Why do I care? Well, I am a long-suffering Vikings fan, and am just pleased to see my team in the post-season. Hey, if star running back Adrian Peterson breaks a few, and QB Tavaris Jackson plays smart, who knows?
But why should you care? Well, if you are not a Vikings or Eagles fan, but are a taxpayer, then you should take note of another case of silly, wasteful politics trying to be dressed up as sound economics.
The Star Tribune reported on January 2 that the owner of the Vikings is taking this playoff appearance as another opportunity to beg for a huge taxpayer handout to build the Vikings a new stadium. The story noted:
With the state and federal governments looking for ways to jump-start the economy, a New Jersey businessman has an ambitious public works project he says will create more than 5,500 jobs and provide $500 million or more to local contractors.
The businessman is Zygi Wilf, principal owner of the Minnesota Vikings.
The project: A $954 million, state-of-the-art stadium for his football team in downtown Minneapolis -- to be constructed using more than $635 million in public money.
"Why not? The Vikings are a public asset," said Lester Bagley, the Vikings' vice president in charge of stadium development. "This is going to create an economic boost."
In a rare moment of clarity, a couple of key politicians had the right response, i.e., laughter:
In fact, two legislative leaders laughed out loud when asked whether the House and Senate would seriously consider the Vikings' bid this session.
"It certainly will not be a high priority," Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis, said recently. "We have a fiscal and job crisis in Minnesota."
Margaret Anderson Kelliher, the speaker of the House, was even more blunt about the Vikings' chances of getting state money from the Legislature.
"There is no chance," the Minneapolis DFLer said. "It's a great idea if they would pay for it themselves. But we are in uncharted economic waters. We are in a crisis situation, and we have to focus on the financial and economic health of the state."
We are in an era of silly economics. If we believe that massive federal government spending on infrastructure projects is going to lift the economy, then why not massive state and local spending on a football stadium?
Of course, the answer is: Neither federal infrastructure spending nor doling out tax dollars for a sports stadium will spur the economy.
Raymond J. Keating
Chief Economist
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
2 comments:
Good news that Minnesota is resisting the Vikes' pitch for public money. What is disturbing though is that nothing is ever ruled out categorically by our political or media elites. It's not that they would never give public money to subsidize millionaire athletes and onwers. It's that there's currently a "fiscal crisis." Better than nothing, but just once you wish they'd say "get the heck out of here." No way, ever.
Of course it's silly. However, *no* sports team deserves taxpayer subsidies. What's to keep the team from moving away?
IF they want public money, then they can be a public property. No money without a majority ownership by the taxpayers. That's the only reason Green Bay hasn't moved (and the reason why there's been no more Green Bays).
Post a Comment