stadium. My own research uncovered declines in employment in the sectors most linked to stadium commerce (retail, restaurant, etc.) in the years up to construction and following completion.
These jobs are primarily seasonal, lacking benefits, and do not pay a living wage. Actively subsidizing such employment attracts less-skilled workers and does nothing to improve the future prospects for a highly-skilled, high value workforce.
New Business Creation
Likewise, the sectors most linked to stadium commerce also show no significant increase in new businesses. Again, many cities actually have experienced a decline. Most new stadium developments are self-contained islands with shopping, food, parking, and numerous other retail activities. People come to the games, park on expansive (and environmentally insensitive) parking lots, spend money within the stadium, and then drive home. Many newer stadiums are located off exit ramps; there is no pedestrian-friendly element that ties the stadium to the adjacent neighborhood. More often, the stadium becomes a competitive drain on other local taverns, restaurants, and retail stores nearby.
Intangible "Major League" Status
It sounds cool to say, "We're in the big leagues!" But what does it really mean? And how is it measured so that we may understand, quantitatively, how it is benefiting us. Policy and investment decisions should be based on rigorous analysis and visible rewards, not wishful thinking and snappy sloganeering.
Tourism Delusions, Realignment and Substitution
The majority of those attending games come from within the metropolitan area. For a city, or a region, to actually experience growth, to achieve some sort of gain from hosting games, people need to come from outside the region. Otherwise attendees are merely realigning their spending within the area; no growth is taking place. And, even if someone from Chicago does attend a game in Milwaukee, if the money they spend is money they would have otherwise spent in Chicago, there is no net gain for the region as a whole. Unless attending the game is money they otherwise would not have spent, growth is not occurring. A zero sum game.
"Fantasy City" Investment Strategy
Every city can not be a sports mecca, a convention behemoth, nor a tourism magnet. The more every city keeps trying to emulate each other with the same, largely unsubstantiated, development strategies, more will be losers. Development needs to build on comparative advantages, sectoral strengths, and labor force skills. Trying to mold a city's future to meet the successes of another with a completely different set of historical circumstances and skill-sets is lunacy. Largely, throwing money down the drain.
Opportunity Cost
Millions spent on stadiums can not be spent on other, more pressing, needs. Money given to the Bradley Center and Miller Park is money we can't use on replacing the Hoan Bridge, redeveloping the Pabst Brewery, cleaning up the Kinnickinnic River, building a high-speed rail network, cleaning up the Great Lakes, along with a litany of more important investment choices.
Conclusion
It's time private entities, especially those as extracurricular as sports, paid their own expenses. This is yet another sector of the economy where we've allowed a 'too big to fail' model hamstring our development options and leave us open to bribery and threats of leaving. Federal legislation is needed to end this war among the cities and to break up the cartel that is major league sports.
For Further Reading:
A Public Plan
Drowning in Delusions
Loot, Loot, Loot For The Home Team
Nudging Away Nonsense
Professional Sports Subsidies
Should Cities Pay For Sports Facilities
Stadium Subsidies
Subsidy Resources
Welcome to Walmart
Rewarding Corruption
Dean Baker wonders Why Are Contracts for AIG Execs Different Than Contracts for Autoworkers?
"Back in the spring, the Obama administration had no problem insisting that union autoworkers give up some of the health care benefits that they were entitled to in their contract. In some cases, workers had already put in more than 30 years earning these benefits. Note that this was before any of the manufacturers went into bankruptcy.
While these workers were forced to make large concessions on contractually promised benefits, we are told yet again that AIG, an effectively bankrupt company, has a contractual obligation to pay big bonuses to its top executives and traders. It would be interesting to hear why this would be the case and if it is legally committed, why shouldn't the company just go into bankruptcy now that the immediate post-Lehman panic is over."
Saturday, October 24, 2009
If It Wasn't For You Meddling Kids
The Journal Sentinel is against direct democracy.
"Last year, a coalition led by 9to5, the National Association of Working Women, put together a petition drive that ended up imposing a sick leave ordinance on businesses in the city of Milwaukee. The well-intentioned ordinance was in fact bad for business and economic development efforts, but it was approved anyway, although it later was overturned by the courts."
Development that benefits local workers, ordinances that allow people to take time off to care for a child or parent or personal illness, and businesses that encourage such activities are "bad" according to the Journal Sentinel.
The fact that this ordinance did not pass is yet another example of the spineless failures of the leadership of this City, including the local media. From throwing money at convention centers, stadiums, suburban research parks, or bribe-money to move a company two miles from Glendale to Milwaukee. Being one of only two major cities without or not planning a rail system. To continue beating our head against this same paradigm wishing for more equitable and stable results is insanity.
Also, the Journal Sentinel, good little soldier of the Growth Machine, could not forget to boost for Waukesha's water diversion. The suburbs are a big part (the majority actually) of the Journal's readership. Growth at the fringes, possibly selling more newspapers, is good for the Journal. Social justice and environmental sustainability be damned!
I'm sold glad these "watchdogs" are looking out for me.
For Further Reading:
Nudging Away Nonsense
Race To The Bottom
"Last year, a coalition led by 9to5, the National Association of Working Women, put together a petition drive that ended up imposing a sick leave ordinance on businesses in the city of Milwaukee. The well-intentioned ordinance was in fact bad for business and economic development efforts, but it was approved anyway, although it later was overturned by the courts."
Development that benefits local workers, ordinances that allow people to take time off to care for a child or parent or personal illness, and businesses that encourage such activities are "bad" according to the Journal Sentinel.
The fact that this ordinance did not pass is yet another example of the spineless failures of the leadership of this City, including the local media. From throwing money at convention centers, stadiums, suburban research parks, or bribe-money to move a company two miles from Glendale to Milwaukee. Being one of only two major cities without or not planning a rail system. To continue beating our head against this same paradigm wishing for more equitable and stable results is insanity.
Also, the Journal Sentinel, good little soldier of the Growth Machine, could not forget to boost for Waukesha's water diversion. The suburbs are a big part (the majority actually) of the Journal's readership. Growth at the fringes, possibly selling more newspapers, is good for the Journal. Social justice and environmental sustainability be damned!
I'm sold glad these "watchdogs" are looking out for me.
For Further Reading:
Nudging Away Nonsense
Race To The Bottom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)