Subscribe: Corporate Welfare
http://www.reason.com/topics/topic/139.xml
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
city  james  million  ncaa  new jersey  new  north carolina  people  police  school  sports  stadium  state  tax  team  year 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Corporate Welfare

Corporate Welfare



All Reason.com articles with the "Corporate Welfare" tag.



Published: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 00:00:00 -0500

Last Build Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 03:56:19 -0500

 



Brickbat: For Your Protection

Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:00:00 -0500

(image) A New York law supporters said would protect boxers is killing the sport in the state. The law, passed last year, requires $1 million insurance for each boxer on a card to cover life-threatening brain injuries. Promoters say they can afford that for big championship fights but not for the small, local shows that are the lifeblood of the sport.




Wilbur Ross, Crony Capitalist

Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:30:00 -0500

(image) A great deal of the Department of Commerce is basically a machine for dispensing corporate welfare. Don't expect that to change under Donald Trump: His nominee to run the department, businessman Wilbur Ross, has a history of both advocating and profiting from federal and state interventions in the economy.

For some examples, check out Tim Carney's column about Ross in The Washington Examiner. Here's an excerpt:

"One of the problems in our country," Ross said in 2010, "is we don't have an industrial policy." By "industrial policy," Ross meant federal laws that steer resources to certain sectors for certain activities.

Ross, in a CNBC interview in the summer of 2010, expressed his admiration for China's five-year plans, the ones originated by Communist revolutionary Mao Zedong. "Is that something we should do here, Wilbur?" journalist Andy Serwer asked.

"Yes," Ross responded....Ross explained how he would use government to steer the economic ship: "We ought, as a country, to decide which industries are we going to really promote—the so-called industries of the future."

As Carney goes on to show, Ross has himself benefited from a variety of economic interventions, including steel tariffs, textile quotas, coal subsidies, and more. To read the whole thing, go here.




Missouri's Governor-Elect Is That Rare Politician Against Publicly Funded Stadiums

Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:25:00 -0500

Missouri Governor-elect Eric Greitens (R) took to his Facebook page yesterday to vocally oppose public financing for a proposed Major League Soccer (MLS) expansion team's stadium in St. Louis. Current Missouri Governor Jay Nixon (D) has come out in support of public funds being used to help convince MLS to award a team to St. Louis, just as he supported using public funds to build a new stadium for the National Football League's (NFL) Rams, who bolted for Los Angeles last year before their previous publicly-funded stadium was even close to being paid off. But Greitens is having none of it, writing on Facebook: This project is nothing more than welfare for millionaires. Right now, because of reckless spending by career politicians, we can't even afford the core functions of government, let alone spend millions on soccer stadiums. This type of back-room wheeling and dealing is exactly what frustrates Missourians. It's politics as usual, and it ends now. The very rich business-people who comprise the ownership group SC STL, who claim to need $405 million to start up a St. Louis franchise, say they are willing to invest $280 million, which would include MLS' $200 million franchise fee. On top of their investment into the business they would profit off of, SC STL wants St. Louis taxpayers to kick in about $80 million and the state of Missouri to offer $40 million in tax credits. But hang on, says MLS Commissioner Don Garber, the MLS franchise fee is only $150 million! The Riverfront Times reports: ...if St. Louis makes the cut to join the league — a decision expected later in 2017 — don't expect SC STL to use that seemingly "extra" $50 million to reduce the burden on city taxpayers. When SC STL vice chairman Jim Kavanaugh was asked if the lower franchise fee would decrease the ownership group's request for $120 million in city and state money, he responded, "No, it does not." "It's still quite a significant franchise fee," Kavanaugh said, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Kavanaugh also pointed out that SC STL is already on the hook for construction cost overruns and maintenance for 30 years. The Missouri Development Finance Board is scheduled to vote on the state tax credits today, and the St. Louis Board of Aldermen is still debating on whether to add to an April ballot the proposal to use taxpayer funds to subsidize a soccer stadium for a team that does not yet exist. MLS Commissioner Garber has called the possible vote a "referendum" on whether or not the community is worthy of a pro soccer team. But using public funds to lure an expansion team is a gamble that can go disastrously wrong. Just ask Quebec City, which lost big on its bet to try to bring a National Hockey League (NHL) team back to Francophone Canada. The parties seeking taxpayer investment in this private enterprise are making the usual promises of "hundreds of millions added to the local and state economy through new jobs and business," but the evidence that sports arenas add anything more than temporary construction and part-time concession jobs is forever lacking. Read more Reason coverage of publicly financed stadium debacles here and watch Reason TV's doc on the folly of publicly-funded stadiums below: src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/h1LDjTgMEGU" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="340" width="560">[...]



Brickbat: A Good Walk Wasted

Mon, 05 Dec 2016 04:00:00 -0500

(image) Just three months after the Rio Olympics ended, the $19 million golf course built for the games is rarely used, and the company responsible for its upkeep has not been paid by the government for two months. Few Brazilians golf, but organizers of the games said building the course could help make the game more popular there.




LeBron James: Police Brutality a 'Scary Ass Situation' and 'All Lives Do Matter'

Wed, 28 Sep 2016 14:34:00 -0400

LeBron James was asked at this week's NBA media day whether he would join San Francisco 49ers second-string quarterback Colin Kaepernick and other athletes in sitting for the national anthem as a protest against police brutality. "First of all, I'm all in favor of anyone, athlete or non-athlete being able to express what they believe in in a peaceful manner," James, a member of the championship-winning Cleveland Cavaliers told the press. "Standing for the national anthem is something I will do, that's who I am that's what I believe in, but that doesn't mean I don't respect and don't agree with what Colin Kaepernick is doing." James said he didn't like the negative attention Kaepernick was getting from "some people," saying his protest was the most peaceful he had seen, and that he didn't ask anyone else to join him. Later at the same presser, James was asked about the opening of this year's ESPY awards, where James was joined by three other basketball players to urge athletes to be more socially active. James told other athletes they had to "go back to our communities, invest our time, our resources, help rebuild them, help strengthen them, help change them." Last week, the NBA sent a memo to tell players to contact the league and union officials about coming up with ways to create "positive change" in their community. "We're not politicians, so we weren't up there saying America is bad and things of that nature," James explained at this week's press conference, "that's not our position, because America has done so many great things for all of us." James said his and the other players' intentions at the ESPYs was to "continue the conversation" and that the league's memo was a success that came out of that. In talking about police brutality, James mentioned his own children, and talked about his oldest son, who is 12. "I look at my son being four years removed from driving his own car and being able to leave the house on his own," James said, "and it's a scary thought right now to think that if my son gets pulled over, and you tell your kids if you just comply and you just listen to the police they will be respectful and things will work itself out and you see these videos that continue to come out." "It's a scary ass situation," James continued, "that if my son calls me and says he's been pulled over, that I'm not that confident that things are going to go well, and my son is going to return home. James insisted neither he nor anyone else had all the answers, and that's why he wanted "the conversation to continue to keep going." "Because I'm not up here saying that all police are bad, because they're not, I'm not up here saying that all kids are greats and all adults are great because they're not," James explained, "but at the same time all lives do matter and it's not just black or white, it's not that, it's everyone, it's tough being a parent right now, when you have a pre-teen, but the conversation is continued from the ESPYs and that's definitely a good thing." In December of 2014, LeBron James joined several other NBA players in wearing "I can't breathe" t-shirts to protest the killing of Eric Garner by police in New York City.[...]



The NCAA and the ACC Oppose Discrimination, Sometimes

Wed, 21 Sep 2016 12:00:00 -0400

There was something very weird about the decisions by the NCAA and the ACC to pull a number of championship events out of North Carolina. The organizations did so to protest the infamous House Bill 2, which forbids localities to enact equal-protection measures for LGBTQ people and requires transgender individuals to use restrooms that align with their anatomical sex, not their gender identity. The organizations did not want to lend even tacit consent to prejudice. As ACC Commissioner John Swofford put it, "the ACC Council of Presidents made it clear that the core values of this league are of the utmost importance, and the opposition to any form of discrimination is paramount. Today's decision is one of principle." This is commendable, for all the reasons House Bill 2 is not. Targeting transgender people in particular for state-sponsored discrimination is an ignoble enterprise based on ignorance, fear, and disgust. Transgender people do not go down their road lightly; for some the path is so harrowing suicide seems less painful. Treating them with a little respect and common decency hardly seems too much to ask. Still, the coverage of the moves by the athletic bodies was occasionally surreal. Here, for instance, is The New York Times: "Already, the University of Vermont had canceled a women's basketball game to be held at the University of North Carolina, and the State University of New York at Albany had canceled a men's basketball game at Duke. In addition to men's basketball, the affected championships are for women's soccer, women's golf and women's lacrosse in Division I; baseball in Division II; and men's and women's soccer in Division III." Notice anything odd? You should: To protest discrimination, athletic organizations are pulling events that are strictly segregated. The irony is all the richer for the fact that the discrimination being protested—discrimination on the basis of gender identity—is the very sort of discrimination that occurs when schools field separate teams for men and women. If "opposition to any form of discrimination is paramount," then why do the ACC and the NCAA abide a college-sports system that separates players by sex? Sure, society has reasons for the distinction. For instance, having separate teams for men and women provides opportunity for twice as many people to play. But that's not much of a reason, is it? We could increase the number of players even more if schools further divided teams by race, so that schools competed for the white male basketball championship, the white female basketball championship, the Asian male basketball championship, the Asian female basketball championship, and so on. Nobody thinks that is a good idea. Another argument: The average male has more upper-body strength than the agverage female. So what? Sports teams don't field average players—they field extraordinary ones. Two extraordinary women recently graduated from the Army's Ranger course; why shouldn't extraordinary women be permitted to play on men's sports teams, too? A league opposed to "any form of discrimination" should be pushing for—in fact, demanding—such a change, shouldn't it? If you have what you think are valid reasons for separating teams by gender, then you are essentially making the point that some values outweigh the principle of nondiscrimination. But then, supporters of House Bill 2 make the same point: Some things matter more. Once you concede some things matters more, you're simply haggling over details. Gender is hardly the only area in which discrimination is still widely practiced. At the University of Virginia, certain scholarships are limited to African-American students. Georgia Tech has a scholarship exclusively for male students, and another that grants preference to women and minorities. You can find many similar scholarships all across the country. What's more, most colleges and universities support racial preferences in college[...]



Brickbat: U-S-A! U-S-A!

Tue, 20 Sep 2016 04:00:00 -0400

(image) In Michigan, the OK Conference, a high school athletics conference, has sent a letter to school administrators saying that fans at games can chant "U-S-A" only before or after the National Anthem. Conference officials say they believe that using the chant at other times may be a way of taunting opposing players or fans by implying "U suck ---."




The NCAA Should Be Free to Boycott N.C. Taxpayers Should Be Free to Stop Subsidizing Them.

Tue, 13 Sep 2016 12:15:00 -0400

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the incredibly wealthy organization that rules over college sports, just announced that they are pulling seven championship events out of the state of North Carolina and will be moving them elsewhere. The NCAA objects to the passage of HB2, the legislation passed earlier in the year that blocks the passage of municipal antidiscrimination laws beyond what the state already covers and—this is what's getting all the attention—requires that people use the restrooms and facilities of their birth sex in schools and government buildings. The NCAA notes the factors that contributed to this move that put North Carolina in a different class than other states that don't necessarily have anti-discrimination protections for gay or transgender people: North Carolina laws invalidate any local law that treats sexual orientation as a protected class or has a purpose to prevent discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender individuals. North Carolina has the only statewide law that makes it unlawful to use a restroom different from the gender on one's birth certificate, regardless of gender identity. North Carolina law provides legal protections for government officials to refuse services to the LGBT community. Five states plus numerous cities prohibit travel to North Carolina for public employees and representatives of public institutions, which could include student-athletes and campus athletics staff. These states are New York, Minnesota, Washington, Vermont and Connecticut. I would point out that the second item here isn't quite accurate. It only applies to government buildings and schools, and private businesses can accommodate transgender people however they choose. Of course, we are talking about an organization whose events frequently happen in government-owned or run facilities. As for the last item, when the NCAA points out the relationship between college sports and government employees and how states could have the power to actually stop college-athletes from traveling to other states, isn't that yet another good reason to question why the heck taxpayers are subsidizing any of this travel in the first place? The NCAA should feel free to boycott or to not do business with the state of North Carolina, just like any other business in the country. But the NCAA's operations are heavily subsidized by taxpayers, even as it brings in huge amounts of revenue—$1 billion a year. Students who attend colleges (public and private), their parents, and really, the massive government system that subsidizes college costs, are forced to fork out money to the NCAA to pay for all of this. What about those of us who don't think it's appropriate for taxpayers to be subsidizing the travel expenses of college athletes to any state, regardless of its positions on discrimination? Not only is the NCAA making bank at our expense, that money's not even trickling down to the athletes themselves. Do the athletes support the NCAA's decision here? Maybe. Doesn't matter. They're there to serve the NCAA's interests. It doesn't have to be like this. The NCAA could be like any other business if we demanded it. There's certainly a big enough market to actually pay college athletes and to end athletic subsidies. Below are a couple of ReasonTV pieces about the college sports economic environment. First, why the heck aren't we paying college athletes? src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/l4TVXywzeTk" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" width="560" height="340" frameborder="0"> Second, why are we subsidizing college sports at all? src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Rd9QDevZn-0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" width="560" height="340" frameborder="0">[...]



Police Chief Chides Union for Neglecting Safety, Boycotting Colin Kaepernick

Wed, 07 Sep 2016 14:35:00 -0400

(image) The Santa Clara police union responded to comments made by now backup San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick that were critical of police by threatening to boycott work at the stadium. The police chief in Santa Clara, Michael Sellers, stepped in to try to defuse the situation.

"I will urge the (union) leadership to put the safety of our citizens first," Sellers said in a statement to USA Today. "I will work with both sides to find a solution. In the meantime, I will ensure we continue to provide a safe environment at Levi's Stadium."

Police officers working 49ers home games are paid overtime rates but are supposed to be paid by the team. This is not an unusual arrangement—as NinersNation.com notes, many stadium leases include clauses requiring some level of police protection, and in general, police officers around the country may take "side work" that is still billable as overtime.

In the case of Santa Clara police, the 49ers are supposed to pay for their protection, but due to mistakes made by police that is not always that case. In June, a civil grand jury in Santa Clara recommended the city investigate whether any taxpayer money was used on stadium operations (the referendum that green-lit the 49ers stadium in Santa Clara also prohibited taxpayer money from being used). A part of the problem Is that city officials, like police officers, are responsible for flagging their work at the stadium. They don't clock in with the 49ers but included time worked at the stadium on their official timesheets. If they don't correctly mark the time as having been spent at the stadium, the city doesn't know to bill the 49ers and pays the employees itself.

Police had been at odds with the NFL and over NFL players before. Police sued when the NFL banned guns in football stadiums and refused to carve out an exception for off-duty cops. And just in July, the police union in Cleveland threatened to stop working Cleveland Browns games because one player posted a photo of a cop being attacked. "I will pull Cleveland officers, sheriffs, state troopers out of First Energy Stadium this season if he doesn't make it right," police union head Stephen Loomis told TMZ, according to NBC Sports. "You're a grown-ass man, and you claim you were too emotional to know it was wrong? Think we'll accept your apology? Kiss my ass."

The NFL season starts tomorrow with the Super Bowl champion Denver Broncos hosting the Carolina Panthers, who they defeated in Super Bowl 50. The 49ers' first home game is on Monday night, against the Los Angeles Rams. The Browns' first home game is the Sunday after that against the Baltimore Ravens, who used to be the old Cleveland Browns.




Pennsylvanians Will Have To Pay For Gov. Chris Christie’s Bad Spending Habits

Wed, 07 Sep 2016 11:00:00 -0400

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie delivered an unpleasant surprise to some Pennsylvanians over Labor Day weekend. Starting next year, New Jersey will be taking a larger share of the fruits of their labor. Christie announced on Friday that he will terminate a 39-year-long deal between the two states that allowed residents of Pennsylvania who work in New Jersey to pay The Keystone State's comparatively lower income tax rate. The change in policy affects about 125,000 Pennsylvanians—most of them in Philadelphia and the city's suburbs, according to the Associated Press. When the tax deal was struck in 1977, New Jersey had a 2.5 percent top income tax rate and Pennsylvania had a 2 percent top income tax rate. Today, things are quite different. Pennsylvania uses a flat income tax rate of 3.07 percent. New Jersey has a progressive tax, with rates ranging from 1.4 percent to 8.97 percent. Practically, that means a Pennsylvanian who works in New Jersey and earns the average per capita income of $50,000 will see their their effective tax rate nearly double next year. Christie, a Republican, did not even try to hide the fact that he's ending the longstanding tax deal in order to pad his state's bottom line. The Christie administration hopes to collect $180 million annually by dumping the tax agreement with Pennsylvania (it was one of several tax reciprocal agreements that exist between states, like the one that allows workers in Washington, D.C., to pay taxes in whichever state they live). "In the longer team, it's just one more example of New Jersey not having a welcoming tax environment," said Joseph D. Henchman, vice president of legal and state projects for the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank based in Washington, D.C. At least the change won't drop New Jersey any further down the Tax Foundation's annual rankings of state tax climates. For 2016, it was already ranked dead last among the 50 states. Pennsylvania ranked a mediocre 32nd in the nation. Pennsylvanians who are unhappy with their higher tax bills can perhaps find solace in the fact that they will be helping to pay for the retirements of New Jersey state workers and to close a budget gap created by years of questionable spending on corporate welfare. That's because—despite Christie's claims that he needs more revenue to balance the budget—New Jersey remains a classic example of a state with a spending problem, not a revenue problem. On a per capita basis, only five states collected more revenue in 2013 than New Jersey's state and local governments did (two of them are Alaska and North Dakota, where tiny populations and a reliance on oil and natural gas excise taxes skew per capita measurements like this). Meanwhile, spending has increased almost every year during Christie's administration: the state spent $29 billion in 2010 when he took over the governorship but the budget Christie signed in July spends $34.5 billion. Christie blames the spending increases on the state's escalating pension costs. New Jersey's unfunded pension obligations total more than $80 billion, and mandatory state bond disclosures say the two main retirement funds could be completely out of money by the mid-2020s. To be fair, New Jersey's pension crisis predates Christie's time in office—and it will still exist when he departs. Still, Christie shares in the blame for failing to bring those problems under control. In 2011, Christie reached a deal with Democratic lawmakers that would have curtailed state spending in favor of increasing contributions to the pension system (state employees would have to pay more into the system too). In theory, the deal could have closed the unfunded pension gap within a decade. In reality, Christie couldn't follow through. Facing political pressure and revenue shortfalls, the governor reduced pension contribution[...]



Is 49ers' QB Colin Kaepernick Right To Sit During the National Anthem?

Sun, 28 Aug 2016 12:39:00 -0400

Colin Kaepernick, who plays quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, refused to stand during the playing of the national anthem at a pre-season game. In case anyone missed his intent, Kaepernick clarified it after the game: "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color," Kaepernick told NFL Media in an exclusive interview after the game. "To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder." Although it encourages players to do so, the NFL doesn't require them to stand during the playing of the anthem. Kaepernick's protest has drawn a huge amount of online reaction, much of it flatly critical. Fellow football players have been more supportive, though hardly uncritical. Former football player, Biggest Loser participant, and ESPN analyst Damien Woody tweeted: This is what comes with a free society, unless ppl hate democracy — Damien Woody (@damienwoody) August 27, 2016 Justin Pugh of the New York Giants tweeted: I will be STANDING during the National Anthem tonight. Thank you to ALL (Gender,Race,Religion)that put your lives on the line for that flag — Justin Pugh (@JustinPugh) August 27, 2016 As the legendary sportswriter and young-adult novelist Robert Lipsyte—he was among the first sports-beat scribes to write about characters such as Muhammad Ali and Billie Jean King as agents of social change—told Reason a few years back, sports isn't a respite from all the political, cultural, and economic battles of the everyday world. No, it's a prism through which to view, engage, and debate those very concerns. People who say that sports is not the place to talk about serious issues are trying to live in a fantasy world. I've never felt comfortable during the playing of the national anthem during professional sporting events, simply because it strikes me as either an empty gesture or a forced ritual. Standing for the national anthem before a hockey or baseball tells us precisely nothing about anyone's patriotism or feelings toward the country, especially when it is forced. Yet Kaepernick's gesture strikes me as a particularly weak display considering the apparent depth of his feelings on questions of police violence toward racial and ethnic minorities. I share many of his concerns about systemic racism stemming from policies such as the drug war, but his overly broad and condemnatory language strikes me as easy to dismiss, especially given the economic, legal, and culurals perks afforded to professional athletes. Given his slumping career, many people on social media are simply writing him off as a fading malconent. That sort of reaction—how dare you say anything critical of the system that made you rich and famous!—also strikes me as risible. There's no doubt that athletes and other entertainers take professional risks when they speak out on politically charged topics. As Damien Woody suggests, they have every right to do. Where would we be without figures ranging from Jackie Robinson to Frank Sinatra to Eartha Kitt to Curt Flood to Charlton Heston to Woody Harrelson using their celebrity to raise concerns? Independent of whether we agree with them on any given concern, celebrities are often powerful and eloquent spokespeople for causes that are otherwise ignored by the public. More than a few have paid for being outspoken in lost opportunities, but some also become incredibly effective change agents (certainly Muhammad Ali and Billie Jean King were). If Kaepernick's outrage at disproportionate police violence against blacks and minorities is as strong as it seems, I hope he becomes a more effective and thoughtful advocate for policy change. What d[...]



$70 Million Now Being Spent on a High School Football Stadium by ‘Visionary’ Texas School District

Tue, 23 Aug 2016 13:00:00 -0400

(image) The McKinney Independent School District in Texas will now be spending nearly $70 million on a football stadium for its three high school teams. When voters approved the spending in May, the stadium was supposed to cost about $63.5 million. But the school district says labor and concrete costs went up 50 percent between the time the plan was approved and the final bids came in, as local TV station WFAA reports.

"We decided this is something that we'll be using for 50 or 60 years so we want to do it right," a spokesperson for the school district told WFAA. The district says it has unspent money from other bonds it can use to plug the gap.

Back in May, when a majority of voters initially approved the spending, the school district's super intendendent, Rick McDaniel, insisted school leaders were "visionaries." "And we believe we have a vision for McKinney ISD that will propel us forward for a long time," he said in May. Not visionary enough, apparently, to anticipate price increases or cost over-runs.

Supporters of the stadium proposal argued it would increase economic activity in the area, and that the district hadn't built a football stadium in 1965, which is located in a residential area.

McKinney is about 35 miles from Dallas, which has a little-known professional football franchise that may attract people in the area too. Arlington, the city the Dallas franchise is located in, raised taxes to pay for a new stadium, and is reportedly paying it back faster than expected, but Dallas was expected to get more of the benefits from the Cowboys hosting the Super Bowl in 2011 than Arlington. The McKinney school district, too, has been raising taxes. A hike in 2013 was blamed on the state cutting funding, although the decision to spend $70 million on a high school stadium illustrates the moral hazards involved in state funding of local government operations.

And while high school football is a big deal in Texas, even stadiums for major league teams, let alone minor league ones, are bad deals for cities that choose to spend, or "invest", on them.

Related: Reason TV's "Sports Stadiums Are Bad Investments. So Why Are Cities Still Paying for Them?"

src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/h1LDjTgMEGU" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="340" width="560">




Brickbat: Indian Country

Tue, 23 Aug 2016 04:00:00 -0400

(image) An Obama administration official got into a fistfight with a Native American college student over a Washington Redskins shirt the student was wearing at a Pow Wow in Washington, D.C. Barrett Dahl says William Mendoza, executive director of the White House Initiative of American Indian and Alaska Native Education, approached him, called him stupid and uneducated for wearing the shirt and attacked him when he turned to walk away. Mendoza says when he confronted Dahl about the shirt Dahl told him he'd be happy to step outside and explain his reasons for wearing the shirt. Mendoza says he approached Dahl later to apologize and Dahl threw coffee at him and hit him.




Don't Give Public Funds to the Washington Redskins

Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:00:00 -0400

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe recently said he was in "very serious negotiations" with the Washington Redskins about building a stadium in Virginia. In plain English, the literal translation of that statement is: "Hide your wallet." When it comes to taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich, McAuliffe is like his predecessors, only more so. Since 2010 Virginia has ladled out nearly $700 million worth of economic incentives trying to lure businesses to the commonwealth. Such handouts have nearly tripled in the past decade. In his first year alone McAuliffe handed out more than $68 million—then went to the General Assembly and asked for more. Those efforts have not always gone well. In one instance, the commonwealth shelled out $1.4 million to help a Chinese subsidiary ramp up operations in Appomattox. The project—which McAuliffe had lauded as "transformational"—turned out to be vaporware, and 300-plus jobs that had been promised never materialized. In another instance, the state paid Norfolk Southern $2 million to shift jobs from Roanoke to Norfolk, in defiance of a state law prohibiting the use of incentives for relocation projects. Lately the governor has been offering subsidies to companies like Dollar Tree ($9 million) and Motley Fool ($350,000). But such figures are chump change compared to the funds shelled out for sports teams, which routinely fleece the public out of huge sums for fancy new arenas. Over the past two decades, taxpayers have been forced to fork over more than $7 billion to build or renovate NFL stadiums. In some cases, taxpayers are still paying off the bonds for stadiums that have since been abandoned. Civic boosters routinely claim that new stadiums will generate all sorts of ancillary economic benefits. But multiple studies have debunked that talking point. A survey of the literature, by scholars at the Brookings Institute, found "no discernible positive relationship between sports facility construction and economic development." Most evidence suggests that sports subsidies cannot be justified on the grounds of local economic development, income growth, or job-creation. In fact, after 20 years of academic research on the topic, "peer reviewed economics journals contain almost no evidence that sports stadiums or franchises measurably improve local economies." This seems to be Richmond's experience. Some of the city's schools are crumbling, to the point that a ceiling tile fell and hit a student on the head—not once but twice. Yet four years ago the city took money from schools to build a new $10-million practice field for the Redskins training camp. Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell kicked in another $4 million. The city's Economic Development Authority agreed to guarantee the Redskins another $500,000 per year. But fan attendance is down and much of the spin-off economic activity that was supposed to materialize has not. As one Arby's owner near the training camp told The Times-Dispatch last year, "We thought we'd get a bigger impact with all those people right across the street." (Things do seem to be going a bit better this year.) Small wonder, then, that last week a survey showed three-fourths of respondents think the city's investment in the training camp has not paid off, and it should stop forking over a half-million dollars a year to the team. That's true even of Redskins fans who have attended a training session—72 percent of whom also think the annual fee is a lousy deal. And really, can you blame them? According to Forbes, in 2015 the Redskins were worth $2.85 billion, and the year before enjoyed revenue of $439 million. The average value of an NFL team rose 38 percent last year, thanks in part to $4.4 billion in TV broad[...]



Immigration Makes America Great at Rio Olympics, Boosts Economy Back Home Too

Fri, 12 Aug 2016 14:15:00 -0400

The last time Enkelejda Shehaj competed at the Olympic Games, she was representing Albania. That was in 1996. Three years later, with the government of her home nation collapsing and fearing for her family's safety, Shehaj flew to the United States with two suitcases: "One with my clothes," she told NBC Sports. "And one luggage, it sits there in my closet with all my medals, magazines, articles that were written about me and all the diplomas and everything that had related to the sport. That's it." Shehaj completed the complicated process to become a U.S. citizen in 2012 and this week she's back at the Olympics, competing as a member of the U.S. team in Rio de Janerio. Her story is one of the more dramatic ones, but Shehaj is far from being the only immigrant competing for the Stars and Stripes at this year's Summer Olympics. According to research from Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst for the Cato Institute, there are 48 members of the Team USA who were born in other countries. Edward King is another foreign-born Olympian, but this isn't the first time he's proudly represented his adopted homeland—though he was born in South Africa, he's been an officer in the U.S. Navy since 2011. King finished 10th this week as a member of the men's lightweight four rowing team. Phillip Dutton made a bit of Olympic history this week. The Australian-born equestrian rider became the oldest American, at age 52, to win an Olympic medal when he claimed the bronze in individual eventing—a sport that combines three different horseback riding skills. Like Shehaj, Dutton had previously competed in the Olympics for his birth country before immigrating to the United States and becoming a U.S. citizen. There's also Danell Leyva, the Cuban-born gymnast who gave maybe the best sound bite of the Olympics when asked about the number of condoms in Rio's Olympic Village. (There are reportedly 450,000 condoms available. "Will that be enough?" was the question. His reply: "For me?"). All told, there are 554 Americans competing at this year's Summer Olympics—the largest contingent from any single country. With 48 immigrants among them, that means 8.5 percent of Team USA was born in another country. That means immigrants are actually underrepresented, since they make up 13.3 percent of the U.S. population, Nowrasteh notes. The largest plurality of foreign-born American Olympians (11 of them) are competing in the track and field events, which got underway on Friday afternoon. There's no accurate way to count the number of U.S. Olympians who are the children of immigrants, but that number would presumably be much larger. The United States' foreign-born Olympians come from all over the world. The 48 competitors were born in 30 different counties on six different continents. Their reasons for coming to the U.S. are probably as diverse as those of any other set of immigrants to this country, but as highly skilled athletes they do have an advantage over other immigrants because they often qualify for EB-1 visas reserved for immigrants "of extraordinary ability in the arts, science, education, business, or athletics." It makes sense to give some people a "fast lane" to becoming U.S. citizens if they have important skills—yes, you could argue about whether Olympic sports should count as important skills, but sports-based-nationalism isn't going away anytime soon so that's not going to change. If you're not an Olympic-caliber athlete, though, navigating the immigration process can be virtually impossible. That's a shame, because immigrants make the country better off, and not just at the Olympic Games. Despite the political rhetoric coming from portions of both major p[...]