Gov. Walker to Cut University Spending by $300M but Build $220M Stadium

So let's start with some basic fact. Stadium do not bring money to an area. Whenever this assertion is made, it's made in a vacuum. It assumes that if folks aren't going out to the stadium they'd sit at home with their thumb lodged into their nether regions. Never mind the fact that whatever dollars it does generate, some of it leaves the community since it goes to players or organizations outside of the region.

On to the cuts. Walker claims that in exchange for the cuts to the University of Wisconsin the board of regents will have more autonomy, including raising tuition. In the midst of an already gross student loan crisis the governor wants to shift even more burden onto students some of whom won't be able to attend university as a result. Never mind that the amount that students owe in this country exceeds the GDP of many nations...

I'd be willing to understand the cuts if the state were strapped for cash (which the article claims but makes no sense given the stadium project), as there is merit to students and not tax payers footing the bill for school. However, to make these types of cuts then turn around and spend nearly as much on a stadium for the Buck's is utterly outrageous and completely devoid of any economic sense. College graduates go on to produce and contribute to the betterment of both the state and the country, the stadium benefits a few already wealthy people. It's disgusting, stupid and utterly predictable.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...or-steep-cuts-to-wisconsin-university-system/

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...or-new-bucks-arena-b99433734z1-289935421.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...ts-but-220-million-to-build-Bucks-a-new-arena

 

More pie-in-the-sky "The Free Market (ironic given this situation) will fix everything!"....

Next up, Walker will put out a tax cut plan....and asks Sam Brownback for advice. By the time of the Iowa Caucus, Wisconsin's projected deficit will have ballooned and Walker will be blaming it on his own Republican state legislature for agreeing to his plan.

 

ummm what? Of course a stadium brings revenue. Not only the stadium its self, but the hotels that surround it... restaurants, gas stations, etc...More takes place in a stadium then just sports FYI. You have concerts, rodeos, circus, etc... which all add value to the community through education and diversity. University spending is more frivolous than our government...I should know working for one.

 

Because Oldyoungin says so? Because the research and the data certainly do not agree with this statement. Perhaps you have some actual evidence to back up this claim because frankly, I'm going to trust the economists and peer reviewed research over the random forumite...

What you and politicians fail to understand is that the stadium is merely a substitute. Folks will go out and will spend money regardless of the stadium. So to treat it as if it's built in a vacuum is an error. Never mind that lots of folks who live in the area may not care at all about the Bucks, so why should their money be spent on it.

The abstract from the article in the OP:

 

Not to mention his job creation figures are absolutely miserable, as I pointed out in another thread. Those tax cuts on business sure did create a lot of jobs!

Oh wait...Wisconsin is far below the rest of the nation with regard to job creation. B-b-but...trickle down! Oh well...some people never learn...

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/cowb...-pay-off-cowboys-stadium-debt-years-early.ece

"The $135 million in city bonds for Rangers Ballpark, which opened in 1994, was paid off in a decade. Arlington’s sales tax revenue increased by about two-thirds during that period"

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...4-million-tax-revenues-year-article-1.1472100

"These are dollars that would not been flowed into the local economy had the arena not been in operation, city officials said.

When other factors are taken into account, such as indirect business generated by the arena, the full economic activity spawned by the Barclays Center in its first year was $251 million, the city said."


When done correctly, it can be very beneficitial. This does not even take into account the intrinsic value that stadiums can bring.

 

There's no contrapositive here though, we have no idea what the numbers would look like without the stadium. Again, you're acting as if the stadium were built in a vacuum.

More non-economists making claims in a vacuum. Did the city generate $0 before Barclay's? If not then these numbers are meaningless, they only have any importance when juxtaposed against the alternatives. You have to take into account the forgone value of other projects.

It also ignores the tax dollars confiscated from people who don't care at all about sports. I thought you people cared about freedom and government not taking your money to spend on pet projects? Or is that only when they want to build roads, bridges and fund colleges?

 

1. Deflection.

2. Deflection.

3. For the third time in this thread alone, a stadium does more than host sports. Concerts, rodeos, functions, etc... something for EVERYONE to like. YOU people? YOU PEOPLE?

 

exactly, why is not the free market paying for the Stadium?

 

I'm not surprised that another official grab some money to become lil bit richer, it's typical tradition of most of American officials.
Be sure that all money which were in list of spendings were spent not for the construction!

 

Nope, in economics you can't simply say. I built a lemonade stand and made $50, you have to take into account the other things you could have dome with the time and money you spent building that stand and operating it, it's called opportunity costs and no conversation about large scale projects such as stadiums can be had without it. Otherwise, as I've said repeatedly, your talking about building the stadium in a vacuum and that's certainly not the case.

Never mind that I offered a peer reviewed academic source and you gave me two news articles and quotes from bureaucrats who likely signed the bill for the subsidy, of course they're going to view it through rose colored glasses.

The source I provided covers these auxillary benefits and still finds them to not be substantial enough to justify the confiscation from tax payers.

Just so we're clear, you're just peachy with taking money from tax payers to construct buildings for billion dollar industries?

 

1. Economics is the study of theories, not absolutes. Anything presented can be viewed the way you are , so we do what we can with what we have.

2. By all means if you think they newspaper is lying , go about showing it.

3. Cool, but oddly enough stadiums keep getting approvals from its voting populous

4. Yeah, I am completely cool with using tax dollars to help build stadiums. Casinos and stadiums are the only things keeping my Detroit a place to visit. With out these stadiums, a lot of people would be with out a job and my city would lose the one thing that brings people together.

 

You mean FOOTBALL isn't more important that UNIVERSITIES??

 

Hmm do I trust mathematics and regression analysis or do I trust bureaucrats with a stake in the game... Not only that, but the paper is peer reviewed, unlike the statements made by politicians. If you can't see the conflict of interest I'm not sure I can help.

If they fail to account for opportunity costs then there are two possibilities, either they're lying/cherry picking data or they don't get it. I can't be sure of which it is, but I can be sure that they're analysis fails to take these costs into account.

There's no accounting for the dumb masses. Didn't these same people vote in the president you hold so dear?

So the next time Uncle Sam wants to use your tax dollars on something you don't want, keep this conversation in mind.

Since we're citing the news and since you seem to want to ignore academic research:

http://www.mlive.com/business/detroit/index.ssf/2013/06/18_billion_economic_impact_fro.html

Sucking the Life out of Detroit


I'm not sure why I'm bothering though, you've already made clear you have skin in the game and as a result you lack the ability to be objective on the subject.

 

Sports stadiums aren't infrastructure. The roads and bridges leading to and away from them are infrastructure. I loathe subsidizing sports venues. These owners have enjoyed unbelievable growth and an increase in the value of their organizations and their brands. Subsidizing them is one of the dumbest things voters can do. I don't even like tax increment financing for them. THEY'RE EXTRAORDINARILY PROFITABLE! WHY IN THE HELL ARE POOR PEOPLE GIVING RICH PEOPLE MONEY! MAN, THIS IS DUMB.

 

A stadium is not a public necessity. A university is.

 

Republican love Big Government except when it benefits working people.

 

Not only is it not a necessity, not only does the actual research say it doesn't generate the revenue it promises but worst of all it's built with tax payer dollars for billion dollar industries. Tell me again why the NBA, NFL, NHL or MLB need public subsidies?

 

$220,000,000 for the Bucks??? I might be able to see $220,000,000 if it was for the Badgers since it will be Badgers paying for it.

 

Newsbusters links to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel which reports that state tax money is about 19% of the UW system budget Tuition, grants, donations etc provide the rest of the over six billion dollar budget. After 2017, the Board of Regents would have the authority to set whatever tuition it saw fit to calculate. Between now and then, legislators would be free to pass legislation that would extend the tuition freeze and size of increases. A $150.000 cut would be about 2% of the budget. Thus, while it is a real cut, it is not a "huge" cut. Added autonomy migth entice wealthy donors and corporations to give more money when they realize Walker's plan cuts red tape. "It is entirely plausible that the $150 million deficit could be made up by increased donations." The possible increases are conjecture. The small cut is not.

Stadiums can generate revenue. Consider the the University of Nebraska with its sold- out foot ball audiences. That brings in some money, but the main player is the Big Red mystique. The stadium is part of the product which generates enough money to finance less popular sports.

 

And the Dems are fiscally conservative? But yeah, moves like these are the ones that'll put Walker on the hot burner. We want a fiscal conservative That means someone who does recognize 18 trillion dollars is a problem. Someone who recognizes that letting people across our borders for god knows WHAT reason is not good for a country, even if it means 'my' political party gets elected as a result. While I do believe that sporting events do infact encourage public spending, that 'public spending' is debatable.

It goes into foods and consumerism, IE: Not in the public sector, but the private one. And not even a sector, but more accurately the various vendors and venues that are available inside the stadium. For the businesses that are associated with the NBA(and Milwaukee), bingo this is great. For middle class Wisconsin people looking for a boost to the economy: Not so much.

It's cronyism. I'll call out cronyism left or right, regardless of where it comes from. And this is a crony bill so that Walker can get financed by the billionaires in America when it comes time for the general elections.

 

1, Again, if you have any evidence the paper or the city is lying I would be glad to take a look.

2. What great opportunity cost is on the flip side of our stadiums? What have we lost out on because of said stadiums?

3. Sometimes I agree with the masses, sometimes I dont.

4. There are things I like my tax dollars being used for, things I don't. No different than any other american.

5. Detroit has been on an economic downturn for years. Only positives aspects of the city are our sports and casinos. With out those, no one goes anymore and the city collapses even further.

6. Pot, meet kettle.

 

Not according to the research:

[h=1]Stadiums' costs outweighing revenue potential[/h]

 

Prove it.

- - - Updated - - -

Not when done correctly in the right areas, as my links highlighted.

 

Well if they had to spend to the money to buy land and build their own stadiums, their profit margins would go down. Then they wouldn't be able to afford to pay their athletes, coaches, and owners multi-million dollar salaries for a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing ball game.

And don't you know that the rich are entitled to their money?

- - - Updated - - -

As your links claimed with no scientific analysis, peer review, or confirmation from unbiased parties.