MPP Dayton Rips SNAP Cuts
Think Progress Reconsider Pardoning a Turkey
“They’re taking away from the neediest people in the nation,” the governor said. “These federal cuts are going to be beyond our capability, or any state’s capability to absorb and make up the difference. It’s a very, very difficult time for farmers…as well as food recipients. It’s a cruel way to treat them in the holiday season.” Gov Mark Dayton
Now he seems to believe that Minnesotan's can afford to pay more Federal taxes and/or go deeper in debt to pay for SNAP, however Minnesotan's can not apprently pay directly for their own poor and unfortunates to have food. This of course makes no sense...
On top of this, he says that farmers need help... Doesn't he realize that farm land prices are at record highes and the last 5+ years have been great for MN farmers...
Thoughts?
72 comments:
It's not a question of what we can't do, it's a question of what we choose not to do. When one of our major parties sought to dishonor America's debt, there was no doubt that we could pay what we owned, we just didn't want to. It is one of the ways wealth distribution is destabilizing our country.
--Hiram
it seems to me most people would agree with Gov. Dayton's opposition to cuts in the SNAP program, making his view mainstream. Perhaps it only looks far left to you from your vantage point on the far right.
Laurie,
I said MPP is typically far left, not Dayton's comments. I said Dayton seems to think it makes sense to have Minnesotans send money to the Feds so they can send it back to us... Which of course to me means less funding goes to those who need it and more goes to government bureaucrats at multiple levels.
I am betting ~50% of the population supports cutting / maintaining SNAP and ~50% supports increasing it. That would be the typical GOP/DFL mix... So it seems the "main stream" is mixed as usual.
Hiram,
It was Dayton who seems to be saying "can't do"... So you will have to ask him to explain why he would not choose to care for our own.
"federal cuts are going to be beyond our capability, or any state’s capability to absorb and make up the difference." Gov Dayton
Dayton's comment makes me more frustrated every time I think about it... It seems Dayton thinks that the Feds have some "magic pile of cash" that we are receiving these funds from. Apparently he seems too foolish to understand that the only money the Feds have is that which they have collected from us.
Is this typical of Liberals? Do you really believe that the Fed money comes from a different source than the State money?
It was Dayton who seems to be saying "can't do".
I am sure it was. But I think it was "can't" in terms of "not willing" instead of not able. We are the richest country in the world, the richest country the world has ever seen. It's all a question of what we choose to spend our money on.
--Hiram
I have no objection whatever to hungry people having food, my only concerns are who decides that they actually NEED it, and where do we find this "we" that pays for it? Every time, you notice, that somebody proposes reducing one of these poverty programs, the left runs out to bawl about "the poorest of the poor" when what actually happens, in EVERY case, is that eligibility requirements get tightened and the RICHEST of the poor get booted off, along with at least some of the flat-out freeloaders. Seems to me that if a few less people could buy a new car with food stamps (and it DOES happen), that might be a GOOD thing. Spare me the bleeding heart; I'm not buying it.
Besides, if Dayton really cared, he would open his wallet and start a soup kitchen somewhere, or fund one of the existing food banks.
Your suggestion would require a decrease in federal taxes, an increase in state taxes, and a bill funding nutrition programs at the state level. It seems much easier to me to just pass a farm bill maintaining SNAP funding. Especially as those kids in Mississippi need to eat too.
So let's think here...
Does the Fed General fund have extra cash to fund SNAP every month? The answer is no, since it is running a deficit every month.
So let's fix our poor people problems as we deem correct, and let the folks in Mississippi deal with their poor folks problems as they feel is correct.
Hiram,
I forgot, why do you think Dayton stated it in the way he did?
If you're concerned for the poor kids in Mississippi, don't be. Studies show that for every dollar Mississippians pay in federal taxes, they get back about $1.35. Minnesotans get back about $0.70, so you ARE taking care of Mississippi kids, like it or not. And of course Washington D.C. area gets back $7.00 or more, so we would be way ahead caring for our own at the state level, and sending a nice big charitable donation to Mississippi. Especially since their cost of living is so low-- what with the low taxes and all-- we can afford it.
If you're concerned for the poor kids in Mississippi, don't be. Studies show that for every dollar Mississippians pay in federal taxes, they get back about $1.35. Minnesotans get back about $0.70, so you ARE taking care of Mississippi kids, like it or not
One of the perks of being a wealthy state. And subsidies from Minnesota is one reason Mississippi has such a great business environment. Another form of wealth redistribution.
==Hiram
Hiram had it correct in his first response. We're cutting SNAP, but wealthy farmers are still on the federal gravy train.
Hiram,
Are you for or against this state to state wealth redistribution by the Fed gov't? Your comment seemed conflicted.
Sean,
What "gravy train" do you mean? The only real benefit my farmer friends have is subsidized crop insurance. Are they missing something they should be applying for?
There are all sorts of farm subsidies beyond crop insurance.
http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=27000&statename=Minnesota
Farm EWG
In summary then, MN Farmers and/or Ag businesses have received 17 Billion dollars over a 17 year period. Did I understand that correctly?
Do you have any thoughts regarding why these subsidies are in place? In other words, what are the citizens of the USA receiving in return?
My view is that they are buying price stability, control over what is planted and what land is not being planted. Is this worth it?
Some farm program reading:
NPR Farm Subsidies
CATO 5 Reason to Stop Subsidies
Freakonomics Ag Subsidies
Sean,
It looks like you are correct and that most of the subsidies should be killed. I found it ironic and humorous though that you are in agreement with the CATO folks on this one... I am guessing that does not happen too often.
I would just point out that, once again, Congress is tasking itself with fixing a problem that they already broke, and then fixed again, and now it's broke again. It's a good argument for ending the meddling, unless you can make the meddling make sense. To me, subsidized crop insurance (depending on how it's done) makes a lot of sense by evening out the vicissitudes of weather on the production and income levels. Direct payments, no. And SNAP has absolutely no business being in the farm bill!
I'm not necessarily arguing that all the subsidies should be killed. Some of them make sense and some of them don't. But given we spend about 3x as much on farm subsidies as we do on SNAP, we certainly have the ability to continue SNAP at its current level.
Please provide your sources. I believe the whole "Ag Subsidy/Insurance" cost of the "Farm Bill" is only ~20%. That leaves ~80% of it going to food subsidies for kids, poor, etc.
The commodity portion looks pretty puny in this pie chart...
WonkBlog 2012 Farm Bill Breakdown
You're right. Looks like I conflated a one-year SNAP total versus 10-year subsidy totals.
Are you for or against this state to state wealth redistribution by the Fed gov't?
I am neutral on that question. It depends on whether the policy which has the effect of redistributing wealth is good or bad policy. I note that conservatives have no problem when redistribution of wealth occurs when taxes are lowered as opposed to being raised.
--Hiram
"redistribution of wealth occurs when taxes are lowered as opposed to being raised."
One can not redistribute by only collecting more or less. It requires the collection from one person/group and the expenditure on a different person/group.
It requires the collection from one person/group and the expenditure on a different person/group.
Well, as a person, I don't think I have ever paid a tax that wasn't spent on someone else. As for "group", I guess how you define "redistribution" depends on how you define "group". I think the group is "taxpayers". That being the case, redistribution never occurs.
--Hiram
That's because you seem to be confused as usual regarding the difference between personal and public property.
As we have discussed before when you said that America was a rich country with a bunch of great individuals in it, so we should have no problem paying the National Debt.
Whereas I see America as a great country with a lot of wealthy individuals in it. A small but very important difference....
That's because you seem to be confused as usual regarding the difference between personal and public property.
You are absolutely correct. I have never been able to tell the difference between the two.
--Hiram
So, where do you live? I've got a few relatives coming for the holidays and they'll need a place to stay…
So, where do you live? I've got a few relatives coming for the holidays and they'll need a place to stay…
How about the hotels I subsidized by giving the Vikings a half billion dollars?
--Hiram
Not that I support the new stadium, I see it as a huge "make work" project. And that is why Dayton and the DFL backed it. Meaning a Billion dollars in workers salaries, materials sales, etc.
Who do you think will "own" the stadium when it is built?
How is it different than building bike paths, parks, or any other public venue?
Who do you think will "own" the stadium when it is built?
I don't know the answer to that question. Ownership in this context has some connotations different from the ones we are used to. Although some entity might technically "own" the stadium, they can't exercise one of the normal incidents of ownership in that they can't sell it. And even if they could sell it, they wouldn't find any buyers because the stadium itself is worthless as a stand alone asset. "Ownership" with respect to single use facilities like the Vikings and Twins Stadiums and Target Center mostly means responsibility for costs.
The Vikings and Twins Stadiums, like parks and libraries and residential streets are amenities provided by whoever provides them.
--Hiram
Single use?
You have got to be kidding... I have attended many different events in the metrodome.
I have attended many different events in the metrodome.
Do you look forward to attending those events in the future once the Vikings leave?
Typically when sports venues lose their main tenant, they are torn down. That's why there is no Metropolitan Stadium, Memorial Stadium, Met Center, etc. While other events are often conducted at these facilities, they don't come anywhere near justifying their existence financially. That's why I don't think it makes sense to think of the Viking stadium transaction in terms of ownership of a stadium. When we do, we have to consider that in exchange for our half billion dollars we got a stadium worth precisely nothing. What we really paid our half billion dollars for was the continuation of the Vikings in our community. I have often wondered whether we would have been financially better off if we had simply given them a check for a half billion dollars, instead of a half billion dollars in the form of a stadium.
--Hiram
I am so confused...
What about all the jobs and tax revenues this is creating during the construction? Just think, sales and income taxes on $1 BILLION spent dollars. Half of it coming from the Private sector. This seems like a Liberals dream.
And then all the on going jobs in the heart of Minneapolis where they are most needed, the continuing tax revenue, the tourist dollars, the national visibility for MN, etc.
As for keeping the building in use. Hopefully the Vikings stay a viable franchise in the Mpls market !!!
I was curious how long these venues were standing...
Metropolitan Stadium 29 yrs
Memorial Stadium 68 yrs
Met Center 27 yrs
Metrodome 31 yrs
OK, we're off on a tangent, and that's fine with me. I guess, in deference to the topic, though, I would ask if the 1/2 billion bucks spent on the a playground for millionaire players and billionaire owners might not feed just a few folks? If food for the hungry were that important, shouldn't it be a higher budget priority than a lot of the #$%$% in the budget.
The real irony, IMHO, is that if the State had simply sold the vikings the Metrodome for a dollar, the added revenue the Vikes would realize would more than offset the taxpayer contribution to the new stadium! More money for the Vikes and the taxpayers would have been left completely out of it! (Yes, I did the math).
But where would the Keynsian stimulus that Hiram usually supports be?
Gee, I don't know. Upper concourse men's room, maybe? I'm pretty much convinced that government "stimulus" of the economy is like treating high cholesterol with White Castles. Not helpful.
What about all the jobs and tax revenues this is creating during the construction?
Temporary money. Basically one could achieve the same effect by digging a hole in downtown Minneapolis, and then filling it up again. I agree actually, that putting money into construction helps the economy, especially in times of recession. That was definitely an argument in favor of the stadium. But it's an argument in favor of any construction project, and there is little doubt in my mind, that there are construction projects that are better for the economy than a sports stadium that will be used meaningfully only eight Sunday afternoons a year.
--Hiram
But where would the Keynsian stimulus that Hiram usually supports be?
There are more productive and less productive ways to spend money. That isn't a Keynesian issue as such. As it happens, after we build athletic stadiums, the stadiums themselves are worthless as stand alone facilities. But the don't stand alone. Football and baseball teams play in them, and the combined enterprise value of the team and new stadium increases quite a bit. It just happens to be the case that the increased value goes to the team, not to the "owners" of the stadium.
--Hiram
Believe it or not, Hiram makes a lot of sense. There is certainly an argument to be made as to whether tax dollars (which are NOT unlimited, as the DFL believes) should be spent on feeding the hungry or providing playpens for millionaires. The unfortunate fact is that the politicians don't ever want to set these priorities. But if government is going to spend money on something, large capital projects are better than simple wealth transfers like food stamps. The capital projects inject money into the economy in the short-term, and increase the total wealth of the society. Welfare simply moves the money around but a new stadium gives us something lasting for the dollars spent, and that will promote additional economic activity.
And it may be a mistake to drag Keynesian economics into this. Our politicians aren't smart enough to understand it and its limitations, let alone apply it properly.
About Hiram's "rule of holes," I think it must be said that he is once again on to something. Government spending on construction projects as economic stimulus during a recession is a good idea only if two conditions are met: first, that the government is not already running a deficit, or "has the [tax] money in hand," and second, that what is being constructed is worth the money the taxpayers will spend on it. Neither applies, I think, to the Vikings stadium and almost certainly does not apply to the Obama stimulus. And then we have idiots like Nancy Pelosi running around talking about how food stamps are a stimulus for the economy. .
The problem with the "sell the Dome to the Vikings for $1" theory is that the Vikings didn't want to own the Metrodome.
The economic arguments for stadiums are incredibly weak. Having watched the debates over stadium issues over a period of decades, I have never seen a stadium proponent when a debate on the economic merits of the stadiums. Those arguments only win when they are presented in forums in which they go unchallenged. But economics aren't the only reason we do things. And let's recall that economics is largely the study of the consequences of decisions made on other grounds. No economic textbook tells you why a Van Gogh painting is more valuable than say, a Hiram painting. What economics can tell you a lot about is the consequences of decisions like those which are made on other grounds.
The reason for building a stadium was that we like to have football. That's not an economic reason, but it's no less valid because of that. We do lots of things in our everyday lives for reasons other than economic reasons. The problem comes when we fool ourselves into thinking that we are motivated by economics which often means that we have distorted economics in ways that are unhelpful and even damaging.
--Hiram
"... problem is that the Vikings didn't want to own the Metrodome."
That's not entirely true. The Vikings "couldn't make enough money" in the Metrodome. If they had owned it outright, by "buying it for $1," they would have had more money coming in than the taxpayers are contributing to the new stadium, and would NOT be having to pay their $1/2 billion of the cost. If they wanted to tear down the Metrodome and build another (by far not their first choice) they could have done it with their contribution plus an NFL loan. If they wanted to keep the Dome and play in it (for free) while the new Palace was being built, they could have done that. It made economic sense all the way around, but politicians are rarely about what makes economic good sense.
It's entirely true. When politicians floated that idea (Kohls in 2009, and Marty/Runbeck in 2011), the Vikings flat out rejected it both times.
Why? Because the Vikings had already captured most of the revenue streams from the Metrodome, and they haven't paid any rent since 2002, so buying the building wouldn't have saved them any money.
I'll see a mental health specialist shortly, because again I agree with Hiram. Economic considerations aren't what raise decision points. Some other consideration does, and the economic ramifications are only the result and/or a deciding factor. I've long believed that government has a role in the arts, for example, but that it should be limited to capital facilities, not the practice. It is a public good because art in general enhances the society, and as such the government can fund it (reasonably). But government should not fund individual artists or projects. If there is community support for a new art gallery or concert hall, for example, government can build that capital facility, but turn over management to a non-profit organization, that must make ends meet by offering art that people want to see. The nutty art funded by the NEA would put them out of business, so it wouldn't be shown or produced, and that's exactly what should happen.
Like it or not, sports is an "art," too, and by most accounts more popular than Van Gogh paintings. I would much rather see a stadium built than direct subsidies to the team. Of course it is a bit different when you tell me that the Vikings are (supposedly) a for-profit enterprise. That becomes corporate welfare.
Really? Haven't paid any rent? That's not the information I had. I do know they're paying a bundle to play at the U in the interim.
And the reason it was rejected was because the Vikings wanted a new plush palace, with additional new revenue streams (supposedly). They thought they could get it with the usual blackmail, and they did. I'm sure they'll play much better football in their new stadium. :-^
Really? Haven't paid any rent? That's not the information I had. I do know they're paying a bundle to play at the U in the interim.
I am sure the financial arrangements between the sports teams and the owners of the stadium are very complex. To look at them simply in terms of rent, in all likelihood oversimplifies and distorts them.
There are lots of ways to look at the symbiotic relationship between sports teams and their landlords. The way I often look at them, as a partnership or combined enterprise isn't very common. Usually people think of them in legalistic terms as separate entities.
Calling something "blackmail" is a pejorative choice of term. I never thought the Vikings were blackmailing us. Like any business, they had a product to sell, Vikings football, for which they asked a price, a new stadium. If we didn't want that deal, like any business, they would offer it to someone else.
--Hiram
A car dealership isn't blackmailing you when it refuses to sell you a car because it thinks the price you are offering is too low.
==Hiram
"...they had a product to sell, Vikings football, for which they asked a price, a new stadium. If we didn't ..."
That is incorrect. The price they were asking for their product was the price of tickets, from which any normal business would have built or improved whatever facilities they thought necessary to operate or improve the profitability of their business. Instead, they threatened to take their ball and leave home if they were not provided with a plush new pleasure palace for their business. Now, if they had simply increased the price of their tickets enough to pay for it themselves (taking their chances in the marketplace), that would have been okay. Instead they demanded that the taxpayers, many of whom don't even care about football, or Vikings football, or don't care to pay exorbitant fees to see it in person, must contribute to it, regardless. Being forced to buy something you don't want to buy, under threat of harm to you and/or to somebody else is extortion. Oh! I guess it isn't blackmail; it's much worse.
"The price they were asking for their product was the price of tickets, from which any normal business would have built or improved whatever facilities they thought necessary to operate or improve the profitability of their business. Instead, they threatened to take their ball and leave home if they were not provided with a plush new pleasure palace for their business.}
If all they were selling was tickets, how did the stadium ever become an issue? The Vikings actually sell a variety of things; tickets, sweatshirts, advertising, naming rights. What they sold the state was the continued presence of the team in Minnesota. And their price for that was a stadium. Instead they could have raised ticket prices, but that was their business choice, and as it happens they made a different choice.
--Hiram
True, they're selling a whole "fan experience" but that is also what they were threatening to quit selling. So, in addition to extortion, we can add dealing in narcotics to their list. In addition to selling them the Met for a dollar, I would have rescinded all the rents and taxes and fees the State collects, and that is where the Vikings would have made more money than what the taxpayers are supplying for a stadium.
This has to be the strangest twist.
Hiram trying to explain that a deal was struck. And Jerry somehow is thinking the Vikings "extorted" us...
Personally I don't see this any different than the State promoting Biking, Snowmobiling, Hunting, Libraries, and all the other things that make MN a great place to live. Politicians thought enough Minnesotans wanted to keep the Vikings here, therefore they negotiated a deal.
And the Vikings being good capitalists used the leverage they had to push for a better deal. I would think Jerry would appreciate that shrewd business sense, not vilify it.
Maybe he thinks Lockheed Martin should roll over the next time the Defense department comes calling...
I always have difficulty with the concept of extortion. Extortion is an transaction in which something done or not done in exchange for something else, which also describes how we buy toothpaste. Something in addition is needed to make an ordinary transaction extortion, but it's hard to put a finger on exactly what that is. Some dictionaries use the word "oppressive" to describe that added something. In any event, I don't see anything out of the ordinary for a professional football organization to say that either they get a deal that they want or they will take their business elsewhere. Cities without pro football are not oppressed. No one has a right to pro football. Pro football is not against the law, unlike trading in narcotics.
--Hiram
I see no inconsistency here at all. The state promotes snowmobiling and bicycling, etc., by building trails on public land. They are creating a capital facility, which is a public good because anybody can use it (if they engage in that sport). I do not object to the government creating parks, within reason. The difference is that public parks and private enterprises are two entirely different things and that never the twain should meet. Nobody profits directly from the use of a snowmobile trail, but if the state government wanted to build a factory for the Ski Doo Corporation, at taxpayer expense, I would object.
And that is why it is more correct to call this "extortion" rather than "a deal." A deal requires two willing participants, where both parties receive something of more value than what they have to trade. If you are willing to sell me a bag of apples for five dollars rather than the six dollars you were asking before, that's a deal. If you tell me to pay six dollars for the apples or you were going to burn down all the apple trees, that's extortion. This is not a deal because a large number of taxpayers – all of them, really – were not willing participants, and a large percentage of us are not gaining something commensurate with what we are paying for it.
Why do you think the news folks continually referred to the Vikings deal as "threatening to move" if it wasn't extortion?
Though you personally were not a willing participant, your elected representatives were. Thus you were...
Just like when Laurie was committed to invading Iraq and Afganistan against her wishes. We choose to live here, therefore we get signed up for many things we agree and disagree with...
The Vikings "threatening" to "leave" is no different than when I tell a car dealer that I am going to start looking for a better deal at another dealership if they don't sweeten their offer.
This is America by God. A business should be free to relocate whenever they wish!!!
And the government builds properties for companies all the time via tax free zones... Which of course are just another govt/business negotiation...
FYI, I am making good use of our tax dollars right now. We are at Hyland Hills and my youngest is snow boarding with her friends.
Why do you think the news folks continually referred to the Vikings deal as "threatening to move" if it wasn't extortion?
People think the Vikings are our team, that we have some sort of ownership in the team. And using threats to take away something we own falls very comfortably in the category of extortion as the word is commonly used. But the fact is we don't own the Vikings, and those who do have every right to do with their property as they please.
--Hiram
Who are you and what did you do with Hiram?
Who are you and what did you do with Hiram?
It's me. Do you see some sort of analogy with taxation? Taxation isn't extortion for a variety of reasons. Taxes are the product of a democratic system of government to which we have all agreed to be bound. Like the rest of us, the Vikings may choose to locate themselves anyplace they please, but they are obligated to pay taxes, as required by law.
--Hiram
By the way, there is irony in this idea of public ownership of the Vikings. Of course, the public doesn't own the Vikings, but the Vikings ownership profits immensely from the illusion that it does. The fact that a very many Minnesotans identify with the team, think about it as their team, is the only value the team has. Without that identification, all the Vikings are is a collection of sweaty uniforms, used footballs, and a whole lot of debt.
--Hiram
I can't relate to sports fanatics... I am a home improvement and motorized equipment guy... I would rather be doing than watching.
Nice batch of fruit salad you have here, John!
"Though you personally were not a willing participant, your elected representatives were. Thus you were..." No, they are not my representatives because they did not represent me. Some other people's representatives prevailed in the vote. You know, like four wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Even if the representative from my district voted for the thing, she did not represent me because I told her repeatedly NOT to vote for it. Whenever government takes money from one person and gives to another, they're exceeding their moral authority.
"Just like when Laurie was committed to invading Iraq and Afganistan against her wishes. We choose to live here, therefore we get signed up for many things we agree and disagree with..." Except that the national defense is something that the [federal, in this case] government is constitutionally permitted and logically obligated to do in our names. Building a playpen for millionaire players and billionaire owners is not.
"The Vikings "threatening" to "leave" is no different than when I tell a car dealer that I am going to start looking for a better deal at another dealership if they don't sweeten their offer." That's simply backwards. You have a monopoly on your purchase, but not on EVERYBODY else's ability to purchase a car. And the car dealer does not hold a monopoly but has intense competition. The Vikings hold a monopoly on NFL football, and if you don't buy a ticket from them you don't get into the game. And if you don't build them a stadium, NOBODY gets to go to a game. Sounds like extortion to me.
"This is America by God. A business should be free to relocate whenever they wish!!!" Absolutely right! And a business should be free to stay put if that is their desire, but the key word here is FREE. If Target demands that we build them a new store or they'll move, does the door hit them in the * on the way out?
"And the government builds properties for companies all the time via tax free zones... Which of course are just another govt/business negotiation..." Oh, so just because government did something wrong a few times, they have to keep making the same mistake over and over again? I'm sorry, it's still corporate welfare and I'm against it. On the other hand, there is a world of difference between letting a company escape your state's onerous tax rates (which ought to be zero anyway) and GIVING them 1/2 a billion buckaroonies. One of the things I suggested as an alternative to financing the "Crystal Palace" for the Vikes was that the State simply buy up any remaining tickets-- guarantee a full house-- for every game and give them out as lottery prizes. The team makes more money and the taxpayers spend a whole lot less.
"FYI, I am making good use of our tax dollars right now. We are at Hyland Hills and my youngest is snow boarding with her friends." Great! Is it free? Is it operated by a private enterprise for profit?
These apples and oranges are great.
The Vikings/NFL pays half the community pays half. You keep implying or saying that the Vikings/NFL are getting a gift, yet it seems to me they are putting up a dollar for every dollar the community is. They pay and we pay because we both get things that are preceived as benefits.
They get profits and we get to be perceived as a top rated community. (value = ???) As I said, I would be fine if the Pro Teams left Minnesota, however I am not naive enough to deny that there is real financial and quality of life benefits for all of us in having them in the state.
The Vikings/NFL do not have a monopoly in the entertainment business. "Our" elected representative simply believe that "our" community wants/needs that premium entertainment service/product, therefore we pay a premium price for it.
I would think the NFL's situation is your dream for America. It is perfectly capitalistic with little government control. People can try to compete whenever they wish, however the USFL found that the NFL is a pretty strong competitor. See, perfectly cut throat competition with little to no government intervention.
I just happen to be back at Hyland again... The girl does love to snow board.
My point was that the community is paying part of her bill and I am paying part. Just like with the stadium.
The value in her/my case is "enjoyment" and the value for the Vikings/community is profit/entertainment/status. Seems like apples and apples.
Tax dollars being used to benefit individual citizens for the good of the community.
Gove
So, if Target puts up half the cost of the new store they want, it's OK to soak the taxpayers for the other half? Where's the threshold for unacceptability-- 60/40, 70/30, or do the taxpayers have to pick up 100% before you object to corporate welfare? If Target wants a new building, shouldn't Target PAY FOR a new building, lock, stock and two hacked cash registers?
"'Our' elected representative simply believe that "our" community wants/needs that premium entertainment service/product, therefore we pay a premium price for it."
Here you almost have an argument. I will agree that pro sports is a "cultural enrichment" despite the stretch of the term culture. I have said before that I thought government had a role in building capital facilities like art galleries or sports stadiums, but they must never turn those facilities over to a for-profit (especially exorbitantly profitable) private business, let alone a monopoly private business. If the Vikings were publicly owned, one could almost make an argument that the taxpayers could put up 100%. Since they're privately owned, the public should put up 0%. Compromise and split the difference? Don't be silly. Compromise is almost never the right answer.
I am assuming that Hyland is a public park and it was built and is operated by the local government. Fine. It's a public park, a reasonable "public good." Having government employees operate it is a bit troublesome but far less so than government operation of, say, an Orchestra or art gallery, where the artistic and "cultural" choices might be oblivious to the preferences of the paying customers. There are no choices being made here-- snow is snow.
Now keep up... I am pretty sure the Vikings will never "Own" the new stadium. They will just rent it.
Kind of like when Plymouth built their beautiful club facility and leased it to Lifetime...
Please correct me if I am incorrect.
Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority
After reading this I still say this isn't a gift to the Vikings/NFL, but a huge "make work" project to help minorities and women... I wonder where they will find that many "skilled designers / contractors" with those demographics in that type of business... MSFA Multi-Use Stadium Q and A
Remember that my previous employer worked hard at reverse discrimination and still had a hard time hitting 10% women and minorities. And they want 20+%???
Maybe it will be like my friend the contractor who had to hire some token employees to carry stuff and hang out to meet this kind of reqt on another city job.
Maybe it was the politicians who suckered the Vikings/NFL... I mean they did convince them to spend ~.5 billion on a public building and all this labor...
The reason governments end up building these capital projects is because private enterprise can't possibly make any money doing it. Look at light rail. Government, on the other hand, can expend such money and claim the "public good" or "cultural advancement" as a non-monetary but nonetheless valuable return-- call it an investment in social betterment. Look at light rail; the opposite is true and it should never have been built. Be it a park, art gallery, or public sports stadium, the non-monetary return justifies some expense. The nature of government projects, of course, is that they are terribly wasteful compared to what an efficient business would build, but that's really a different problem. The problem here is that we are getting the "cultural" benefit, sure, but we're paying the usual ridiculous government price for it while the private enterprise gets all the money!
Having the State own the Vikings would change the equation, of course, but if you think they're playing badly now...
Post a Comment