Wants vs. needs

I’ve gotten some flak from University of Washington fans for my denunciation of the school’s request for $150 million to fix up crumbling Husky Stadium. They either think I’m a Wazzu alum or ill-informed. And, no, that isn’t the same thing.

I’m not a Coug, and I’m well aware of how this revenue stream would be fished. My point still stands: This is a low priority. We already spend too much government money on athletics.

Renovation proponents want to continue the set-to-expire King County sales tax on hotels, motels, rental cars and restaurants that has been tapped to pay off the bonds for Safeco Field and Qwest Stadium. By steering clear of the general fund, this “want” doesn’t have to compete with “needs.” Huskies present the plan as a nifty way to pick up the tab.

Terrific! If the Legislature has found a “painless” way to raise money, then let’s continue to use it or expand it to pay for important things. Make it the 520/Viaduct Fund and funnel the proceeds to the widening of the clogged bridge over Lake Washington and a new downtown bypass. That would free up other transportation funds for, say, the north-south freeway in Spokane. Make it the Access to College Fund or the Low-Income Housing Fund. There are hundreds of more important items than football, especially when the state is looking at more than $5 billion in budget cuts. Besides, the tax has already built a state-of the-art stadium that’s near campus.

The university just completed a $2 billion fundraising campaign but doesn’t plan to set aside a dime for Husky Stadium. Why? Because academic facilities are deemed a higher priority.

Yep. When the stadium has to compete, it loses.

Alms for the rich. Here’s the definition of “bonus” at businessdictionary.com: “Gratuity given as gift, or compensation earned as a reward upon achieving a goal or milestone.”

I looked it up after reading that Citigroup’s top executives are considering forgoing their bonuses this year. A final decision will be made in January. Is this even a tough call? The cliff-hanging banking conglomerate was loosing its grip before the federal government swooped in with a $300 billion safety net.

Unless that was the goal all along, these executives should be happy to be employed, not pondering rewards. That would be like Chrysler doling out bonuses at the same time it’s asking Congress for a critical loan to keep the business afloat. Oh wait, many Chrysler executives are receiving bonuses for staying on until next summer.

As one human resources expert explained, “To get good people, the right people, then you often have to pay retention bonuses – otherwise they just won’t come or they won’t stay.”

Yeah, that would’ve been terrible if they didn’t show up. The business might’ve gone south.

Guess it’s time to rewrite that definition of “bonus”: “Compensation earned as a reward for just showing up.”