Smart bombs

Do professional sports franchises prime the economic pumps of their cities? Well, if the teams’ owners want taxpayers to pay for new or improved facilities, the answer is yes. But if a team wants to break its lease with a city and relocate the team, the answer is no.

That mixed message comes courtesy of the Seattle SuperSonics, which, according to the Seattle Times, filed court papers contesting the city of Seattle’s claim that it should be compensated if it allows the team to get out of its KeyArena lease.

Said the Sonics: “The financial issue is simple, and the city’s analysts agree, there will be no net economic loss if the Sonics leave Seattle. Entertainment dollars not spent on the Sonics will be spent on Seattle’s many other sports and entertainment options.”

That rationale certainly echoes the independent analyses on the impact of franchises, but teams routinely reject those. Times political columnist and blogger David Postman resurrected the following quote from then-Sonics owner Howard Schultz, when he was begging the city for major upgrades to KeyArena:

“We have our own economic study that strongly suggests we generate over $200 million a year in economic real value to this region.”

What’s funny is that the citizens of Oklahoma City will be voting in March on a $100 million package to improve its arena and build the Sonics a practice facility in the hopes of luring the team there. My guess is the team won’t point out that the community will never get that money back.

Hard to swallow. I hate to state the obvious, but the reason government imposes taxes is to raise revenue. Aside from sin taxes, such as those on alcohol and cigarettes, the goal isn’t to dissuade the activity being taxed. And even in those cases, raising money is one of the goals.

We don’t tax sales because we dislike shopping. We don’t tax income because we abhor work. Quite simply, we do it because we need the money to run governments.

With that in mind, we ought not to fall for the old political gambit of singling out a particular tax as unfair. But that’s what’s happening in Idaho as it re-evaluates its 118 sales-tax exemptions, some of which are 30 years old. On Thursday, a House committee voted against even considering five of the first six exemptions. Legislators predictably defended the exemptions by noting the importance of the items, such as caskets and snow grooming equipment.

But are those things more important than food, which lawmakers have repeatedly refused to exempt? Of course not, say lawmakers, but they need the money.