Oy vey. At least it isn't my tax money, I'm Canadian.

For what it's worth, spring training does serve as a huge tourist attraction - not to mention having the teams there for spring training mean they have facilities they are using year round. Unlike most subsidization of sports facilities, this quite possibly will pay for itself, especially since Arizona has been getting more and more spring training facilities.

Just another tax and spend liberal...wait, he's a what?

If the Republican Party wants to know how it lost it's way, this guy should be exhibit A. Todays Republicans are just like Democrats, only meaner and dumber.

And 15 teams in Cactus league leaves how many for Grapefruit league? I thought so. So how can you remain the leading spring training destination when you already relinquished the lead and are losing teams regularly? If it wasn't for local and state government subsidy wars, the Cactus league would have 30 teams. Fewer rainouts, cheaper facilities and far less travel means teams get more time to work with their players at a lower cost.

It's got to be pretty sobering to lose business to freaking Arizona.

For what it's worth, spring training does serve as a huge tourist attraction - not to mention having the teams there for spring training mean they have facilities they are using year round. Unlike most subsidization of sports facilities, this quite possibly will pay for itself, especially since Arizona has been getting more and more spring training facilities.

Nope. Those facilities are barely used the rest of the year, and tourists come to Florida and Arizona whether there is spring training or not, ever heard of things called Golf, or beaches, or resorts?

The economic studies teams have paid for to try to justify spring training facilities are amazing for the blatancy of their bias. The Cubs study claimed hundreds of millions in benefits per year, simply adding up the gross price of every hotel room and rental car rented, every plane trip purchased and every restaurant meal eaten by a spring training visitor.

Oh, so without spring training hotels are going to shut down that month? Rental cars gathering dust? Restaurants closing early?

Or maybe hotels are still going to be full, just at lower rates, with golfer, hikers, conventioneer (who would otherwise have their conventions moved elsewhere due to the impact of spring training), sun worshippers, etc, and the same rental cars will be rented and restaurants full. But the fraudulant economic impact salesmen don't want to report that the Cubs couldn't have gotten tourists to spend even $10M a year extra, because the subsidy they are getting is more than that.

Wait, Rick Scott wants to spend taxpayer money on baseball players? He's going to make sure they get drug tested first though, right?

What, the player's union won't allow that? Is Rick Scott going to back down from a (sissy voice) UNION?

Wotta tool. Even by Florida standards this guy is a dope.

Did anyone else read the headline as "Marge Schott wants money for spring training teams" and do quite the double-take?

Did anyone else read the headline as "Marge Schott wants money for spring training teams" and do quite the double-take?

Isn't that an insult to Marge Schott?

For what it's worth, spring training does serve as a huge tourist attraction - not to mention having the teams there for spring training mean they have facilities they are using year round. Unlike most subsidization of sports facilities, this quite possibly will pay for itself, especially since Arizona has been getting more and more spring training facilities.

LOL.

Which HBO series features the most nudity? Boardwalk Empire or Game of Thrones?

Which HBO series features the most nudity? Boardwalk Empire or Game of Thrones?

Don't tell me you haven't seen this yet.

Did anyone else read the headline as "Marge Schott wants money for spring training teams" and do quite the double-take?

raises hand

Nope. Those facilities are barely used the rest of the year, and tourists come to Florida and Arizona whether there is spring training or not, ever heard of things called Golf, or beaches, or resorts?

The economic studies teams have paid for to try to justify spring training facilities are amazing for the blatancy of their bias. The Cubs study claimed hundreds of millions in benefits per year, simply adding up the gross price of every hotel room and rental car rented, every plane trip purchased and every restaurant meal eaten by a spring training visitor.

Oh, so without spring training hotels are going to shut down that month? Rental cars gathering dust? Restaurants closing early?

Or maybe hotels are still going to be full, just at lower rates, with golfer, hikers, conventioneer (who would otherwise have their conventions moved elsewhere due to the impact of spring training), sun worshippers, etc, and the same rental cars will be rented and restaurants full. But the fraudulant economic impact salesmen don't want to report that the Cubs couldn't have gotten tourists to spend even $10M a year extra, because the subsidy they are getting is more than that.


Well, here in Arizona there is a definite spike in tourism during spring training, during a period when tourism would otherwise be winding down a bit. Of course not every visitor is here for spring training - but a number are, spending money. A large number of fans come to Arizona specifically to follow their teams for a week or so at a time. And since it's not actually the busy season here, they are not crowding out other tourists. I would assume the same is for Florida.

And it's just not true that the facilities are barely used the rest of the year. Teams have their year round facilities at them, with lots of minor leaguers there, with coaches, trainers, rehabbing major leaguers, extended spring training, rookie ball, and fall minor league camps, among other things. Business that Arizona would gladly take from Florida.

Is it a goldmine by Florida standards? Probably not. Is it worth $5 million per year to protect it, rather than to just give up on it? Quite probably. Especially when you factor in such additional factors as millionaire ball players settling in the state to be close to their spring training sites.

I don't think you understand how many tourists actually come to watch their favorite team, and you pretty clearly don't understand how spring training sites are a year round center for a team.

Is it worth $5 million per year to protect it,

$5 million is not the total amount in subsidy. It is the additional annual subsidy Scott is suggesting, in addition to up to $20 million per project for the five projects, plus a match in local government dollars not to mention the past money Florida has used to subsidize spring training.

According to Scott Florida doesn't have enough money to keep spraying for mosquitoes, but there's cash a-plenty for billionaire vanity games. Unbelievable. For those of y'all you don't follow what this duncecap is doing down there, here's a quick read.

Excerpt:

Scott vetoed a record $615 million worth of spending for, among other things: homeless veterans, meals for seniors, whooping-cough vaccines for low-income mothers, an independent living center for the developmentally disabled, and, of course, public radio.

Medical care for the poors? Tough it out! Welfare for his plutocrat cronies? Dig in boys!

Some one should ask this prick how he feels about the league's revenue sharing schemes, just to see the blank look in his eyes while he tries to figure out an appropriate answer.

Well I'm glad that the house is proving that it's so useless that it can't even pass something that avoids something both party wants to avoid.

At least the cuts include defense spending I guess.

I mean, as silly as Taiwan's politics can be sometimes, we're at least arguing over real policy choices, like if we should de-nuclearize (power plant). of course some local pols look like idiots lately after they slam some local government sponsonrship for the Life of Pi (which was shot in Taiwan for the most part. as a effort to get the move industry revived. ) a few months ago . etc... sheeseh.

Did anyone else read the headline as "Marge Schott wants money for spring training teams" and do quite the double-take?

Yep, me too.

I don't think you understand how many tourists actually come to watch their favorite team, and you pretty clearly don't understand how spring training sites are a year round center for a team.

I understand the Diamindbacks/Rockies first weekend was half empty, because I was there.

I understand that their shiny new facility is barely used year round, because my office is one block away, and my home is 10 blocks away, and I frequently cut through their parking lots to eat lunch at the Pavilions Mall.

And I understand how much BS the Cactus League spreads about their economic impact, because I've been to their web site and noticed they won't source their astounding claims.

Again, the teams would never have built that stadium on their own dime, cause it vastly exceeds their need. Especially for rehabbing a few athletes.

Again, if Arizona banned subsidies fir the Cactus League, they'd still come here because of costs and benefits. If Florida paid to move every team we'd still have tourists and wed have more March conventions with more hotels freed up. That spike you think you see also marks the start of good weather, while its still crappy up north.

of course some local pols look like idiots lately after they slam some local government sponsonrship for the Life of Pi (which was shot in Taiwan for the most part. as a effort to get the move industry revived. ) a few months ago . etc... sheeseh.

Did the local government think Hollywood is going to do anything other than take their money and run? I mean how many scripts like the life of Pi are there?

I loved the Life of Pi. It gave me zero desire to visit Taiwan or any other locale.

I read it as Mike Scott. I'm not sure what that says about me.

I read it as Mike Scott. I'm not sure what that says about me.

Likewise.


So, regarding politics, I have a question for the conservative elements and camp here. Are the conservatives in the capital and on the hill upset at the sequester because they are being BLAMED for it? Because the American people are being told it's terrible when it is what the conservatives are saying is what needs to happen?

I'm not being snarky, I'm finding it weird if both halves are annoyed, I'm legitimately curious. I thought this was what the small-government conservatives wanted? Or?

I'm not being snarky, I'm finding it weird if both halves are annoyed, I'm legitimately curious. I thought this was what the small-government conservatives wanted? Or?

Not a conservative, but conservatives want smaller government, intelligently instituted. Mind you they do not want smaller government when it comes to the military, for some reason that is perfectly ok to make as massive as possible, and ignore any reasonable spending controls(except when it comes to the troops, in that case, they believe in ####### the troops and their benefits) Basically massive out of control spending for the Military (and Nasa for some factions) is ok for conservatives, just not elsewhere.

The sequester is not intelligently istituted, it's just cuts, whether they make sense or not.

Rick Scott has had a bit of an interesting time the last few month. He has said he wants to participate in the Medicaid expansion recently and after the 2012 election he announced that Florida needs to expand early voting due to the massive lines experienced at some polling places; he failed to mention though that he's the one who reduced early voting in the first place. I think he's probably trying to tack to the center in some areas because just being the tea party hero isn't going to win him re-election in 2014 and his tenure so far has given opponents plenty of ammo against him. Also, it's rumored that Charlie Crist may run for governor again and that's a race I strongly doubt Scott can win.

Rick Scott has had a bit of an interesting time the last few month. He has said he wants to participate in the Medicaid expansion recently and after the 2012 election he announced that Florida needs to expand early voting due to the massive lines experienced at some polling places; he failed to mention though that he's the one who reduced early voting in the first place. I think he's probably trying to tack to the center in some areas because just being the tea party hero isn't going to win him re-election in 2014 and his tenure so far has given opponents plenty of ammo against him. Also, it's rumored that Charlie Crist may run for governor again and that's a race I strongly doubt Scott can win.

Scott's situation vividly illustrates the dilemma the GOP has gotten itself into: the Tea Party faction is strong enough to win and hold lots of (conveniently gerrymandered) seats in the U.S. House, and also lots of red-state statehouses and governorships. But in a large, diverse state like Florida, they're seemingly not strong enough to require the Republican governor to maintain full compliance with The Cause.

And the GOP is completely disempowered in the nation's largest state. There was a front-page article in this morning's San Jose Mercury examining the bereft status of the California GOP: literally at its weakest ebb in the entire 163-year history of the state, with Democratic supermajorities in both state legislative bodies, completely without any serious candidates to run for governor, and with essentially zero funds and statewide organization. They're prostrate, because the Tea Party holds no meaningful credibility with the statewide electorate.

That California scenario is remarkable. Right now I'm halfway through Greg Mitchell's Campaign of the Century, on Upton Sinclair's EPIC campaign in '34, & ... night & day.

One unintended consequence of Ray putting me on ignore is that whenever I make a new thread, he doesn't see it. That's probably the reason why he hasn't commented recently in these threads.

Ignore doesn't work that way. It ignores comments, not articles posted by someone.

Huh, okay.

#7 Happened to me too.

Interesting ... the Limbaugh brand is apparently in decline. Or, is it more the case that politically-oriented talk radio is more broadly in decline (another victim of the internet, perhaps?), and talk radio is evolving into all-sports-all-the-time?

Clear Channel's Premiere Radio Networks, Limbaugh's syndicator, had a difficult first quarter due to weak ad sales. They wouldn't offer additional information about this (and they don't have to because Clear Channel is a private company). But, given how much damage Limbaugh is causing to the broader industry, it's not much of a stretch to deduce that his home base is also experiencing some effect.

Last September, I attended the Radio Show, an industry event produced by the Radio Advertising Bureau and the National Association of Broadcasters. In every session that I attended, managing the negative impact of Limbaugh was addressed at some point - even in the sessions in which I didn't expect it to come up. Overall, I left with the impression that the industry is deeply aware that a problem exists and is in the process of adapting.

Cumulus CEO Lew Dickey signaled the toxicity of Limbaugh's business model as well as industry adaptation in a recent interview with Bloomberg TV, saying: "We're sort of seeing a shift in spoken-word radio from political-based talk over to sports." Sports radio is popular with advertisers, Dickey explained, and "people may be a bit tired of all the partisan bickering."

So, regarding politics, I have a question for the conservative elements and camp here. Are the conservatives in the capital and on the hill upset at the sequester because they are being BLAMED for it? Because the American people are being told it's terrible when it is what the conservatives are saying is what needs to happen?

To be fair, the Dems are in a similar bind. They are scare-mongering about how disastrous the cuts are going to be to the economy (and rightfully so to an extent), but also trying to say they are deficit hawks. You can't really be a deficit hawk and put all the cuts on the military any more than you can be a deficit hawk and put all the cuts on discretionary spending and the mythical "waste and fraud."

To be fair, the Dems are in a similar bind. They are scare-mongering about how disastrous the cuts are going to be to the economy (and rightfully so to an extent), but also trying to say they are deficit hawks. You can't really be a deficit hawk and put all the cuts on the military any more than you can be a deficit hawk and put all the cuts on discretionary spending and the mythical "waste and fraud."

But it's reasonable to take a position that (a) acknowledges the economic fact that the sequester itself is a highly inefficacious tool with which to address the deficit (as, for instance, Ben Bernanke says), (b) understands the difference between long-term and short-term issues, effects, and priorities, and (c) asserts that the best program of deficit reduction incorporates tax increases as well as spending cuts. Can't one take such a position and still be a deficit hawk?

Interesting ... the Limbaugh brand is apparently in decline. Or, is it more the case that politically-oriented talk radio is more broadly in decline (another victim of the internet, perhaps?), and talk radio is evolving into all-sports-all-the-time?

The article focuses on the actions of advertisers concerned about their brand. It doesn't address whether audiences are tuning out political talk. Are viewer/listener numbers down?

acknowledges the economic fact that the sequester itself is a highly inefficacious tool with which to address the deficit (as, for instance, Ben Bernanke says), (b) understands the difference between long-term and short-term issues, effects, and priorities, and (c) asserts that the best program of deficit reduction incorporates tax increases as well as spending cuts. Can't one take such a position and still be a deficit hawk?

LOL, as if negotiated cuts to government spending are somehow better than forced cuts. That assumes there is a type of government spending that s actually good for the economy.

Federal spending should just go directly back pre Bush levels of GDP immediately, somehow we always had tons of money to spend on the military in those budgets. Do it now before the massive debt accumulated by inefficient stimulus spending permanently damages the economy.

That assumes there is a type of government spending that s actually good for the economy.

Yes, it does, being as how it's something that, you know, economists believe.

Yes, it does, being as how it's something that, you know, economists believe.

All of them? I didn't know that.

Oh...you meant like...most of them?

I wasn't aware science was done by consensus. And calling economics a science is a bit of stretch in any case.

Interesting ... the Limbaugh brand is apparently in decline. Or, is it more the case that politically-oriented talk radio is more broadly in decline (another victim of the internet, perhaps?), and talk radio is evolving into all-sports-all-the-time?

The demographics of his audience is terrible from an ad agency's POV- much worse than, oh, Howard Stern's audience. The ironic part is that Limbaugh should be on satellite- his audience would pay to hear him- Stern is on satellite but shouldn't be- it's not that his audience won't pay to hear him (obviously they will)- but why should they?- advertisers are more than willing to pay to reach them

That assumes there is a type of government spending that s actually good for the economy.

Yes, it does, being as how it's something that, you know, economists believe.

It's something that economists who want to be government economists, or policy advisors, must believe to qualify for those positions.

Did Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman believe that?

So now the bridge to nowhere Is a wise investment? I guess so, because Krugman has said we can stimulate the economy by paying people to dig holes in the desert, and then fill them back in, producing nothing. So at least we get a bridge in the first scenario.

The problem with Sirius/XM/satellite, is that once you go satellite and a pay system, you're out of sight, out of mind. I didn't even realize that Stern still had a show.

The sequester is not intelligently instituted, it's just cuts, whether they make sense or not.

and if you tell a Bureaucrat that your are cutting his budget 10% most will not look to cut "fat," they won't even consider that- their first goal will be to see how badly they can hurt/inconvenience someone else- in order to get "their" budget restored

I was listening last weekend on the radio, and some winger was complaining that Obama was going to make sure that people get inconvenienced, that a news crew will be on hand to observe people waiting in line as their flight is delayed or they get turned away from a national park...

guess what, Obama is not gonna have to do anything, the Whitehouse is not going to have to orchestrate anything- the Bureaucrats will do it as naturally as you or I breath air.

No one can argue with a straight face that no government spending is good for the economy.

No one can argue with a straight face that no government spending is good for the economy.

No one who expects to be taken seriously, anyway.

In a face palm, the state board of equalization decided to raise the gas tax despite record high gas prices. This is just dumb. We're heading to $5.00 gas, this is just going to get us there faster.

It's not a tax hike. It's an adjustment mandated by law to achieve revenue neutrality.

Not every increase in taxes is a tax increase.

As if there weren't enough ways in which the Republican Party is way dysfunctional:

Here's an interesting item from Mike Allen's Playbook this morning, from what he characterizes as a Republican congressman speaking on background to the Business Roundtable yesterday:

“By the way, this notion that Republicans are all eager to reform entitlements -- folks, Democrats have it all wrong. Republicans would love to avoid the issue, politically. … I love this poll: Tea party folks in Ohio, ‘Do you think your Social Security benefits should be reduced given the record debt and deficits?’ 85 percent ‘no.’ … [T]his is not an issue that anybody wants to take on, politically. It is the third rail of American politics, still. Is it easier? Yeah, probably than it was a couple of decades ago. But not much.”

I've always kind of wondered about this. This isn't the first poll to give us such findings. It's pretty well established that even most conservatives don't want to touch Social Security. So all these Republicans baying about entitlements...they're not talking to their constituents, if these polls are correct, so to whom are they talking? I suppose first, establishment Washington, which hungers for entitlement cuts more than any other single item. And second, the right-wing political class, operatives and people at think tanks, who want the welfare state to wither away.

The vast chasm between these two groups and regular Republicans is something that Republican lawmakers can't easily bridge. Maybe they can't bridge it at all. There is after all no position on entitlements that can satisfy both groups.

Did the local government think Hollywood is going to do anything other than take their money and run? I mean how many scripts like the life of Pi are there?

I loved the Life of Pi. It gave me zero desire to visit Taiwan or any other locale.

I don't think that was ever the point, the point was that Taiwan's own movie industry have gone to hell despite pretty solid all around talent, we make better #### then the garbage Hong Kong keeps chucking out while we also don't try make make everything a properganda film ala China. there's every reason why we should eventually dominante the Chinese market.. which is like you know.. 1/4 of the world's population. except that we're not, our movie industry essentially died in the 90s and only revived a little bit lately.

Pi was key because it was directed by An Lee, who's obviously going to be the only big Hollywood director we're ever going to convince to take the risk to make a movie in Taiwan for obvious reasons.

Tourism is a seperate issue, but Taiwan doubled their per year visiter in the last 4 year, again taking a essentially dead industry and making in something again.

Not a conservative, but conservatives want smaller government, intelligently instituted.

The sequester was a punt, in the hopes that something magical might happen and rational heads would prevail on the next set of downs. It didn't.

The GOP wants to replace the sequester with spending cuts more targeted and "intelligently instituted," against programs they don't like, because they can then turn around and rally to make those permanent and sop their base with "we slashed spending, but only this much because of Obama, bugga bugga bugga bugga."

The Dems want to replace the sequester with targeted spending cuts against programs they don't like, and new revenue, because they can then rally to that in 2014. The GOP thought/wished it got a "that's it on revenues" from the debt ceiling hostage standoff, but the Dems won't play that game.

All in all, you're going to see continued divestment from government sectors, and economic slowdown as a result. The primary upside of this is that DOD is on the chopping block as well, so at least the nation's biggest welfare program is in the targeting sights as they go forward.

Did Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman believe (in government investment?)

Sometimes. You might be confusing Friedman with the more radical nut-job Austrians.

So now the bridge to nowhere Is a wise investment?

This is an incredibly dishonest bait and switch argument.

44. SteveF Posted: March 01, 2013 at 08:52 PM (#4378693)
It's not a tax hike. It's an adjustment mandated by law to achieve revenue neutrality.

Not every increase in taxes is a tax increase.

Neutrality to what? Adjustment to what? California have driven less miles and is consuming less gas than they have in half a decade, so the natural response is to raise the gas tax? In a state, (In fact, the only state, even supposedly Republican and libertarian states like Alaska, Texas, and Arkansas have excise taxes on oil extraction) that still doesn't impose an excise tax on oil extraction.

These are taxes per gallon, so if you want to increase revenue, the state needs to figure out how to make people consume more gallons of gas, not less. Adding to the price isn't going to help it.

We're heading to $5.00 gas, this is just going to get us there faster.

Meh, still half as much as it costs here.