During these recessionary times, with stubbornly high unemployment, Scott Walker wants to increase the requirements for providing unemployment benefits. (Whilst simultaneously reducing regulations on business.)
Scotty rode into town claiming (like all Republicans) he would create jobs and fix anything and everything else that might be broken. Tax cuts, deregulation, and privatization (again) was the answer (again) to all our problems.
Walker hasn't created anywhere near the jobs he promised during his campaigning. Which isn't much of a surprise since most of the legislation he has proposed has been payback to cronies or ideological chest-thumping to impress his base.
But this just seems punitive and wrong. Making it harder for people whom are already down on their luck to get unemployment benefits? Does Scotty not realize that this would further depress the economy? Has there been an explosion of unemployment benefit fraud sweeping Wisconsin? Does Walker realize there is only 1 job opening for every 3.3 persons looking? Should people be punished for not finding the job that isn't there?
If we're looking to cut costs/spending, shouldn't we first be looking at reducing the benefits (or increasing the tax rates) for those doing the best, rather than taking away the crumbs for those at the bottom?
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Residency Requirements
Much (in the last year) talk about ending the residency requirement for City of Milwaukee (especially for police and firefighters) has been bandied about. Primarily by persons whose motives, and interest in this topic, are unclear. The residency requirement has been in place since 1930. Why is the state interfering with a City of Milwaukee employment policy?
Recently, Gary Kraeger, a Wind Lake appraiser, weighed in - The Principles Of The Residency Rule. He opines, "Milwaukee is everyone's business in the state, especially since Milwaukee is very dependent on state money [state aid to Milwaukee has actually plummeted]... On a third hand, Milwaukee is the fourth-poorest big city in America [not sure where this number comes from, Kraeger doesn't say], at last word, and I suspect it might move up a bit if we dump the residency rule. In which case, I expect Milwaukee to need even more of our money. On another hand, it sounds sensible that if you want taxpayers to pay your salary in a community, you should be one of them. In that way, if your compensation benefits from high taxation, at least you're pulling the cart, too. Also, normally you care more about the community you live in."
Kraeger states, "On principle, however, the residency rule should be lifted and lifted by Milwaukee itself." Um, yeah, so if it should be up to Milwaukee, why are so many people outside of Milwaukee concerning themselves with Milwaukee governance?
"The biggest hand of all is the principle of freedom," claims Kraeger. When it comes down to it, Americans should be able to do what they want, when they want, and where they want. No rules, no questions.
Kraeger continues on describing how removing the requirement could hurt property values in the City. So, he has laid out numerous economic examples of why the residency requirement is in place. Numerous reasons why it should be there. But he then concludes that it should be ended. Why? Freedom.
If the ultimate rationale for an argument one poses is "freedom," one really doesn't have much of an argument or a rationale.
The residency requirement is a pretty simple, straight-forward policy - as a public worker, you should live in the city that employs you. The economic idea of "leakage" is addressed by such a policy. Much of the dollars earned by these public employees will be spent back within the community. Which also addresses the economic multiplier effect - money earned and spent in the same area, thus percolating and rippling throughout the local economy, over and over. As opposed to City of Milwaukee tax dollars funding a Milwaukee Police Officer who now lives in Waukesha and spends most of his/her money there.
There are 2,697 City of Milwaukee fire and police employees. The average police employee earns $65,649; for fire it's $67,554. This a potential $177 million dollars of earnings "leaking" out of the city, including property taxes, sales taxes, and other spending.
The possible loss of property taxes, spending at local businesses, and neighborhood stability are more than sufficient reasons for maintaining the requirement. The economics behind the requirement make it a no-brainer.
Governing is a set of rules. If you want to live or participate in certain communities you have to follow their rules. Some subdivisions make homeowners have 5-acre lots. Others require certain facades or materials be similar amongst the homes. If you don't like those rules, you go somewhere else. That's freedom. Freedom isn't doing away with things one doesn't like.
Recently, Gary Kraeger, a Wind Lake appraiser, weighed in - The Principles Of The Residency Rule. He opines, "Milwaukee is everyone's business in the state, especially since Milwaukee is very dependent on state money [state aid to Milwaukee has actually plummeted]... On a third hand, Milwaukee is the fourth-poorest big city in America [not sure where this number comes from, Kraeger doesn't say], at last word, and I suspect it might move up a bit if we dump the residency rule. In which case, I expect Milwaukee to need even more of our money. On another hand, it sounds sensible that if you want taxpayers to pay your salary in a community, you should be one of them. In that way, if your compensation benefits from high taxation, at least you're pulling the cart, too. Also, normally you care more about the community you live in."
Kraeger states, "On principle, however, the residency rule should be lifted and lifted by Milwaukee itself." Um, yeah, so if it should be up to Milwaukee, why are so many people outside of Milwaukee concerning themselves with Milwaukee governance?
"The biggest hand of all is the principle of freedom," claims Kraeger. When it comes down to it, Americans should be able to do what they want, when they want, and where they want. No rules, no questions.
Kraeger continues on describing how removing the requirement could hurt property values in the City. So, he has laid out numerous economic examples of why the residency requirement is in place. Numerous reasons why it should be there. But he then concludes that it should be ended. Why? Freedom.
If the ultimate rationale for an argument one poses is "freedom," one really doesn't have much of an argument or a rationale.
The residency requirement is a pretty simple, straight-forward policy - as a public worker, you should live in the city that employs you. The economic idea of "leakage" is addressed by such a policy. Much of the dollars earned by these public employees will be spent back within the community. Which also addresses the economic multiplier effect - money earned and spent in the same area, thus percolating and rippling throughout the local economy, over and over. As opposed to City of Milwaukee tax dollars funding a Milwaukee Police Officer who now lives in Waukesha and spends most of his/her money there.
There are 2,697 City of Milwaukee fire and police employees. The average police employee earns $65,649; for fire it's $67,554. This a potential $177 million dollars of earnings "leaking" out of the city, including property taxes, sales taxes, and other spending.
The possible loss of property taxes, spending at local businesses, and neighborhood stability are more than sufficient reasons for maintaining the requirement. The economics behind the requirement make it a no-brainer.
Governing is a set of rules. If you want to live or participate in certain communities you have to follow their rules. Some subdivisions make homeowners have 5-acre lots. Others require certain facades or materials be similar amongst the homes. If you don't like those rules, you go somewhere else. That's freedom. Freedom isn't doing away with things one doesn't like.
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Milwaukee Rocks!
Sylosis, Hatebreed, In Flames, and Lamb of God visited Milwaukee on November 9, 2012. In the interview (below), Josh Middleton, of Sylosis, mentions Milwaukee (about 3 minutes in) as one of the best places they played during their whole tour. Keep up the good work, Milwaukee metal-heads!
The Great Pretender
Confirming my belief that Republicans are out of ideas:
Gov. Scott Walker Proposes Cutting Income Taxes
As much as Republicans would like to forget George W. Bush's entire time in office, his two terms were recent historical proof of the fact that tax cuts do not spark the economy.
"In Bush’s first term, the economy shed 913,000 private sector jobs! 913,000! The only thing that saved Bush’s first term from being a complete economic disaster, in terms of employment, was robust public sector growth: The economy added 900,000 government jobs," recalls Andrew Leonard.
Ronald Brownstein adds, "On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially."
Do Republicans believe in any policies that actually work in reality?
Gov. Scott Walker Proposes Cutting Income Taxes
Gov. Scott Walker pledged Thursday to cut income taxes in the state budget he signs this summer, calling it the best way to spark the economy. But he also said the reduction would be phased in over a number of years.Tax cuts, the best way to stimulate the economy?
As much as Republicans would like to forget George W. Bush's entire time in office, his two terms were recent historical proof of the fact that tax cuts do not spark the economy.
"In Bush’s first term, the economy shed 913,000 private sector jobs! 913,000! The only thing that saved Bush’s first term from being a complete economic disaster, in terms of employment, was robust public sector growth: The economy added 900,000 government jobs," recalls Andrew Leonard.
Ronald Brownstein adds, "On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially."
Do Republicans believe in any policies that actually work in reality?
Training, Skills, & Other Fairy Tales
Time for Wisconsin to get a new playbook. I haven't heard a single innovative idea for economic development from any of the supposed experts being quoted in the media, nor from our development agencies. Just more regurgitation of development hucksterism. And, if what we hear from the Walker administration is any indication of our current state of development, we're still stuck in the '80s.
Research parks, stadiums, venture capital, etc. Why are we continuing with proposals that have already either run their course or been proven ineffective?
Here we go again.
As I wrote back in May 2009:
Gordon Lafer, associate professor at the University of Oregon, in his expansive and definitive work on job training, The Job Training Charade, states, “Job training has served primarily as a form of political diversion. At both the federal and local levels of government, the rhetoric of job training has encouraged a discourse about poverty and unemployment which minimizes the public’s expectations of government. If poverty were viewed largely as the result of a shortage of jobs, and the government were held responsible as employer of last resort, scores of mayors and governors would have been thrown out of office in response to the dislocations of the past two decades. By instead promoting a view of poverty as largely rooted in the educational, cultural, and moral failings of poor communities, the assumptions underlying training policy suggest that the government could not be expected to provide more than marginal assistance toward solving this problem.The article (Gov. Walker May Be Poised To Reorganize Job Training) also declares "the state's skills mismatch" as one of the reasons to reorganize job training. Two disproven ideas in one article, now that's efficiency. Job training is pointless unless there are actual jobs available (that pay a commensurate wage for the skills). And, skills mismatch is a clever rebranding for what is actually just low wages.
As noted in this review of Gordon Lafer’s work, “The commonsense idea that there are plenty of jobs to go around if only the unemployed and the poor had the motivation and the skills to fill them…The number of decently-paid jobs that were available over the last twenty years has never been more than a fraction of the number needed to raise the poor beyond the poverty level…Except for certain professional positions that require specialized and highly controlled education and that compromise a very small portion of the labor market, variables such as gender, age, race, and whether or not workers are unionized, are more important determinants of the levels of employment and wages than are the levels of education.”
David Howell, professor at Milano The New School for Management and Urban Policy, observes, “In short, employers in the 1980s responded to increased competitive pressures by taking a low-road human resource strategy, one aimed above all at reducing current labor costs…In a great many industries, workers learned new skills to work with more advanced production technologies – but their higher productivity was not reflected in higher wages…In the 1980s, higher skills have simply not led to higher wages. In industry after industry, average educational attainment rose while wages fell.”
Walker's World: Our Dystopian Future
"The Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. (WEDC) said in its report that the money it invested affected a total of 218 businesses and 23,759 jobs in the state last fiscal year. WEDC made a total of $56.2 million available to businesses through 170 grants and loans, the report found...
But unlike nearly every other quasi-public authority at the state level, the corporation is not required by law to report yearly on its finances. It took nearly a year and a half for the agency's board to see comprehensive audited financial statements."
Got that? Unlike nearly every other quasi-public authority at the state level, the WEDC is not required by law to report yearly on its finances.
Yes, they're only dealing with millions of public dollars. Why should they have to keep track of anything or explain their decisions and investments? Didn't Scotty talk about transparency a lot during his campaign? Hypocrisy seems to be a prerequisite for the Republican party. I guess that's just the beautiful evil genius of conservative arrogance. They're always railing the most about the things that they are the most guilty of doing.
Sorry, but when someone establishes an quasi-public (i.e. private) authority and specifically write laws which exempt that organization from having to report on it's finances, one must conclude nefarious spending and accounting are taking place at that entity.
Keep it up, Scotty. Pretty soon it will be you facing the charges rather than just your underlings.
Not only does Walker wants Illinois' jobs, he also wants their corrupt ways.
Weekend Reading
America's Staggering Defense Budget, In Charts
Another Dead End For Wisconsin Families
GOP's Motto: 'Grab All You Can'
Invest In MPS, Not Voucher & Charter
Michelle Rhee's Failing Report Card
Rising Cost Of State's Outside Contractors
Scott Walker: Liar
Social Security/Medicare VS Corporate Welfare
What's Inside America's Banks
Wisconsin's Rising Wealth Gap
Another Dead End For Wisconsin Families
GOP's Motto: 'Grab All You Can'
Invest In MPS, Not Voucher & Charter
Michelle Rhee's Failing Report Card
Rising Cost Of State's Outside Contractors
Scott Walker: Liar
Social Security/Medicare VS Corporate Welfare
What's Inside America's Banks
Wisconsin's Rising Wealth Gap
Low Wages, Not Skills Mismatch
More evidence from Catherine Rampell invalidating the skills mismatch story.
Are There Really No Good Job Applicants Out There?
What’s especially odd about these survey responses is that if employers are having trouble finding qualified workers, they should be bidding up wages to attract the few qualified workers who are out there. But that’s not what the data show.
Average hourly earnings in the private sector fell over the period that businesses reported having increased trouble finding qualified workers (December 2009 to September 2012). Perhaps this means businesses are having trouble finding qualified workers precisely because they’re unwilling to pay new hires enough money.
Racing To The Bottom In Wisconsin
Wisconsin Republicans' Tax Plan Follows The Race To The Bottom
From the article:
"Vos proposes to reduce taxes on what he calls the “middle class,” but his definition leaves out nearly two-fifths of tax filers in the state — the 39 percent of households that earn less than $20,000 annually...
Figures from the national Institute for Tax and Economic Policy analyzed the total tax burden by state and found the bottom 20 percent of Wisconsinites pay 9.4 percent of their income in taxes. By contrast, the top one percent of Wisconsinites pay just 6.7 percent of their incomes in taxes...
Consider what the Republicans and Gov. Scott Walker did to taxes in their first legislative term. They passed $36 million in capital gain taxes and 46 percent of those breaks will go to the top 2 percent of earners in Wisconsin, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. They also passed $49 million in tax breaks for those with Health Savings Accounts, again benefiting the well-to-do: the average income of someone with such an account is more than $100,000, according to the Government Accountability Office...
As for poor people, Walker and Republicans slashed the earned income tax credit. This provision was created under Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson and won bipartisan support as a way to reward work and help those whose wages were inadequate to support a family."
From the article:
"Vos proposes to reduce taxes on what he calls the “middle class,” but his definition leaves out nearly two-fifths of tax filers in the state — the 39 percent of households that earn less than $20,000 annually...
Figures from the national Institute for Tax and Economic Policy analyzed the total tax burden by state and found the bottom 20 percent of Wisconsinites pay 9.4 percent of their income in taxes. By contrast, the top one percent of Wisconsinites pay just 6.7 percent of their incomes in taxes...
Consider what the Republicans and Gov. Scott Walker did to taxes in their first legislative term. They passed $36 million in capital gain taxes and 46 percent of those breaks will go to the top 2 percent of earners in Wisconsin, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. They also passed $49 million in tax breaks for those with Health Savings Accounts, again benefiting the well-to-do: the average income of someone with such an account is more than $100,000, according to the Government Accountability Office...
As for poor people, Walker and Republicans slashed the earned income tax credit. This provision was created under Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson and won bipartisan support as a way to reward work and help those whose wages were inadequate to support a family."
Friday, January 11, 2013
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Suicide & Service
"More soldiers took their own lives than died in combat during 2012, new Department of Defense figures show. The Army's suicide rate has climbed by 9 percent since the military branch launched its suicide-prevention campaign in 2009."
Shale Gas Not As Clean As Thought
"Last February scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado, released the findings of a study that claimed that around four percent of methane was escaping into the atmosphere as natural gas was being extracted from a field in Denver.
Now that same group has studied the gas production techniques of a field in Utah and discovered that around nine percent of the methane gas extracted at the gas field was leaking into the air. Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases, far more so than CO2, and its escape during the production process of the natural gas now challenges the claims that burning natural gas produces far fewer emissions and is better for the environment than coal.
The shale boom has led to a huge increase in natural gas production and as prices have fallen significantly many utilities have been converting their coal power plants to run on cheap gas. The gas industry has claimed that this transition has helped cut US greenhouse gas emissions across the country because gas releases far fewer carbon emissions than coal.
It turns out that whilst burning the gas is cleaner than coal, the extraction process releases large amounts of dangerous greenhouse gases." ~ Study Finds Shale Gas Not As Clean As Thought
Now that same group has studied the gas production techniques of a field in Utah and discovered that around nine percent of the methane gas extracted at the gas field was leaking into the air. Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases, far more so than CO2, and its escape during the production process of the natural gas now challenges the claims that burning natural gas produces far fewer emissions and is better for the environment than coal.
The shale boom has led to a huge increase in natural gas production and as prices have fallen significantly many utilities have been converting their coal power plants to run on cheap gas. The gas industry has claimed that this transition has helped cut US greenhouse gas emissions across the country because gas releases far fewer carbon emissions than coal.
It turns out that whilst burning the gas is cleaner than coal, the extraction process releases large amounts of dangerous greenhouse gases." ~ Study Finds Shale Gas Not As Clean As Thought
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Deficit Facts
"When President Obama took office in 2009 the deficit was already running at close to a record-setting pace. At the end of that fiscal year, it was $1.4 trillion. That’s “trillion” with a “T”. Ouch. Fiscal 2012 ended on Sept. 30. The final figures aren’t yet in, but at the moment the Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will be ... (drum roll) $1.1 trillion. So smaller. Not doubled at all," reported Peter Grier. Did Obama Really Double The Deficit?
"It's worth noting, then, that as of today, the U.S. federal budget deficit has shrunk -- a lot. Obama inherited a deficit of nearly $1.3 trillion from Bush/Cheney the moment he took the oath of office. This year, however, according to the official data published by the Treasury Department, the deficit was $1.089 trillion," explained Steve Benen. U.S. Budget Deficit Shrinks
Monday, December 31, 2012
Your Water But Not Your Name
Milwaukee is a great place to extract water from. But, sorry, the Milwaukee Water Council doesn't want anyone to know that water has anything to do with Milwaukee.
As John Schmid reported, "The work of the Water Council has become global in its nature and the organization wants to jettison anything that smacks of provincialism," Executive Director Dean Amhaus said. Hence, they've dropped Milwaukee from the formerly titled Milwaukee Water Council.
As a 2009 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Center for Economic Development report explained:
As John Schmid reported, "The work of the Water Council has become global in its nature and the organization wants to jettison anything that smacks of provincialism," Executive Director Dean Amhaus said. Hence, they've dropped Milwaukee from the formerly titled Milwaukee Water Council.
Yes, all the companies that are members of the Water Council, those businesses which have benefited from Milwaukee's water, those same ones whom want see the "water hub" idea take-off, they just don't want to mention or give any indication that they are actually in Milwaukee.
Let's not forget this idea of a Milwaukee "water hub" and it's transformational economic powers are dubious. Nonetheless, being a Milwaukee initiative involving Milwaukee water, the fact that it's located in Milwaukee should be one of the focal points. Especially if the initiative is being sold as a catalyst for economic development in the Milwaukee area.
In 2009, UWM also launched the second key initiative in its entrepreneurial aspiration to become the driver of economic development in Milwaukee: a School of Freshwater Sciences. During the preceding two years, Milwaukee’s civic leadership had coalesced behind a regional economic development strategy, led by 69 business executives who organized something called the “Milwaukee 7 Water Council,” to “brand itself as the global capital of freshwater research”...
Curiously, no one in Milwaukee has done the comparative research on the water sector in other metropolitan areas that would be necessary to confirm whether a uniquely large “cluster” of water companies is located in the region...
Of the 40 global water companies listed by a Goldman Sachs report as generating the highest revenues none have their U.S. headquarters in Milwaukee...
What about the locations of all U.S. plants and offices –not simply headquarters-- for global “top 40” water companies? Over 50 metro areas are home to at least one U.S. plant or office of the global water “top 40.” What’s more, as in the case of headquarters noted above, the vast majority of these facilities are located in the suburbs, exurbs, and small towns of metropolitan areas, generally not in the central cities. Thus, as suggested earlier, this suggests that the economics of clustering and agglomeration may not be at a premium in the fragmented water technology industry, and that no one place is likely to emerge as a“Silicon Valley” of water...
The Milwaukee region supposedly is already home to a vibrant and growing water sector, comprising somewhere between 76 and 120 “water-related” companies (including local branches of five of the world’s 11 largest water companies). According to water boosters, these numbers are larger “than in any other city in the United States”; they confirm that Milwaukee is “already a leader in water technology”; and they confer on the region significant “first-mover” advantages in the race to become the “Silicon Valley” of water...
But, whether we look at headquarters locations, offices and plants, patents, or certain occupations, the Milwaukee region is hardly a “unique” presence in the industry, or even a “first-mover” in attempting to promote water technology as a local economic development strategy...
Several regions, in the U.S. and abroad, do seem to have a leg up in growing and attracting water technology companies, but the industry doesn’t appear to exhibit a clustering that remotely resembles a “Silicon Valley.” And to the extent that there is a nascent Silicon Valley of water out there, Minneapolis, Toronto, Israel, or Singapore all seem like better bets at this point than does Milwaukee.
So, we've gone through all this trouble and money to brand Milwaukee a "water hub," but now the powers that be would like everyone to just focus on the water and forget about Milwaukee. That's not right.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
A Majority Rule Institution
.jpg)
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Tax Collections At Historically Low Levels
The federal government is only collecting 17% of GDP as tax revenue, a historically low level.
Friday, December 28, 2012
A Fractured Process
The Journal Sentinel reports, "A new study funded by the petroleum industry says Wisconsin firms employ 20,000 people supporting the unconventional oil and gas business - meaning sand mines, largely. The sand from western Wisconsin is used by drilling companies in North Dakota and other states to unlock underground natural gas and oil supplies in a controversial practice called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking."
Go figure. The industry that gains from fracking has released a study showing how wonderful it is.
Walmart employs people. Sport stadiums employ people. Yet, these are low-wage jobs, usually lacking health care and retirement plans. The mantra of "It creates jobs!" is short-sighted and overblown. Regarding fracking, if those jobs destroy land, water, and leave behind a barren wasteland, it's not really a long-term jobs plan. It's a short-term money grab for the parent company pillaging and plundering the land. Not to mention the negative public health consequences for residents. So yeah, again, not really a good nor sustainable jobs plan. And, definitely not a good plan for a state that prides itself on the natural environment and the beauty and purity of the land.
“Every year, large areas are continually becoming unfertile in spite of efforts to grow vegetation on the degraded mined land.” wrote Mrinal Ghose in the Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research.
As Ellen Cantarow reports, "Boom times for hydraulic fracturing began in 2008 when new horizontal-drilling methods transformed an industry formerly dependent on strictly vertical boring. Frac-sand mining took off in tandem with this development. “It’s huge,” said a U.S. Geological Survey mineral commodity specialist in 2009. “I’ve never seen anything like it, the growth. It makes my head spin.” That year, from all U.S. sources, frac-sand producers used or sold over 6.5 million metric tons of sand — about what the Great Pyramid of Giza weighs. Last month, Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources Senior Manager and Special Projects Coordinator Tom Woletz said corporations were hauling at least 15 million metric tons a year from the state’s hills. By July 2011, between 22 and 36 frac-sand facilities in Wisconsin were either operating or approved. Seven months later, said Woletz, there were over 60 mines and 45 processing (refinement) plants in operation. “By the time your article appears, these figures will be obsolete,” claims Pat Popple, who in 2008 founded the first group to oppose frac-sand mining, Concerned Chippewa Citizens (now part of The Save the Hills Alliance)."
There are better ways to grow an economy. Much better ways than destroying the land around you. Let's move toward a sustainable, equitable, and safe future for Wisconsin and it's residents. Let's tell the hydraulic fracturers to frack off.
For Further Reading:
Clintonville Booms Caused By Fracking?
The Evolving Truth About Fracking For Natural Gas
How Rural American Got Fracked
In The Name Of Fracking
Go figure. The industry that gains from fracking has released a study showing how wonderful it is.
Walmart employs people. Sport stadiums employ people. Yet, these are low-wage jobs, usually lacking health care and retirement plans. The mantra of "It creates jobs!" is short-sighted and overblown. Regarding fracking, if those jobs destroy land, water, and leave behind a barren wasteland, it's not really a long-term jobs plan. It's a short-term money grab for the parent company pillaging and plundering the land. Not to mention the negative public health consequences for residents. So yeah, again, not really a good nor sustainable jobs plan. And, definitely not a good plan for a state that prides itself on the natural environment and the beauty and purity of the land.
[source]
“Every year, large areas are continually becoming unfertile in spite of efforts to grow vegetation on the degraded mined land.” wrote Mrinal Ghose in the Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research.
As Ellen Cantarow reports, "Boom times for hydraulic fracturing began in 2008 when new horizontal-drilling methods transformed an industry formerly dependent on strictly vertical boring. Frac-sand mining took off in tandem with this development. “It’s huge,” said a U.S. Geological Survey mineral commodity specialist in 2009. “I’ve never seen anything like it, the growth. It makes my head spin.” That year, from all U.S. sources, frac-sand producers used or sold over 6.5 million metric tons of sand — about what the Great Pyramid of Giza weighs. Last month, Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources Senior Manager and Special Projects Coordinator Tom Woletz said corporations were hauling at least 15 million metric tons a year from the state’s hills. By July 2011, between 22 and 36 frac-sand facilities in Wisconsin were either operating or approved. Seven months later, said Woletz, there were over 60 mines and 45 processing (refinement) plants in operation. “By the time your article appears, these figures will be obsolete,” claims Pat Popple, who in 2008 founded the first group to oppose frac-sand mining, Concerned Chippewa Citizens (now part of The Save the Hills Alliance)."
There are better ways to grow an economy. Much better ways than destroying the land around you. Let's move toward a sustainable, equitable, and safe future for Wisconsin and it's residents. Let's tell the hydraulic fracturers to frack off.
For Further Reading:
Clintonville Booms Caused By Fracking?
The Evolving Truth About Fracking For Natural Gas
How Rural American Got Fracked
In The Name Of Fracking
The Legalized Bribery That Is Sport Subsidization
A great article on the "system-gaming moocher class, an entitled, irresponsible, parasitic piglet subset, lazily suckling from the public teat, pulled up by shiny new bootstraps purchased with government giveaways, forever hiding in plain sight," otherwise known as sport subsidies.
As Patrick Hruby writes, "According to Harvard professor Judith Grant Long and economist Andrew Zimbalist, the average public contribution to the total capital and operating cost per sports stadium from 2000 to 2006 was between $249 and $280 million. A fantastic interactive map at Deadspin estimates that the total cost to the public of the 78 pro stadiums built or renovated between 1991 and 2004 was nearly $16 billion."
Go read the entire article - Cut Welfare To Sports - to find out more about the land giveaways, infrastructure freebies, tax breaks, and other government handouts the public provides to sport millionaires.
As Patrick Hruby writes, "According to Harvard professor Judith Grant Long and economist Andrew Zimbalist, the average public contribution to the total capital and operating cost per sports stadium from 2000 to 2006 was between $249 and $280 million. A fantastic interactive map at Deadspin estimates that the total cost to the public of the 78 pro stadiums built or renovated between 1991 and 2004 was nearly $16 billion."
How does all this (continue to) happen? Especially considering our supposedly pinched budgets and ever-burgeoning fiscal constraints, why do we continue to subsidize sport millionaires? Hruby explains, "Team owners ask for public handouts and threaten to move elsewhere unless they get them, pitting cities against in each other in corporate welfare bidding wars -- wars rooted in the various publicly granted antitrust exemptions that effectively allow sports leagues to control and maintain a limited supply of teams to be leveraged against widespread demand."
Sound familiar? These are the same tactics (build us a stadium or we're leaving town) which were applied to Miller Park for the Brewers and which are being used to strong-arm the public into supporting a new Bradley Center for the Bucks.
Sound familiar? These are the same tactics (build us a stadium or we're leaving town) which were applied to Miller Park for the Brewers and which are being used to strong-arm the public into supporting a new Bradley Center for the Bucks.
Go read the entire article - Cut Welfare To Sports - to find out more about the land giveaways, infrastructure freebies, tax breaks, and other government handouts the public provides to sport millionaires.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Wisconsin's Spending Problem: Corporate Welfare
According to data collected by the New York Times for their series, United States of Subsidies, Wisconsin spends $1.53 billion per year on incentive programs. (Almost 5% of the $66 billion biennium budget.)
Remember Scott Walker's claims of a $3.6 billion shortfall for the two-year budget cycle during his campaigning? Simply ending corporate welfare "incentives" over a two-year period would wipe out almost all of this supposed shortfall.
Remember Scott Walker's claims of a $3.6 billion shortfall for the two-year budget cycle during his campaigning? Simply ending corporate welfare "incentives" over a two-year period would wipe out almost all of this supposed shortfall.
Weekend Reading
As Companies Seek Tax Deals, Governments Pay High Price
The Big Lie About The Entitlement State
Cash-Rich Companies Being Subsidized By Tax-Poor Governments
How State Aid To Cities Has Plummeted
$100 Million In Business Tax Credits, But At What Cost?
Public-Private Partnerships Extract Private Profit From Public Projects
Revenge Of The Reality Based Community
The 6 Craziest State Gun Laws
The 12 Biggest Companies Paying Workers The Least
12 Facts About Guns/Mass Shootings In The U.S.
When Government Does Things Better Than Private Enterprise
Who Broke America's Jobs Machine?
Why Isn't Obama Demanding Corporate Welfare Cuts?
The Big Lie About The Entitlement State
Cash-Rich Companies Being Subsidized By Tax-Poor Governments
How State Aid To Cities Has Plummeted
$100 Million In Business Tax Credits, But At What Cost?
Public-Private Partnerships Extract Private Profit From Public Projects
Revenge Of The Reality Based Community
The 6 Craziest State Gun Laws
The 12 Biggest Companies Paying Workers The Least
12 Facts About Guns/Mass Shootings In The U.S.
When Government Does Things Better Than Private Enterprise
Who Broke America's Jobs Machine?
Why Isn't Obama Demanding Corporate Welfare Cuts?
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Wisconsin Corporate Blackmail
From Bruce Murphy, "Wisconsin, it turns out, is also a paradise for companies seeking handouts, as a ground-breaking story in the New York Times documents. The story’s online tracker allows you to check any state, which shows Wisconsin spends $1.53 billion in taxes per year on incentives for business. That equals 10 percent of the state’s annual budget and costs $268 per per person. Wisconsin, land of the supposedly bad business climate, ranks ahead of 33 other states and the District of Columbia in per-capita payments to business."
Go read Murphy's entire Land of Corporate Blackmail article.
Go read Murphy's entire Land of Corporate Blackmail article.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
It's A Scandal! It's A Outrage!
Following up on some earlier thoughts about Milwaukee's (well, really the MMAC's) fascination with Oklahoma City (OKC) and their new basketball stadium, partially funded by a 1 percent sales tax.
An additional 1% on the sales tax to pay for infrastructure and other civic investments is a worthy idea, used by OKC to finance some of their new projects. (Taxpayers have already voted in favor of such a tax to support our parks.) But, is a basketball arena the first priority of such spending? Considering transportation, water, sewer, education, health care, and a host of other more immediate needs, is a sport venue the crucial link to fostering explosive growth?
What we have here is a self-interested cabal throwing everything they can think of at taxpayers hoping something finally persuades them into thinking that subsidizing a sport arena is a great investment (again).
Sports are fun, stadiums are economic catalysts, Herb Kohl is a good guy, we need the Bucks to be a "big league" city, etc. Now they're surveying the country, identifying the most recently completed basketball stadiums, and if that city or region is experiencing growth, abracadabra - the stadium is a defining element of that growth, and yet another reason why Milwaukee should get on this bandwagon.
OKC is growing ... and they just built a basketball stadium ... ergo, Milwaukee needs to get with the program if they want to experience growth. Nevermind our lack of an advanced rail system (when compared with other cities), shrinking bus routes, continual cuts to our parks, crumbling bridges and roads, declining schools, to name a few. For the majority of residents (businesses and individuals), these needs far outweigh a sport stadium.
For Further Reading:
Are Basketball Arenas Catalysts Of Economic Development?
As Stadiums Vanish, Their Debt Lives On
Basket Case
Buck The System
Buck You
City Lays Off Workers While Giving Millions To Pro Hockey Team
Economic Engine Or Albatross?
Economic Of Sports Facilities & Their Communities
5 Cities Financing Pro Stadium Boondoggles
Growth Effects Of Sports Franchises, Stadia, And Arenas
Is There Anything A Stadium Can't Solve?
NBA Arenas Lousy For Local Economies
Overblown Bradley Center Impacts
Professional Sports As Catalysts For Metropolitan Economic Development
Selig Defends Taxpayer Subsidies For Stadiums
Should Cities Pay For Sports Facilities
Stadiums Don't Bolster Local Economies
Stadium Swindle
Will Herb Kohl Blackmail Milwaukee?
An additional 1% on the sales tax to pay for infrastructure and other civic investments is a worthy idea, used by OKC to finance some of their new projects. (Taxpayers have already voted in favor of such a tax to support our parks.) But, is a basketball arena the first priority of such spending? Considering transportation, water, sewer, education, health care, and a host of other more immediate needs, is a sport venue the crucial link to fostering explosive growth?
What we have here is a self-interested cabal throwing everything they can think of at taxpayers hoping something finally persuades them into thinking that subsidizing a sport arena is a great investment (again).
Sports are fun, stadiums are economic catalysts, Herb Kohl is a good guy, we need the Bucks to be a "big league" city, etc. Now they're surveying the country, identifying the most recently completed basketball stadiums, and if that city or region is experiencing growth, abracadabra - the stadium is a defining element of that growth, and yet another reason why Milwaukee should get on this bandwagon.
OKC is growing ... and they just built a basketball stadium ... ergo, Milwaukee needs to get with the program if they want to experience growth. Nevermind our lack of an advanced rail system (when compared with other cities), shrinking bus routes, continual cuts to our parks, crumbling bridges and roads, declining schools, to name a few. For the majority of residents (businesses and individuals), these needs far outweigh a sport stadium.
For Further Reading:
Are Basketball Arenas Catalysts Of Economic Development?
As Stadiums Vanish, Their Debt Lives On
Basket Case
Buck The System
Buck You
City Lays Off Workers While Giving Millions To Pro Hockey Team
Economic Engine Or Albatross?
Economic Of Sports Facilities & Their Communities
5 Cities Financing Pro Stadium Boondoggles
Growth Effects Of Sports Franchises, Stadia, And Arenas
Is There Anything A Stadium Can't Solve?
NBA Arenas Lousy For Local Economies
Overblown Bradley Center Impacts
Professional Sports As Catalysts For Metropolitan Economic Development
Selig Defends Taxpayer Subsidies For Stadiums
Should Cities Pay For Sports Facilities
Stadiums Don't Bolster Local Economies
Stadium Swindle
Will Herb Kohl Blackmail Milwaukee?
Best State Pension System: Wisconsin
21 States' Pension Systems Not Fiscally Sound
Pundits, talking-heads, politicos, and other supposed experts warning about an impending Wisconsin pension crisis are merely using false information and scare tactics in an attempt to eviscerate the pension system. Plain and simple. This is another one of those "entitlements" (anything having to do with a fair society, the social contract, or shared prosperity - all of which, Republicans hate) the anti-government zealots complain about with the hope that some of the smears stick.
This situation is very similar to the debt ceiling theater (here, here, and here). Money has already been earmarked for a certain purpose - budgetary items/programs or employee compensation. Creating some phantom ceiling doesn't mean the liability goes away. Because varies entities may have taken pension money and spent it on other purposes, this does not absolve their responsibility to pay previously contracted pension obligations.
As David Cay Johnston explains, "The fact is that all of the money going into these plans belongs to the workers because it is part of the compensation of the state workers. The fact is that the state workers negotiate their total compensation, which they then divvy up between cash wages, paid vacations, health insurance and, yes, pensions. Since the Wisconsin government workers collectively bargained for their compensation, all of the compensation they have bargained for is part of their pay and thus only the workers contribute to the pension plan. This is an indisputable fact."
Some of these pundits and politicos don't want you to have a stable retirement. Well, that's implicating them too much. They really just want that money - in the form of tax cuts, subsidies, and giveaways - for themselves. As far as your retirement is concerned, they really don't care.
Pensions (public & private) are in trouble because slippery mayors, duplicitous governors, gluttonous politicians, and greedy business owners have diverted funds (compensation) away from pension accounts and into other uses - plugging budget holes, subsidizing business parks and sporting arenas, constructing more and more roadways, and even for new vacation homes.
You're going to see more articles and more pundits bloviating about this "we must transform the pension system to save it" talking-point in the near future, feel free to laugh at them, but make sure you're not swept up into their misguided rhetoric.
For Further Reading:
Deferred Wages
More Bad Pension Reporting
Pension Petulance
Politicking With Pensions
Recoiling Retirement
Retirement Revisionists
Scott Walker Is Coming For Your Pension
Pundits, talking-heads, politicos, and other supposed experts warning about an impending Wisconsin pension crisis are merely using false information and scare tactics in an attempt to eviscerate the pension system. Plain and simple. This is another one of those "entitlements" (anything having to do with a fair society, the social contract, or shared prosperity - all of which, Republicans hate) the anti-government zealots complain about with the hope that some of the smears stick.
This situation is very similar to the debt ceiling theater (here, here, and here). Money has already been earmarked for a certain purpose - budgetary items/programs or employee compensation. Creating some phantom ceiling doesn't mean the liability goes away. Because varies entities may have taken pension money and spent it on other purposes, this does not absolve their responsibility to pay previously contracted pension obligations.
As David Cay Johnston explains, "The fact is that all of the money going into these plans belongs to the workers because it is part of the compensation of the state workers. The fact is that the state workers negotiate their total compensation, which they then divvy up between cash wages, paid vacations, health insurance and, yes, pensions. Since the Wisconsin government workers collectively bargained for their compensation, all of the compensation they have bargained for is part of their pay and thus only the workers contribute to the pension plan. This is an indisputable fact."
Some of these pundits and politicos don't want you to have a stable retirement. Well, that's implicating them too much. They really just want that money - in the form of tax cuts, subsidies, and giveaways - for themselves. As far as your retirement is concerned, they really don't care.
Pensions (public & private) are in trouble because slippery mayors, duplicitous governors, gluttonous politicians, and greedy business owners have diverted funds (compensation) away from pension accounts and into other uses - plugging budget holes, subsidizing business parks and sporting arenas, constructing more and more roadways, and even for new vacation homes.
You're going to see more articles and more pundits bloviating about this "we must transform the pension system to save it" talking-point in the near future, feel free to laugh at them, but make sure you're not swept up into their misguided rhetoric.
For Further Reading:
Deferred Wages
More Bad Pension Reporting
Pension Petulance
Politicking With Pensions
Recoiling Retirement
Retirement Revisionists
Scott Walker Is Coming For Your Pension
Monday, December 3, 2012
The Economic Trail Of Tears
The Business Journal of Milwaukee recently ran a handful of articles regarding a revival in Milwaukee, an new arena being a part of that, and Oklahoma City (OKC) possibly being a roadmap for the whole process.
Oklahoma City has recently developed a river walk, completed a large hotel development, and built a stadium to attract an NBA team (the OKC Thunder). I guess we're supposed to imagine Milwaukee doesn't already have these, or that duplicating similar venues will lead to greater growth?
Or, maybe we can turn back the clock and reverse our history. Milwaukee is an older city (1846) than Oklahoma City (1889). Newer cities, like developing countries, are experiencing higher rates of growth than older cities. Add in the warmer climate and the heavy influence of Big Energy (mostly oil & natural gas) and you pretty much have to whole story behind OKC's growth. It's not because of some magical development plan based on the public funneling more money to private projects.
Oklahoma City actually has a larger share of its workforce employed by the government - 15.1% versus 13.2% in Milwaukee. Should Milwaukee expand government? I'd love to see the MMAC recommend that.
20.8% of Oklahoma City residents have no health insurance coverage, in Milwaukee, it's 15.6%. For that 5 or so percent of the population in OKC with no health care coverage, would they claim a better quality of life?
The rental vacancy rate on OKC 8.1%, in Milwaukee 3.5%. Median home value in OKC $131,100, in Milwaukee $133,800. Median rent in OKC $720, in Milwaukee $753. It appears the value (and occupancy) of the built infrastructure is holding it's own compared with OKC.
The article relies on quotes from Greg Marcus, CEO of Marcus Corporation, for the inside story on Oklahoma City. He developed a hotel there, so he knows. Marcus claims Kohl's Corporation may have moved to downtown Milwaukee if the quality of life had been better. Couldn't this excuse (quality of life), to some degree, plausibly be used every time one location is chosen over another? And, by doing what? What does he recommend that Milwaukee, imitating OKC, do to improve the quality of life?
Marcus elaborated, "If you don't invest in your product, you don't get customers. You need to have a product that is so compelling and invest in infrastructure."
Yet, these same omnipotent business leaders also don't want to have to pay the taxes that pay for improvements in infrastructure.
None of this means there isn't anything to learn from OKC. But sound economic development isn't just latching on to the latest rising star and reciting their most recent achievements as a best practices guide.
Oklahoma City has recently developed a river walk, completed a large hotel development, and built a stadium to attract an NBA team (the OKC Thunder). I guess we're supposed to imagine Milwaukee doesn't already have these, or that duplicating similar venues will lead to greater growth?
Or, maybe we can turn back the clock and reverse our history. Milwaukee is an older city (1846) than Oklahoma City (1889). Newer cities, like developing countries, are experiencing higher rates of growth than older cities. Add in the warmer climate and the heavy influence of Big Energy (mostly oil & natural gas) and you pretty much have to whole story behind OKC's growth. It's not because of some magical development plan based on the public funneling more money to private projects.
Oklahoma City actually has a larger share of its workforce employed by the government - 15.1% versus 13.2% in Milwaukee. Should Milwaukee expand government? I'd love to see the MMAC recommend that.
20.8% of Oklahoma City residents have no health insurance coverage, in Milwaukee, it's 15.6%. For that 5 or so percent of the population in OKC with no health care coverage, would they claim a better quality of life?
The rental vacancy rate on OKC 8.1%, in Milwaukee 3.5%. Median home value in OKC $131,100, in Milwaukee $133,800. Median rent in OKC $720, in Milwaukee $753. It appears the value (and occupancy) of the built infrastructure is holding it's own compared with OKC.
The article relies on quotes from Greg Marcus, CEO of Marcus Corporation, for the inside story on Oklahoma City. He developed a hotel there, so he knows. Marcus claims Kohl's Corporation may have moved to downtown Milwaukee if the quality of life had been better. Couldn't this excuse (quality of life), to some degree, plausibly be used every time one location is chosen over another? And, by doing what? What does he recommend that Milwaukee, imitating OKC, do to improve the quality of life?
Marcus elaborated, "If you don't invest in your product, you don't get customers. You need to have a product that is so compelling and invest in infrastructure."
Yet, these same omnipotent business leaders also don't want to have to pay the taxes that pay for improvements in infrastructure.
None of this means there isn't anything to learn from OKC. But sound economic development isn't just latching on to the latest rising star and reciting their most recent achievements as a best practices guide.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Republican Shrinkage
Republicans often repeat the line, "Most Americans want a smaller government."
A classic example of Republicans getting an inch and taking a mile.
Most people simply want efficient provision of services. The number of public workers is not important to most taxpayers. The quality of service per tax dollar is what concerns taxpayers most.
The idea that simply shrinking government for the sake of shrinking government is wanted and/or somehow optimal is false. Taxes, as a share of income, are at their lowest point in 60 years. It's difficult to argue government is wasteful when they have been continually doing more with less decade after decade.
And, whether the service is administered at the federal or state/local level doesn't really matter to most taxpayers. This distinction matters most to the politicos trying to maintain their fiefdoms. Taxpayers just want the service/program - regardless of which agency (state or federal) provides it.
Social Security, Medicare, police and fire protection, sewers, water, garbage collection, snow removal, roads and highways, trains, unemployment insurance, the court and judicial system - people want these services provided fairly and efficiently, they don't care which level of government performs the service. (Today - Thanksgiving - would be a good day to reflect on these programs which we collectively provide for each other.)
Republicans merely cling to this talking-point (we must shrink government) because it positions well alongside their never-ending "bad government" war chant. When it comes to the public sector, according to Republicans, less is always better.
Yet, for most citizens, less government means more inequality. Remember this the next time you hear some conservative blathering on about big bad government. The more government declines, the less services and programs (listed above) they can provide, and thus the quality of life of most citizens also declines.
A classic example of Republicans getting an inch and taking a mile.
Most people simply want efficient provision of services. The number of public workers is not important to most taxpayers. The quality of service per tax dollar is what concerns taxpayers most.
The idea that simply shrinking government for the sake of shrinking government is wanted and/or somehow optimal is false. Taxes, as a share of income, are at their lowest point in 60 years. It's difficult to argue government is wasteful when they have been continually doing more with less decade after decade.
And, whether the service is administered at the federal or state/local level doesn't really matter to most taxpayers. This distinction matters most to the politicos trying to maintain their fiefdoms. Taxpayers just want the service/program - regardless of which agency (state or federal) provides it.
Social Security, Medicare, police and fire protection, sewers, water, garbage collection, snow removal, roads and highways, trains, unemployment insurance, the court and judicial system - people want these services provided fairly and efficiently, they don't care which level of government performs the service. (Today - Thanksgiving - would be a good day to reflect on these programs which we collectively provide for each other.)
Republicans merely cling to this talking-point (we must shrink government) because it positions well alongside their never-ending "bad government" war chant. When it comes to the public sector, according to Republicans, less is always better.
Yet, for most citizens, less government means more inequality. Remember this the next time you hear some conservative blathering on about big bad government. The more government declines, the less services and programs (listed above) they can provide, and thus the quality of life of most citizens also declines.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Truly Unfortunate
Scott Walker was recently in California at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library & Museum giving a speech about his plans for Wisconsin. The Reagan Library, where the biggest Republican whores go to grovel before their sugar daddies and kingmakers. Yes, what better place to start talking about future Wisconsin legislative plans than in California? But, as they say, you've got to go where the money is.
"We think if we want to continue the economic success we've had over the last year and a half, again one of the best ways to do this is to put money back in the hands of entrepreneurs, more money back in the hands of small business owners, more money back in the hands of our consumers...we're going to continue to lower our property taxes, and we're going to put in place an aggressive income tax reduction and reform in the state of Wisconsin because we believe we can continue to be one of the leaders in the country, not just in reform but ultimately in results." said Walker.
.png)
.png)
Economic success? Since Walker took over, Wisconsin is near the bottom in job growth among the states.
The Walker plan includes: tax cuts (of course), making Wisconsin's voucher program for private schools available to more students (even though research has shown the program doesn't produce any better results), and to eliminate "unnecessary" state regulations (vague, as usual). Basically, tax cuts and deregulation, alongside funneling more public dollars to unaccountable semi-private entities. Sound familiar? We've heard these recommendations from Republicans for decades now. What has it got us? Stagnant wages, volatile retirements, expensive health care, and increasing inequality.
"It's unfortunate he's going to try to continue to go down this war path of ideology instead of actually trying to address the real problems that we've got. It looks like he's putting his donors above his voters," said Chris Larson.
Truly unfortunate.
"We think if we want to continue the economic success we've had over the last year and a half, again one of the best ways to do this is to put money back in the hands of entrepreneurs, more money back in the hands of small business owners, more money back in the hands of our consumers...we're going to continue to lower our property taxes, and we're going to put in place an aggressive income tax reduction and reform in the state of Wisconsin because we believe we can continue to be one of the leaders in the country, not just in reform but ultimately in results." said Walker.
.png)
.png)
Economic success? Since Walker took over, Wisconsin is near the bottom in job growth among the states.
The Walker plan includes: tax cuts (of course), making Wisconsin's voucher program for private schools available to more students (even though research has shown the program doesn't produce any better results), and to eliminate "unnecessary" state regulations (vague, as usual). Basically, tax cuts and deregulation, alongside funneling more public dollars to unaccountable semi-private entities. Sound familiar? We've heard these recommendations from Republicans for decades now. What has it got us? Stagnant wages, volatile retirements, expensive health care, and increasing inequality.
"It's unfortunate he's going to try to continue to go down this war path of ideology instead of actually trying to address the real problems that we've got. It looks like he's putting his donors above his voters," said Chris Larson.
Truly unfortunate.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
More Bradley Center Bull
The Journal Sentinel has run yet another editorial pushing for a new basketball stadium. Yes, in the wake of a recession second only to the Great Depression, the thing we need most, right now, is a new sport stadium.
Even the Journal Sentinel's own Don Walker previously wondered how Bradley Center officials and boosters can have it both ways - the arena is uncompetitive and doesn't generate sufficient revenues, yet it is also is a huge economic driver for the region.
The editorial uses Miller Park as an example (to highlight the often repeated stadium subsidy threat), "Without a new Miller Park, the Brewers would not be in Milwaukee today. Now, with new ownership and a new stadium, the team brings in more than 3 million fans a year." The impressive sounding 3 million attendees (closer to 2.8 million, ranking 11th in MLB for 2012, down from 7th place in 2011) doesn't seem as impressive when you express it as 81 games with roughly 35,000 attendees per game (in a stadium that holds just under 42,000; a 17% vacancy rate).
And, so what? If the Brewers weren't in Milwaukee, we wouldn't have a baseball team. That's it. No baseball team - boo hoo! There isn't a single economic indicator the boosters can point to which shows Miller Park has had a positive economic effect on anything but the owners' and players' wallets.
Yet, without any evidence, without anything to back up the claim, the editorial gushes, "A new arena could spark economic development downtown, especially in the Park East corridor."
The editorial even eludes to the substitution effect (consumers spending at one place rather than another), "The Bucks need to have a plan in place to construct a new state-of-the-art facility by 2015 - a new arena that would be a year-round draw for downtown Milwaukee." The new stadium will end up being a draw from non-subsidized establishments, venues, and other entertainment options. Sure, more people may attend games for the first few years of the new stadium, but this will be due to the decreased patronage at other local establishments. It would be nice if the Journal would explain why we should be picking stadiums as winners over other restaurants, bars, and entertainment options.
The editorial went on to state, "[Herb] Kohl will not bear the entire cost of a new facility, and he shouldn't." A most perplexing line. The whole consideration of a new stadium is for the primary purpose of housing the Bucks basketball team - Herb Kohl's team! I would love for the Journal Sentinel to elaborate as to why the public needs to fund private enterprise. Just because the public is allowed to purchase tickets to an event at an establishment, that doesn't really make it a "public" facility (actually a state-owned building operated by a quasi-private board). [The discussion of whether or not to have a public arena - for concerts and collegiate sporting events is an entirely different discussion.]
Obviously unable to see the contradiction in their own thought, the Journal continues on, "Newer NBA facilities are self-sustaining and can make money even when the teams are not playing." If these are such sure-fire, game-changing, no-brainers, why does the public have to be involved at all? Yet another point where the logic of stadium subsidization falls apart.
They close with, "And so the clock is winding down on the Bucks. It's time for the city and business leaders to pull up and try a game-winning shot." Yes, when the evidence and data contradict your premise, simply use a hackneyed sports cliche to sell that sow's ear as if it were a silk purse.
Even the Journal Sentinel's own Don Walker previously wondered how Bradley Center officials and boosters can have it both ways - the arena is uncompetitive and doesn't generate sufficient revenues, yet it is also is a huge economic driver for the region.
The editorial uses Miller Park as an example (to highlight the often repeated stadium subsidy threat), "Without a new Miller Park, the Brewers would not be in Milwaukee today. Now, with new ownership and a new stadium, the team brings in more than 3 million fans a year." The impressive sounding 3 million attendees (closer to 2.8 million, ranking 11th in MLB for 2012, down from 7th place in 2011) doesn't seem as impressive when you express it as 81 games with roughly 35,000 attendees per game (in a stadium that holds just under 42,000; a 17% vacancy rate).
And, so what? If the Brewers weren't in Milwaukee, we wouldn't have a baseball team. That's it. No baseball team - boo hoo! There isn't a single economic indicator the boosters can point to which shows Miller Park has had a positive economic effect on anything but the owners' and players' wallets.
Yet, without any evidence, without anything to back up the claim, the editorial gushes, "A new arena could spark economic development downtown, especially in the Park East corridor."
The editorial even eludes to the substitution effect (consumers spending at one place rather than another), "The Bucks need to have a plan in place to construct a new state-of-the-art facility by 2015 - a new arena that would be a year-round draw for downtown Milwaukee." The new stadium will end up being a draw from non-subsidized establishments, venues, and other entertainment options. Sure, more people may attend games for the first few years of the new stadium, but this will be due to the decreased patronage at other local establishments. It would be nice if the Journal would explain why we should be picking stadiums as winners over other restaurants, bars, and entertainment options.
The editorial went on to state, "[Herb] Kohl will not bear the entire cost of a new facility, and he shouldn't." A most perplexing line. The whole consideration of a new stadium is for the primary purpose of housing the Bucks basketball team - Herb Kohl's team! I would love for the Journal Sentinel to elaborate as to why the public needs to fund private enterprise. Just because the public is allowed to purchase tickets to an event at an establishment, that doesn't really make it a "public" facility (actually a state-owned building operated by a quasi-private board). [The discussion of whether or not to have a public arena - for concerts and collegiate sporting events is an entirely different discussion.]
Obviously unable to see the contradiction in their own thought, the Journal continues on, "Newer NBA facilities are self-sustaining and can make money even when the teams are not playing." If these are such sure-fire, game-changing, no-brainers, why does the public have to be involved at all? Yet another point where the logic of stadium subsidization falls apart.
They close with, "And so the clock is winding down on the Bucks. It's time for the city and business leaders to pull up and try a game-winning shot." Yes, when the evidence and data contradict your premise, simply use a hackneyed sports cliche to sell that sow's ear as if it were a silk purse.
Weekend Reading
Challenges In Housing & Mortgage Markets
Climate Change Made Sandy Worse. Period.
Downtown's Are Booming
401Ks Creating Generation Of Workers Unable To Retire
Marijuana Helps Prevent Lung Cancer
Menard's Anti-Obama Content
Programs Outside Health Care To Decline As Share Of Economy
Scott Walker Rejects Health Care Reform
10 Things 401K Plans Won't Tell You
Climate Change Made Sandy Worse. Period.
Downtown's Are Booming
401Ks Creating Generation Of Workers Unable To Retire
Marijuana Helps Prevent Lung Cancer
Menard's Anti-Obama Content
Programs Outside Health Care To Decline As Share Of Economy
Scott Walker Rejects Health Care Reform
10 Things 401K Plans Won't Tell You
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Walker's Wake Of Destruction
It seems whichever public office Scott Walker worms his way into, he leaves a stench of corruption, an ever-burgeoning suspicion, and a general wake of destruction.
Train-maker Talgo Sues Governor Walker, Wisconsin
From the increased costs and lawsuits from his attempted privatizations, his lying and duplicitous tactics, to the unconstitutionality of his bills, Scott Walker is (and has been) a disaster.
Train-maker Talgo Sues Governor Walker, Wisconsin
From the increased costs and lawsuits from his attempted privatizations, his lying and duplicitous tactics, to the unconstitutionality of his bills, Scott Walker is (and has been) a disaster.
Wack Job
More proof most CEOs are know-nothing, overpaid, blowhards.
Jack Welch doubles down on jobs numbers conspiracy theory.
Jack Welch doubles down on jobs numbers conspiracy theory.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Weekend Reading
Bogle On Active Management
Crazy Idea That Government Doesn't Create Jobs
Fat Cat Comments Or Dodd-Frank
Food Stamps Cause Global Depression
Historical Trends In Income Inequality
The Real Barrier To Tax Reform
Social Security Keeps 21 Million Out Of Poverty
Why Democrats Are Right To Politicize Sandy
World's 200 Richest People
Crazy Idea That Government Doesn't Create Jobs
Fat Cat Comments Or Dodd-Frank
Food Stamps Cause Global Depression
Historical Trends In Income Inequality
The Real Barrier To Tax Reform
Social Security Keeps 21 Million Out Of Poverty
Why Democrats Are Right To Politicize Sandy
World's 200 Richest People
Bradley Center Boosters Keep Pounding That Drum
Sheehy Plans Task Force To Study New Arena
Don Walker begins the article stating, "By mid-2014, the community needs to have a good idea of what role the private and public sectors will play in the construction of a new, multipurpose arena in Milwaukee."
We hear tales about the omnipotent private sector and free market...so efficient, so perfect.
Simultaneously, we're also told how the government is wasteful, full of slackers, and just can't do anything right.
Yet (for some reason) the inefficient, know-nothing government needs to play a major role in the planning and funding of private sector activities.
Enter sport stadiums. These privately controlled initiatives are (supposedly) such game changers, job creators, catalysts, no-brainers. [They're not.] But, again, for some unexplainable reason, the inept public sector needs to invest heavily and absorb most of the risk.
Living wages, universal health care, pensions, unemployment insurance, Medicare, Social Security - that's just a bunch of welfare for moochers. But corporate welfare - such as the public sector picking up most of the tab to build teams new stadiums - is just good policy?
The question should be - why is the public sector involved, at all, in the financing of these private sector playgrounds? If Herb Kohl and the Bucks want a new stadium, go ahead and build one. But the public shouldn't have to shoulder most of the cost.
Where does such a corporate welfare policy end? This misguided corporate welfare is why we now must pay blackmail money to Harley-Davidson and Mercury Marine when they threaten to take jobs away.
If the public is now responsible for the cost of building private businesses, shouldn't the public have a greater say in the operation - the pay scales, the retirement plans, the health care options, the environmental footprint, etc.? If the public sector is a necessary partner in construction, financing, and maintaining the viability of a business, shouldn't they have a representative voice in the organization making sure the public is getting back a fair return on their investment?
For Further Reading:
Basket Case
Buck The System
Buck You
Economic Engine Or Albatross?
Is There Anything A Stadium Can't Solve?
Overblown Bradley Center Impacts
Stadium Swindle
Will Herb Kohl Blackmail Milwaukee?
Don Walker begins the article stating, "By mid-2014, the community needs to have a good idea of what role the private and public sectors will play in the construction of a new, multipurpose arena in Milwaukee."
We hear tales about the omnipotent private sector and free market...so efficient, so perfect.
Simultaneously, we're also told how the government is wasteful, full of slackers, and just can't do anything right.
Yet (for some reason) the inefficient, know-nothing government needs to play a major role in the planning and funding of private sector activities.
Enter sport stadiums. These privately controlled initiatives are (supposedly) such game changers, job creators, catalysts, no-brainers. [They're not.] But, again, for some unexplainable reason, the inept public sector needs to invest heavily and absorb most of the risk.
Living wages, universal health care, pensions, unemployment insurance, Medicare, Social Security - that's just a bunch of welfare for moochers. But corporate welfare - such as the public sector picking up most of the tab to build teams new stadiums - is just good policy?
The question should be - why is the public sector involved, at all, in the financing of these private sector playgrounds? If Herb Kohl and the Bucks want a new stadium, go ahead and build one. But the public shouldn't have to shoulder most of the cost.
Where does such a corporate welfare policy end? This misguided corporate welfare is why we now must pay blackmail money to Harley-Davidson and Mercury Marine when they threaten to take jobs away.
If the public is now responsible for the cost of building private businesses, shouldn't the public have a greater say in the operation - the pay scales, the retirement plans, the health care options, the environmental footprint, etc.? If the public sector is a necessary partner in construction, financing, and maintaining the viability of a business, shouldn't they have a representative voice in the organization making sure the public is getting back a fair return on their investment?
For Further Reading:
Basket Case
Buck The System
Buck You
Economic Engine Or Albatross?
Is There Anything A Stadium Can't Solve?
Overblown Bradley Center Impacts
Stadium Swindle
Will Herb Kohl Blackmail Milwaukee?
Tax Cuts Do Not Boost The Economy
A recent Congressional Research Service report documented what many already knew: giving tax breaks to the rich helps concentrate wealth at the top, but it does not boost the economy (as reported here).
Taxes & The Economy: An Economic Analysis Of The Top Tax Rates Since 1945.
Taxes & The Economy: An Economic Analysis Of The Top Tax Rates Since 1945.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)