Elway Doesn't Believe In Taxpayer-Funded Safety Nets -- For The Poor, That Is
From Pando Daily, which notes that this is the philosophy of Hall of Fame quarterback and Denver Broncos executive John Elway, who told Fox News why he supports the Republican party:
I don't believe in safety nets. Obviously, we've got to have some kind of safety nets. But I think my philosophy is when given the opportunity to go take advantage of that, I think that's when you get the best out of people.
David Sirota writes at Pando:
As Pando reported last week, the NFL is the beneficiary of one of the most lucrative taxpayer-funded social safety nets in the entire American economy. The league itself is exempted from paying taxes, and NFL teams receive on average $900 million in taxpayer subsidies every year. Elway's team has been the beneficiary of some of those subsidies through the taxpayer dollars that went into building the Broncos' own stadium.
Sirota continues:
Though the NFL legend did give himself some wiggle room ("we've got to have some kind of safety nets"), he certainly implied that he is a staunch opponent of exactly the kind of perpetual bailouts and corporate welfare programs that subsidize the profits of his own league.
From AgainstCronyCapitalism, New Jersey gave the NFL a super tax break for the Super Bowl, and paid for security. It was an $8 million gift:
No sales tax on Superbowl tickets and 700 cops for security all paid by the state of New Jersey.
From Gregg Easterbrook in The Atlantic, "How The NFL Fleeces Taxpayers":
Taxpayers fund the stadiums, antitrust law doesn't apply to broadcast deals, the league enjoys nonprofit status, and Commissioner Roger Goodell makes $30 million a year. It's time to stop the public giveaways to America's richest sports league--and to the feudal lords who own its teams.
Sirota via Lisa Simeone
I keep meaning to go look into the NFL's incorporation status... saying that "the NFL doesn't pay taxes" may not be telling the whole story, if it disburses payments to the partners, who then pay taxes. Nonetheless, that would be an unusual setup for something the NFL's size. I'm not the expert on that sort of thing.
But the essential point is taken. Entertainment is a hugely subsidized industry in general. State and local governments bend over backwards for movie and TV productions, and the federal govenrment looks the other way at child-labor and minimum wage law violations when entertainment is involved. And we all know that subsidized sports stadiums are a national scandal, or ought to be.
(BTW, regarding Elway... are we now allowed to criticize celebrities who "have enough money already"? I thought that was verboten.)
Cousin Dave at February 4, 2014 6:59 AM
While the NFL is not taxed, the Broncos, and all the individual teams and players are.
John Elway does not work for the NFL organization. He works for the Broncos Franchise.
Isab at February 4, 2014 7:29 AM
Yes, the NFL is subsidized. As well as other sports, Hollywood, many other industries, and unions as well.
But the reason the corporate welfare goes on is that the federal government is doing so much that is extra-Constitutional it is ridiculous.
As it stands there are 23 states that have NFL teams (or make a profit) off them.
I say repeal the 17th amendment and put the senators back under control of the state legislatures. Do you think the other 27 states would approve of the tax loopholes?
And then also limit the amount of time anyone can be in congress. So yes -- the <organization> might buy off most of the Arizona representatives. But if they can only be there for 12 years, will the new ones be able to be bought off as well?
If an Article 5 convention can be pulled off a lot of the problems of both the social and corporate safety nets might actually be able to be fixed just by getting the fed to work the way it was supposed to work.
Jim P. at February 4, 2014 7:54 AM
Next up, the absurd tax breaks for Hollywood? I think even nonprofits should pay taxes. Inequality leaves room for corruption.
MarkD at February 4, 2014 8:10 AM
Cousin Dave beat me to posting. This is an ongoing gripe of mine with Easterbrook this season.
The NFL is a 501(c)6 organization. That's the same status that applies to chambers of commerce and real estate boards, among other organizations. The key is "...which are not organized for profit and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual."
Yes, the NFL takes in money. But the NFL doesn't hold that money; as Cousin Dave said, it takes what it needs to run NFL operations, and distributes whatever is left over back to the individual teams. The NFL doesn't make a profit or pay shareholders by itself; the teams may, but the NFL doesn't.
Easterbrook's argument, to me, relies on people conflating "non-profit" with "charity", and I think he's being disingenuous by doing so. You can have a non-profit organization that's not a charity - I used to work for an organization like that several jobs ago.
His other arguments may have some validity, but this one? Not so much, in my humble opinion.
Dwight Brown at February 4, 2014 8:29 AM
are we now allowed to criticize celebrities who "have enough money already"? I thought that was verboten.
Only if they vote Republican or Libertarian. If they vote Democrat, then no, we are not allowed to criticize, no matter how much money they have.
(This is, of course, a generalization. Generally Republicans don't call out anyone for having too much money, but Democrats love to complain about certain people having too much. Just not Michael Moore, or Warren Buffett or any other person who calls for higher taxes on "the rich.")
Jazzhands at February 4, 2014 2:27 PM
"I don't believe in safety nets" sniffed the Lottery Winner of Life.
Oh, if only there was someone here, someone, who could converse with me on my level, high on Mount Olympompous, or high on sniffing my own farts, or whatever I'm high on. Doesn't matter, I'm just higher up than you, and therfore, better.
Maybe I'll trickle down some job creation on the back of your head sometime.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 4, 2014 6:33 PM
I'm not a lottery winner and I don't believe in the social safety net as it is currently set up either. I believe in a tuna net not a gill net if there is going to be one.
No SSI for drug and alcohol addiction. No 99 weekers for unemployment. Not a lifetime of welfare programs.
This whole You Tube entry was posted in an earlier in Amy's blog entry of Who Benefits Most From Welfare?[1].
But here's the important point from the welfare abuser. She admits that if she didn't have the welfare programs to abuse she would have to go out and do the better for her family.
There is nothing wrong with three-six month unemployment system. But the extended programs at full payment encourage abuse.
The food stamp/welfare system that pays for unlimited children with unlimited increases leads to unwed baby factories. Where if you fall unto welfare with two children and one the way because your husband/SO died in a car accident and that was the limit that is paid for the next seven years -- there is no encouragement to have more children.
Paying medicaid beyond accidents, the one on the way and abortion/birth control is ridiculous. Leave the mother on the hook for the next birth.
I know it sounds cruel but the war on poverty has been going on for 50 years and hasn't changed much of anything.
Then to add in the simple facts. Please show me where in the United States Constitution that any of this comes from.
[1] -- www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/02/03/who_benefits_mo.html
Jim P. at February 4, 2014 7:30 PM
Ah, yes - the "Lottery Winner of Life". No skills, no decency, no personal effort on Elway's part. He was just picked up out of a gutter and handed millions.
Wealth envy makes me ill. Just gently ill, because I know the people who have it, have it bad.
But you're backing the President's, "You didn't earn that!" or whatever he was babbling about government being the reason anyone succeeds.
The simple fact is that market communication makes lots of money move. The richest female performer, Madonna, would just be singing for friends and family if were not for an enormous network distributing her sound - which people want to buy. Elway would be a factory worker if the football juggernaut had not awakened in the midst of a populace eager to see battles won, in gladatorial arenas which we are now hearing maim the participants.
Make a claim on Elway's money. now. It's just a small step or two to "he doesn't deserve it, government should take it and give it to me".
Radwaste at February 4, 2014 7:32 PM
Jim P., "as it is currently set up either" - no problem with that one. I think everyone recognizes the current system is not good. Keep people from starving? Check. Allow people to flounder for a lifetime on a slow drip poverty existence? Bad mistake.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 4, 2014 11:01 PM
Gog, let me ask the hard question:
What level of support must be taken from those who work to support those who will not or cannot?
Ignore for the moment the dismal record government has to see aid actually reaches the recipients.
Feed the hungry, you get more hungry. The organism expands to consume all available resources.
Here in South Carolina, I can show you legions of seriously obese people who are on welfare programs.
Radwaste at February 6, 2014 5:35 AM
Leave a comment