Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: One “meh” and one “wow”
Next Post: It’s still Cook and Cohen
Posted in:
* From an SJ-R editorial about the Ricketts family’s request for government help to rebuild Wrigley Field…
To us, however, this issue is far more newsworthy for the delicious political irony it represents than for its substance.
The patriarch of the Ricketts family, Joe Ricketts (founder of Ameritrade), has been an outspoken critic of government spending and debt. So outspoken, in fact, that he founded a group called Taxpayers Against Earmarks, which has a website at www.endingspending.com.
The site says earmarks should be opposed because they allocate “money or a tax benefit for a specific project, program, or organization, circumventing a merit-based or competitive allocation process.” The site goes on to elaborate: “Earmarks provide federal funding for projects benefiting only a state or local interest, or a private company, university or non-profit. In other words, most earmark-funded projects do not benefit the nation as a whole — though the ‘giving’ of an earmark by a Member of Congress certainly benefits that Member.”
They may not be asking for a handout, but change a word here and there and you’d have a pretty good description of what the Ricketts family is requesting in its Wrigley proposal. Daley’s opposition is rooted in the deal’s potential effect on the “competitive allocation process.” If the amusement tax generates an extra $5 million, Daley reasons, that money should go where it is most needed — not to make payments that benefit the Ricketts family.
* The Question: Should legislators factor Joe Ricketts’ anti-government activism into their deliberations over whether to provide Ricketts’ family with taxpayer-funded assistance? Explain.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:23 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: One “meh” and one “wow”
Next Post: It’s still Cook and Cohen
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
naw. the request should be rejected on its merits. the fact is, developers should no longer depend on government subsidies to be make money. time to test the free market without the enormous local, county, state and federal subsidies that used to underpin them…
Comment by bored now Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:27 pm
Good lord yes. Well-financed activism, like elections, have consequences.
Comment by Dirt Digger Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:27 pm
Joe Ricketts’ activities are part of the family business. What he does, and how it might affect how they make their money is attached to their money in Cub land. It’s not the irony, it’s the operation.
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:32 pm
Sure, and thanks to your diligence in making Ricketts’ political views so well known, they’ll be forced to consider it. I’d hope they’d make a decision on what the best public policy is, regardless of politics, but that doesn’t seem to happen much. Ricketts’ hypocrisy sure does make a nice distraction from the issue at hand, which is whether the public should invest in a private sports enterprise, and since there are plenty of precedents for public investment in private enterprises, whether this proposed development advances a public goal.
Interesting that Mayor Daley found $13 million to help out the CME today. The Governor found money for Groupon, Ford and Chrysler, etc. When they want to, our governments can always find ways to give tax money to private companies.
The city and state should at least give the Ricketts a final answer so they know the future and can make a decision based on certainty. I suspect they’ll keep stringing them along like they did with the Bears, but if the answer is no, I’d prefer it to be Heck No and Don’t Come Back.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:36 pm
Of course not. If the deal is good for the public, do it. If not, don’t. It’s the same deal, regardless of the politics or hypocrisy behind it.
Comment by lake county democrat Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:40 pm
As a Democrat, I would give certain weight to how much capital I’m freeing up for the Ricketts family to continue to attack Democrats for doing something they asked us to do. Absolutely.
If I chaired the committee, I’d play the ad before Ricketts’ testimony and ask him for comment.
Again, there are already merit-based processes in place for the Cubs to get public funding for economic development: through DCEO at the state level and TIF funding at the local level.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:40 pm
“Should legislators factor Joe Ricketts’ anti-government activism into their deliberations over whether to provide Ricketts’ family with taxpayer-funded assistance?”
Abso-friggin-lutely. Old Man Ricketts spent his money on anti-government trash talk when he should have been saving it to refurbish that dump at Clark and Addison.
I don’t have high expectation for members of the Illinois Legislature, but I do expect them to have the self-respect necessary to say, “No!” when someone says, “Hey, you dirty, crooked scumbags — gimmie some money!”
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:43 pm
ISAT Example Question: The bishop driving his mistress to the abortion clinic is to hypocrisy, as the scion of Taxes Payers Against Earmarks getting a big old government handout is to ______. a) irony, b) probability, c) all of the above
Comment by That Guy Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:45 pm
Yes, of course! Joe Ricketts views should be given all of the consideration that they deserve.
Comment by Mighty M. Mouse Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:51 pm
No, but there should be a tax on asking for government money when the state is as broke as it is.
Comment by Excessively Rabid Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:58 pm
the priority of the state right now includes creating jobs for regular people and getting the fiscal house in order, not helping billionaire hypocrites.
can we focus on real issues now instead of puppy killing and greedy out of touch sports team owners?
Comment by shore Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:58 pm
How much did such “small-government” talk and hypocrisy figure in during the investment bank bailouts of 2008?
It’s hardly news at this point that these guys have the civic interest in mind when it coincides with their interests, and screw the civic interest when they diverge with personal interests.
What was the line from 2008?
“Capitalism for profists, socialism for losses.”
I hope they take it into consideration but ultimately hope they take the bigger picture into more consideration.
“Capital” will always behave greedily. Let’s hope our represenatives can sort out the right thing.
Comment by Mike Ins Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 1:01 pm
Well after I openly expressed my disbelief in Santa Claus, my parents were still putting presents “from Santa” under the Christmas tree.
The state movers will probably find it in their hearts to give to these “needy” aristocrats so as to maintain the flow no matter how lean the source. That is just the way the world turns these days.
Comment by Vole Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 1:10 pm
this is going over as well as the olympic bid. maybe valerie jarret can get oprah to help!
Comment by shore Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 1:16 pm
Yes, the Ricketts need to put their money where their mouth is. There are plenty of opportunities that could be considered “for the public good” that are in competition for funds. Ricketts’ stated position should put the project at the bottom of what is a very long list. They can “tax” their own tickets by raising the price a bit and dedicating that money to paying off their privately-offered and guaranteed bonds. If it works out, it will prove Mr. Ricketts’ point.
Personally, I’m a fan of the Sox, Bears, and Blackhawks. I resented public money paying for an upgrade for private facilities (Sox), was skeptical about an upgrade to a public facility that primarily benefited one private organization (Bears), and appreciated (for once and only once) Mr. Wirtz for paying his own way (mostly).
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 1:22 pm
Yes, it completely undermines their arguments that this is a good use of public funding or that this is good public policy. Sorry, but for me this is the nail in the coffin.
I’m a Cubs fan and a supporter of state capital investments. But the entire idea is bad to me. Go leverage your own assets. You need a revenue source to pay off the bonds? Why not add a stadium redevelopment fee to every premium ticket or skybox? You don’t need tax dollars to do this.
Comment by siriusly Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 1:28 pm
No. I think they should ask them detailed questions about the family’s views on similar issues. But that would be part of “fact finding” to determine whether the idea has merit and not just a forum to both mock the family and bring it to its knees to beg.
Ultimately, if the plan is a good it should be passed. If not, then so be it.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 1:28 pm
Shore - I appreciate your effort to make a comparison. But in fact the Olympic bid was extremely well organized, despite the final outcome.
Comment by siriusly Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 1:30 pm
I think free thinking people realize that it shouldn’t make a difference but it will.
Comment by Living in Oklahoma Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 1:33 pm
No, if it’s a good deal, it’s a good deal. Who hasn’t done business with people they wouldn’t go fishing with? It’s part of being a productive adult. Nothing personal, just business.
Wrigley Field was built in 1914. The upper deck was slapped on in 1927. The Trib was a lousy steward. It needs some work.
The ballpark and Wrigleyville are assets to Chicago that bring in a lot of out-of-town money. It’s in everyone’s interest that they thrive.
But there are a lot of stakeholders, so there needs to be a sitdown.
The Ricketts, with no consideration for timing or softening up the ground, just threw a plan they couldn’t communicate effectively onto an unsuspecting public and political class.
The reaction was predictable. If history is a guide, they’ll get something, but it will take a few years.
They can always sell off a piece of the action to raise some funds. Perhaps give the minority shareholder first crack at buying more.
By the way, the scuttlebutt is that when a certain milestone occurs, the McCaskeys will be forced to sell the Bears because of tax reasons. The first two in line, by way of previous investments in the team, are Patrick Ryan and Andrew McKenna Sr.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 2:00 pm
Of course. Joe Ricketts owns the Cubs. Joe Ricketts is against this sort of thing, except when he’s the one who stands to make a profit from it.
Comment by Cheryl44 Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 2:16 pm
Sure, then we can take the guns away from the Daley, Obama, Madigan, etc. protection details and force them to use crossbows and mace. And no more flying in airplanes on the public dime for Quinn, Durbin, Pelosi, etc. since they are anti the use of gas. If Obama is still smoking cigs, his health plan should be canceled immediately and he should be forced to resign by all the anti-tobacco progressives. We also have the hypocrisy of Obama’s past drug use. He should be in jail, turn himself in, not in office.
Maybe we should also force all pro-government activists to be followed and videod 24/7, drug tested every day, told what to eat and wear, and where to work.
Show me just one Illinois politician that isn’t a hypocrite. Just one. That is your answer. An obvious no.
Comment by TaxMeMore Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 2:19 pm
@Vole - There is a difference between disbelieving in Santa and stomping up and down screaming, “Santa sucks! And anyone who gets or gives Christmas presents sucks!”
Comment by MrJM Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 2:26 pm
Ricketts (like Rickets) is caused due to the lack of exposure to direct sunlight. So in keeping with that therapy…
Expose him for the fraud to true capitalism that he is.
Comment by Statesman Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 2:35 pm
Should they? Probably not.
Will they? You betcha!
Comment by Left Leaner Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 2:38 pm
It’s kinda like the tea party people elected to Congress promising to cut, cut, cut then turning down the opportunity to be on the major committees that will recommend the funding cuts. Ideally, what you say and do should pretty much go together. Not always reality as many projects have shown.
Comment by zatoichi Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 2:42 pm
Considering that Congressional staffers, like myself, are now unemployed because of the elder Mr. Ricketts I would say, uh, yes. Factor it in. Another person who speaks out of both sides of their mouth. Wants rules for everyone but them. Like the people on Meidcare who don’t want socialized medicines. Hypocrites.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 4:02 pm
NO, absolutely not. Government funding of any project should live or die on the merits.
BUT
If they need to to kill this inappropriate use of taxpayer funds then emphatically YES.
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 4:12 pm
They should emphatically and joyously point this out in longwinded speeches as they announce their “NO” votes. Preferably on-camera, so the YouTube mashups serve to embarrass these hypocrites well into the future.
Comment by Boone Logan Square Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 4:20 pm
No, they should just kill the plan because it really sucks. The fact that Ricketts is exposed as a complete hypocrite is just bonus material for journalists and we Cub fans whom have already decided this family is not interested in the future of the Cubs or Wrigley Field, they’re just looking to profit from this ownership.
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 4:21 pm
No, of courwe not. But it’s sure funny.
Comment by Park Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 5:51 pm
Absolutely yes–just like the old hit TV show, they’re “ALL in the FAMILY!” The factor legitimaely to consider would be to ponder the question: “Isn’t that bald-faced hypocrisy???” (Not to mention the fact that, based upon what the Rickett “kids” said in the summer of ‘09 after buying the Club that they themselves would be responsible for renovating Wrigley Field, what a JOKE!!!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 6:30 pm
No, we shouldn’t punish someone for their beliefs or exercising their First Amendment rights. Of course, in Ilinois politoics that’s pretty idealistic.
Anyway, it should fail on the merits.
Comment by Marty Friday, Nov 19, 10 @ 12:44 am