Citizen Kills Killer  |   Home  |   Iran Protests SOP

No to Museum Welfare

Ummmm… no.

In time for Christmas, the County Board will decide Tuesday whether or not to donate $250,000 to the Museum of Wisconsin Art’s new facility.

The Museum of Wisconsin Art is a private institution.  It asked for $500,000 from the taxpayers of Washington County and the County Board is considering giving them $250,000.  I’m sorry, but what obligation do the taxpayers have to give a quarter of a million dollars to this private business?  Are they going to leave and take all of those jobs with them?  Given that West Bend has seen several big employers pull jobs out of the community in the past several years and the county didn’t lift a finger to prevent it, why the hell would they give $250,000 is taxpayer dollars to a museum?  And this from a board that refused to sunset the sales tax as they promised. 

Just say no.

Posted by Owen at 2028 hrs
Culture + Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

1. If only people had just said no to Miller Park.

   Posted by scott on December 10, 2007 at 2126 hrs
   
   
   

2. A lot of people did, just not the ones in power, Tommy Thompson, John Norquist and Tom Ament.  Another great legacy from these guys…

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2007 at 2345 hrs
   
   
   

3. I’m going to ask an honest question in the hopes of promoting dialogue.  Perhaps I will get some takers.

   I think most people would agree that museums are important things.  A museum preserves parts of our history and shares them with future generations.  I’ve never been to the museum in question.  Perhaps it sucks, but that’s not relevant to what I’m about to ask.

   It sounds like the museum in question is a private museum that likely seeks funding to subsidize its budget in part because what a museum showcases is a public good that contributes to the quality of life of the community in which it is located.  At least, so it goes in theory.

   Now, knowing what I know of how conservatives like to argue, I would presume that this kind of partnership would be preferable to them, as opposed to simply having the government open a museum and fulfill the same roles.  They would probably argue that the museum could run more efficiently and more cheaply if it were done by the private sector.  They would begin encouraging the government to privatize the curators, the janitors, and everything else under the roof that could be privatized.  In terms of cost, those conservatives would likely be correct on most, if not all counts.

   So in effect, you have a private organization here asking for public assistance in recognition of the benefit it provides to taxpayers.  Without arguing the particular merits or demerits of this situation, is this not an infinitely preferable model to conservatives than simply having the government undertake everything that is of cultural or historical worth?

   I’m just trying to figure out if the argument is against this particular case or if it is a general argument that no private institution should ever receive any kind of public benefit regardless of the public benefit that a community might derive from having such a resource located within its boundaries.

   And if that’s the case, why don’t conservatives fight harder against tax breaks and credits for businesses, for example?  Those are also public monies being spent on private businesses whose jobs create a public benefit.  Is it okay for a local government to bribe a obviously failing business to stay open for another year or two, but not to help provide lasting cultural resources to its residents?

   Perhaps those of you who consider yourselves conservatives would care to share your perspectives.  I think it would be interesting to hear them.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 11, 2007 at 0313 hrs
   
   
   

4. Scott - agreed.

   RS - to me the difference is that giving a business a certain level of help can sometimes be justified because it translates (hopefully) into jobs.  If the business is large enough when it pulls out it will increase the amount of labor available driving wages down for all workers in the area.  If it is not big enough to have such an effect I would not agree to give it any tax benefits or money. 

   I agree that a museum is a public good but it is also a public luxury.  I love them, I take my kids to them, I don’t necessarily want them to close their doors, but I think a gov’t must prioritize.  I also think that museums and the arts have a natural constituency of people in the wealthy end of the spectrum that they can seek funding from.  Name the rooms of the museum for wealth donors etc.  I would be surprised if they could not find $250,000 going up and down Lake Drive a few times and dropping in on the Kohlers and the Menards.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1038 hrs
   
   
   

5. The Museum is only in the vaguest sense a private institution.

   It was created by the state and local government.  It sits on county government land.  It was initially funded by a public bond issue. The board is essentially dominated by government appointees. It is government in all key respects.

   From the History of the Milwaukee Public Museum:

   “August Stirn, a city alderman active in the natural history society, obtained enabling legislation from the state of Wisconsin in 1882 for Milwaukee to accept the collection and take necessary measures to establish “a free public museum.”

   Further:

   A newly formed Board of Trustees hired the first director Carl Doerflinger, and an assistant, rented nearly 3,000 feet of space for exhibits and offices in the municipal Industrial Exposition Building, and opened the museum to the public on May 24, 1884. Doerflinger resigned in 1888 because of illness but his vision set the future course of the museum in the equal emphasis on the use of collections for study and research and the importance of public education through exhibits. He also helped promote a city bond issue to purchase land and build an imposing neoclassical structure to house both the Public Museum and Public Library that opened in 1898 on what is now Wisconsin Avenue in downtown Milwaukee.

   You may not like it, but the fact is that this is a government created and funded institution. Its success and failure hinges on that fact.

   The government could walk away from it, but it is a government educational amenity like schools and libraries.

   I personally believe that the government shouldn’t be involved in any of them, but that is not the system we live in.

   Sincerely,

   Badger

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1046 hrs
   
   
   

6. I think the Wisconsin Museum of Art in West Bend is a nonprofit entity, and does not have any governmental input on it’s Board or ownership in it’s facility.

   As I recall, it was initially founded by the Pick family (associated with the former Pick Manufacturing firm of West Bend & West Bend Mutual Insurance - in fact, the museum is housed in the former West Bend Mutual Insurance building).  The Pick family has an ancestor (Carl Van Marr?) who was an artist, and the motivation to establish the museum was to display his work.

   For whatever reasons, this collection (not just Carl Van Marr, but other Wisconsin artists as well) has an “international” interest.

   I do recall reading that at one point, the Board had considered the option of moving the collection somewhere else, but for various reasons decided that this could be a community asset unique to the City of West Bend.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1104 hrs
   
   
   

7. giving a business a certain level of help can sometimes be justified because it translates (hopefully) into jobs.

   NOT giving businesses a certain level of “help” will always translate into more money in everyone’s pocket…which results in more money for them to spend… on things that their neighbors make at work… which causes their neighbor’s businesses to expand…thus creating more jobs.

   Why do so many conservatives see giving money away to businesses (or more often just excusing them from paying any taxes whatsoever) is a more powerful economic stimulus than simply leaving that money in the hands of private citizens?  You’d think conservatives would understand this logic, since it’s the very same one they use against government spending. 

   (The difference in that case is, of course, that some goods and services will not or cannot be performed by the private sector, and thus must be funded publicly.  Not so with private enterprises.)

   Posted by scott on December 11, 2007 at 1206 hrs
   
   
   

8. Scott - on the theoretical level I agree with you.  But I don’t think it works in reality because not all states or regions have the same tax burden.  Thus, a business can always relocate to a more friendly tax environment.  Once that happens, I will not be spending money on my neighbors work product but on someone else’s work product.  The question is at what price does the benefit of having a company stay here become out weighed by the cost of keeping it here.  In my post, I set the level at the point where losing the business (or a group of businesses in the same industry like say manufacturing) yields and over supply of labor that drives down wages across the board.  I think you could make an argument that at that point the tax structure is having a negative impact on the citizens ability to earn a living and should be modified.  We often see this play out as a special deal for that business or industry.  I would be much more inclined to rework the entire tax system to remove the disincentives.  Thus, we would not need to engage in the band-aid practice of trying to save a business for the state. 

   Another problem I see in your analysis is that you assume the Wisconsin companies sell their goods here and not out of state or overseas.  This is not true for many companies.  Thus, whether the citizens of Wisconsin have more money to spend is irrelevant to their ability to sell their goods and make a profit.

   But I also think you start from a very different premise than I do, you ask why were are giving money to businesses.  This of course begins with an assumption that the money belongs to the gov’t or society as a whole except for that portion we decide to let the business keep.  I obviously see the world through an entirely different lens.  The question for me is always, how does the gov’t justify taking what it is taking?  (you point out a good example – necessities that the private sector won’t produce) 

   Badger – I think you are talking about the wrong museum.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1447 hrs
   
   
   

9. The question for me is always, how does the gov’t justify taking what it is taking? 

   My question isn’t all that different: are they paying their fair share for the services and infrastructure that they’re sucking up?

   Posted by scott on December 11, 2007 at 1526 hrs
   
   
   

10. From the MJS...

    “The state will provide a $1.25 million environmental cleanup grant to Harley-Davidson Inc. (HOG) for its new museum in Milwaukee’s Menomonee Valley, Gov. Jim Doyle announced today.”

    This is in addition to $7 million in city funds that HOG (what an appropriate stock symbol) is getting.

    I’m going to get some outrage over this, right?  $8+ million in public funding for a private museum?

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 12, 2007 at 1519 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.