Thursday, May 10, 2012

Build It

I bleed Purple, so much so that when the traitor from Green Bay showed up to booby trap our team, I refused to get on that bandwagon. Once he left, decimating our ball club, I pulled the purple back out. Those were two long year without a 'Viking' team, I'm not sure I could do that again. We needed a new stadium to keep them here, and to me, it was a no brainer.

I'm not sure why the Lege made it so difficult. I supported the idea of simply using any direct revenues we would lose in player and team admin/management payroll taxes and roll that into the package. Seriously, no one can argue that this money would flee the state with the team, and drain the General fund of those monies. Player salaries alone, over the course of a 30 year lease, would bring in $460 Million. This doesn't even count non player employees. For all the talk of a Yes vote costing the state over 500 Million in general fund money that could be use for roads, bridges, schools, and other government supported activities needed to accept the alternative. A no vote would cost is about the same.

To be balanced, we need to look at my Good Friend, and now State Legislator, King Banaian's take, recently feature on Time's 'Keeping Score' blog. Admittedly more of a Giants fan the a Queenie supporter, his decision came down to pure economics. And as a Professor of Economics at my Alma Mater, St. Cloud State University, he certainly has credibility.

But Banaian has run the numbers, and believes the $443 million public cost is too prohibitive, especially in a down economy. Minnesota governor Mark Dayton, a Democrat, says stadium construction will deliver 8,000 jobs: Banaian estimates that the project will add 2,000-2,500 jobs. Economic study after economic study has shown that the promises of stadium windfalls don’t come true. One major reason is the substitution effect: if people don’t spend their discretionary dollars on season tickets and hot dogs and parking and other costs associated with attending sports events, they’ll spend it on other activities and businesses within a metropolitan area (the movies, the car dealership, restaurants). Or maybe individuals will — gasp — save that Vikings money, which might not help local GDP in the short-term, but could greatly benefit an individual down the road.
 I tried to avoid including revenues that could be subject to the substitution effect, and like I stated above, payroll tax revenues leave the state with the team, there is no substitution. The Conference committee report that passed the House early this AM, and now goes to the Senate, shows the state's share at $348 Million. 460 - 348 is a net WIN for the general fund coffers, and we get to keep the Queenies home, warts and all. I look forward to an opportunity to pick King's brain on this one.

Skol Vikings



Mike Palmquist said...

Something on which we can agree! :-)

Mike Palmquist said...

Something on which we can agree! :-)

dog gone said...

While you're picking Bannion's brain, ask him about his ALEC connections.

David K. M. Klaus said...

I'm posting from St. Louis, which spent a quarter of a billion dollars on an empty domed stadium and gave up multiple concession fees which would have helped pay that off to the Rams in order to lure them here.

Current Rams ownership wants a half-billion dollars in improvements (including replacing the roof they thought was essential because they didn't then want to play in the open air, with a open-able/close-able roof) to the stadium or they'll jump ship in 2015. This in a city which has been losing population ever since the 1950 census, and is just plain broke.

A study published in an economics journal and reprinted in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch showed that based on actual moneys spent vs. moneys received, there wasn't ONE city which benefited by using government money to build stadia for football teams. Not one. They are economic tiger traps, all of them.

Something to think about if the Vikings try to extort you into a new stadium for their benefit with your money.

AB said...

It'd be fun to see you post the photo of you with Jimmy Carter II. Alas, my prediction to you has taken place: Barack's legacy is now ensconced just above or just below Jimmy Carter I.

I gotta hand it to you and BO for giving it the ole community organizer try.

AB said...

Would enjoy seeing you repost the photo of you and Barack.

It looks like my prediction to you in '08 that BO would become Jimmy Carter II has taken place: Barack Obama's legacy is ensconced just above or just below Jimmy Carter I.

Can't blame you two for giving it the ole community organizer try.

Flash said...

AB, However you choose to unpatriotically besmirch this President, please remember, no matter where you place hime on the scale of best to worst, Presidents Bush 41, 43, and Nixon will always be below him. Unless you admit that reality, you are just being a partisan deconstructionist. To turn around an economy that was loosing over 850,000/month, to a job creating recovery is far far from failure. If he were a GOPer, with the same record, you would be singing happy days.

Mike Palmquist said...

I guess that unpatriotic is in the eye of the beholder.

Hasslington said...

Flash, you know me, man. I'm a Bill Clinton/Barack Obama guy all the way.

Also, you were right when you wrote the following statement: "To turn around an economy that was loosing over 850,000/month, to a job creating recovery is far far from failure. If [President Obama] were a GOPer with the same record, you would be singing happy days." I agree.

(By the way, can you imagine what the GOP convention would have been like had a Republican have ordered the mission that killed Osama bin Laden? It would have been a love-fest for that Republican....)

However, I disagree with you on one point--I think George Bush Sr. was a decent president. Given the work he did with the Americans With Disabilities Act and the fact that he raised taxes very slightly on the wealthy to pay for deficit cuts (on which he tag-teamed with President Clinton, though President Clinton did the heaviest lifting on that loaded set of barbells), he proved himself to be a fairly reasonable person. That is why the GOP abandoned him. Add to this the fact that he decided NOT to invade Iraq unnecessarily but to send Saddam packing home from Kuwait, it suggests that he was also a restrained leader.

George Bush Sr. was not the jingoistic disaster that was George Bush Jr. (Yes, we needed to invade Afghanistan, but the Iraq war was unnecessary and it distracted us from our work in Afghanistan. It also cost us lives and money.) He was also not one of our great presidents. But he was and is a decent man.

Today's GOP is not his GOP. In fact, during his tenure the GOP shifted greatly away from his more moderate positions. In my opinion, that is to their detriment. It will also be a main reason why President Obama will probably win re-election.

Anonymous said...

JFK would not recognize today's Democrat party. Nuff said!

Phoenix Woman said...

Nice try, "Anonymous", but no real member of the "Democrat" party uses your locution. Tell Brodkorb to send out smarter trolls next time, OK?

Anonymous said...

Back atcha, but you never disputed the allegation.

Hasslington said...

I assume we are talking about this President Kennedy?...

The whole clip is good, but I particularly like the segment from 3:00 to 4:00....

p.s. Sorry about the deleted comments above. I've been trying to hyperlink the clip, but it appears disinclined to do so. I guess you will have to copy-and-paste in order to see it. Perhaps if I had cut its salary and benefits, it would have been "more motivated" to do my bidding....

Anonymous said...

No, I'm talking about the one that said "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". the one who believed in tax cuts and personal responsibility.

Hasslington said...

Leaving bumper sticker slogans aside for a moment....

After President Kennedy's death, his wish for federal income taxes to be cut was indeed granted. After the cut, taxpayers paid anywhere between 14% (lowest income earners) and 70% (highest income earners).

(During Republican Dwight Eisenhower's administration, the rates ranged from 20% to 91%.)

Right now, taxpayers pay anywhere between 10% (lowest income earners) and 35% (highest income earners) to the federal government. Historically speaking, those are very low rates.

President Obama wants to raise taxes only on the highest income Americans to 39.6%, where it was during the Clinton Administration. This is still a historically low figure.

p.s. Individual capital gains taxes are lower now (15%) than they have been since FDR's administration.

p.p.s. President Obama asked congress to lower corporate taxes from the current rate of 35% to 28% last winter. BOTH houses of congress have refused to move on that request until after the forthcoming election.

Unknown said...

I think you'll love it!Thanks!


baixar snapchat

baixar snapchat gratis

como usar o snapchat

download snapchat


snapchat online

baixar google

baixar google play

baixar google play gratis

baixar googleplay

download google play


baixar googleplay gratis

baixar play store

play store

google play download

playstore baixar

play store download