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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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

So now the bridge to nowhere Is a wise investment?

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.

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

Yeah, but that's because the U.S. doesn't use a Value Added Tax.

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

You say that like it's a bad thing. Pricing carbon into the model, reducing demand via market pricing, reducing fossil fuel demand in general. All of these are good things.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Pricing carbon into the model, reducing demand via market pricing, reducing fossil fuel demand in general. All of these are good things.

Please support with evidence.

Californians could end up paying the highest gasoline taxes in the nation when a 3.5-cents-per-gallon increase kicks in this summer.

The state Board of Equalization voted Thursday to increase the excise tax from 36 cents to 39.5 cents per gallon on non-diesel fuel beginning with the new fiscal year July 1, partly to offset tax losses because Californians are using less gas.

The change is expected to provide more than $500 million in revenue for the fiscal year, based on consumption figures. The diesel fuel tax will remain unchanged at 10 cents per gallon.

The excise tax is the largest of the state taxes on gasoline. It was increased in 2010 under a change in gasoline tax laws to help close a nearly $20 billion state budget deficit.

By reducing the sales tax on gas from 8.25 percent to 2.25 percent and roughly doubling the excise tax, the state was able to provide more money to balance its budget without raising the overall gas tax rate.

Each year, the equalization board must reset the excise tax by March 1 to ensure that the state will receive the same amount of gas tax revenue as it would have received under the old system.

"The Legislature mandated that we equalize the sales and excise taxes to avoid a net increase in taxes," equalization board Chairman Jerome E. Horton said in a board statement on Friday. "We could protest the legislation and not make the rate adjustment, however we would be violating law and arguably exposing taxpayers to even higher taxes in the future."

"The Legislature mandated that we equalize the sales and excise taxes to avoid a net increase in taxes," equalization board Chairman Jerome E. Horton said in a board statement on Friday. "We could protest the legislation and not make the rate adjustment, however we would be violating law and arguably exposing taxpayers to even higher taxes in the future."

"the politicians who just raised the tax aren't looking it in this manner, they just see, 'Oh, revenues down because of the increased cost of gas, raise the tax rate.'"

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?

Any consensus on how much the information explosion particularly through the internet has helped limit the GOP and the right, nationally?

Facts have not been their friend, and the 'net does help spread the truth (along with a whole lot of horseshite).

It's easy for people who can afford to live walking distance from their jobs to say that gas should cost more.

Most people in the United States have to drive a lot. They do not have a choice in the matter.

Poor people are the ones who will pay the biggest costs for climate change. If we really wanted to help them, we'd raise gas taxes a LOT and use the money to develop subsidized public transportation. That would relive the poor of the not-insignificant burden of owning two cars (and maybe even one).

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?

public transit is not being built to a nearly sufficient extent, and more importantly to the issue at hand, isn't going to be, no matter how expensive gasoline is.

Second, encouraging the continued use of fossil fuels is suicidal

gas taxes are too low, have been for some time, and it's been getting worse (rates are generally per gallon, not as a percentage of the cost of gas, nor is are they indexed to general inflation). low gas taxes have been (aiui) insufficient to cover the costs of externalities and (what they're really used for) maintain infrastructure - the latter will get worse as mpgs rise and increasing gas taxes stays politically unpopular. we've been subsidizing spread out, inefficient cities (and non-city areas) for too long.

These companies typically get a percentage of the ticket revenue, so they have every incentive to gin up as many tickets as possible. A number of jurisdictions have shortened the yellow light times to garner more revenue, even though there are more accidents. However, this is hardly a free market situation - just a private company partnering on government over-regulation.

North America alone has enough coal and shale oil for 500 years. It can be burned cleanly and safely. Lets get to work.
People need jobs.

I think that before we consider any gas tax, we should start with a tax on all stock trades, and get the "sugar" tax for Soda's that they have been talking about for years.

#66: Agreed, but it would seem that the demographics of social media/internet usage work against the GOP/right going forward.

Not every increase in taxes is a tax increase.

You know, as a liberal, I'm all for more taxes, but I think that before we consider any gas tax, we should start with a tax on all stock trades, and get the "sugar" tax for Soda's that they have been talking about for years. Luxury taxes are so much better than taxing necessary things, gas taxes can have a trickle affect on everything else. Not sure it's the best way to generate any type of revenue.

Re 85, so many of the poor don't pay income taxes that reducing their income tax rates won't help them.

The Internet has made it much more difficult to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate sources of facts, which is how you find TPers on Facebook in December 2012, mixing and matching excerpts from the Constitution, 'proving' that the presidential election still could end up in the House of Representatives.

Besides, people who are really poor already ride the bus.

Bullsh1t. North America alone has enough coal and shale oil for 500 years. It can be burned cleanly and safely.

You know, as a liberal, I'm all for more taxes, but I think that before we consider any gas tax, we should start with a tax on all stock trades, and get the "sugar" tax for Soda's


first off the bolded part is a joke, I hope. And second off, right now we should be encouraging the manufacture of more refinery's, as the increase in gas prices right now, is mostly the fault of lack of refinery's.

Can we at least agree to eliminate the growing trend today to use apostrophes in plurals? I've long ago given up the fight against the misuse of words like disinterested and orientate, but surely we can't allow this latest trend to become the norm.

I commend you, then, to the millions of poor who don't live in the few cities with good public transportation and who drive beaters of necessity.

I support various forms of carbon taxes because those are essential to limit climate change.

But, increasing the gas tax with no realistic way of quickly (and "immediately" would be far better than "quickly" for people who live literally from paycheck to paycheck) mitigating its painful effects on the poor, who do indeed drive, still makes no sense to me.

Can we at least agree to eliminate the growing trend today to use apostrophes in plurals? I've long ago given up the fight against the misuse of words like disinterested and orientate, but surely we can't allow this latest trend to become the norm.

What's the standard for possessive when the word ends with an S? Charles' or Charles's?