You’ve read the old saw that politics makes strange bedfellows, and you’re seeing that in the debate over the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal.

But you don’t need to go to Washington to see strange bedfellows. In Madison, some Republicans are pushing a new Bucks arena, and some are opposed, joined, it seems, by all legislative Democrats.

The latter may seem strange since Democrats overwhelm Milwaukee and Milwaukee County, and therefore you’d think Democrats would favor something that would keep some of their constituents employed. Republicans also pushed a Miller Park deal 20 years ago instead of Democrats, one of whom, Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist, wanted a downtown baseball stadium instead. The same has been the case with Milwaukee voucher schools, generally supported by Republicans and opposed by Democrats, two exceptions being Norquist and late Rep. Polly Williams (D-Milwaukee).

The Republican divide over the Bucks is shown by Timothy P. Carney:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker wants to send a quarter-billion dollars in taxpayer money to the billionaire owners of the Milwaukee Bucks, who are threatening to leave if they don’t get a subsidized new arena.

At the same time, however, presidential candidate Scott Walker wants to convince Republican primary voters nationwide that he is a conservative who can stand up to the special interests.

It’s a tough sell.

Walker, together with local Democratic politicians and the billionaire out-of-state owners of the Bucks, has negotiated a deal whereby the state and local governments pay for half the cost of a new $500 million arena for the NBA team. The state would borrow $55 million to build the arena, costing the state taxpayers $80 million over 20 years when interest is included. City and county governments would cover the rest.

Walker argues that the $250 million gift to the owners — billionaire hedge fund managers Marc Lasry and Wesley Edens, who live in New York — will pay for itself. “The price of doing nothing is not zero. It’s $419 million,” Walker said. “It’s not just a good deal. It’s a really bad deal if we don’t do anything.”

In short, Walker is asserting that the team and the new arena will bring in more tax revenue than the ransom money will cost taxpayers. …

The subsidy undermines Walker’s ability — especially in the general election for president — to tout his record as governor. Walker explains his cuts to government employee benefits and University of Wisconsin spending in terms of necessity — state spending was in disarray, and he had to make tough choices.

But if he’s handing $250 million to the Bucks’ owners, the spending cuts look different. It’s an easy — and not entirely unfair — line of attack for a Democrat: Walker cut $300 million from college kids, so he could give most of it to some millionaire business owners.

No doubt Walker’s subsidy to the Bucks will hurt him politically outside of Milwaukee.

The next question is: Should it?

If you are a fair-minded, thoughtful voter — in the GOP primary or the election — what does Walker’s corporate-welfare deal tell you about the man, about how he would be as president?

First, it shows that Walker’s conservatism — his belief in free enterprise and limited government — is more a disposition, a leaning, than a deeply held principle. He’s against government getting involved unless someone can make a good argument that in this case, it’s good for business. We’ve already learned this lesson, though, from Walker’s support for ethanol when he traveled to Iowa earlier this year.

Second, there’s the toughness question. Walker was supposed to be tough and unbending in the face of special interests—that’s how he beat the powerful government unions and the recall election. But when a league run by billionaires demands ransom of Walker, he forks it over just like your average mayor or governor would.

Third, Walker’s defense of the subsidy shows that he’s not a student of economics. It’s nearly unanimous among economists that stadium subsidies do not pay for themselves, and the research suggests that losing a sports team doesn’t hurt a city’s economy.

All interesting points. I would be more interested in Carney’s point of view on this subject were he actually a Wisconsinite who might have to live with the consequences of the Bucks’ leaving. Carney doesn’t. (More on that shortly.)

Carney seems shocked — shocked! — to find out that Walker is a politician. Walker isn’t that much of a small-government conservative, which should be obvious since there have not been large-scale government-employee layoffs since he’s been governor. (Teacher layoffs happen for the same reason they have always happened — diminishing layoffs in particular classes.)

The other thing Carney misses is the importance to the Republican voter of Walker’s successes against the education and Govzilla establishment, particularly public employee unions, which are a much higher priority among GOP-leaning voters than attacks on business. Teachers and other government employees did not vote for Republicans even before Scott Walker started running for governor.

It is perfectly obvious what is happening here, because it happened with the Brewers and Miller Park in 1996. Democrats are staying away from the Bucks to make Republicans do the heavy legislative work, and if it fails and the Bucks leave, Democrats can blame Republicans for the Bucks’ leaving.

More locally pertinent perspectives come from Rick Esenberg …

When I was a young lawyer, one of my elders at Foley & Lardner taught me the essence of a good settlement in litigation. To paraphrase, you want to reach a deal which is so good for you that the other side will cringe, but not so bad for them that they won’t shrug. Although negotiation professionals often bang on about “win-win” solutions, most one-off deals – unless overridden by the needs of an ongoing relationship – are ultimately governed by this dynamic. …

Lot of folks say that Edens and Lasry should pay more for the arena happen because “they can afford it.” The statement is true, but irrelevant. People – and billionaires are no different – generally do not spend even what they can afford, unless it is in their interest to do so. A person’s interest might include charity, but my guess is that Edens and Lasry’s desire to make a gift to a city from which they are not from and where they do not live is quite limited.

But these guys are in a bit of a trap. Right now, it looks like they have made a great deal. They wanted to own an NBA franchise (which can be a form of consumption for billionaires) and they do. In addition, the team is probably worth much more than they paid for it. As O’Donnell points out, with the NBA’s new TV contract in place, the LA Clippers sold a few months after the Bucks for two billion dollars. While the Bucks in Milwaukee are worth nowhere near a franchise in Los Angeles, it seems certain that they are worth more than the $550 million that Edens and Lasry paid for them.

So these guys are looking like winners. But, unless the arena is built, they lose that victory. They will no longer have their shiny NBA toy and, perhaps more importantly, someone else will enjoy the increased value of the Bucks. Edens and Lasry can keep the gain on the bargain basement price that they paid only if the team stays here. (While the Bucks in Milwaukee are certainly worth less than the Bucks in Seattle, it still appears – even in Milwaukee – that they are already worth much more than the sales price.)

So, quite apart from what they can afford, it is in their interest to contribute to the deal. You’ve got to give Herb Kohl credit for setting it up this way. While he made out like a bandit on his investment in the Bucks, he certainly left money on the table for his hometown.

But the reason that Edens and Lasry must throw in some money also limits the amount that they will throw in. Remember, to keep the team, they have to keep it here. And it is worth less here. Putting aside the thrill of owning a sports franchise, let’s assume that they believe the Bucks are worth $725 million and a little bit more if the team must stay in Milwaukee. They ought to be willing to put $150 million into the arena deal so they can hang on to that “little bit more” in value. (They should also factor in expected appreciation discounted to present value, but I’m trying to keep the example simple.)

So how much are the Milwaukee – as opposed to the Seattle – Bucks worth? How much will make the owners cringe and yet shrug ?

… and Dan O’Donnell:

The Bucks are a beloved sports team, yes, but they are also an important business to both its city and its state.  As conservatives, we pride ourselves as being pro-business, free market capitalists who understand that to achieve economic growth, government must work with (not against) the private sector.

Whereas liberal taxation and over-regulation stifle enterprise and inherently view business as a sort of enemy to be demonized when convenient and always made to “pay its fair share” (which, as it happens, is determined by liberals in government), conservatism understands that private enterprise is a partner whose success shouldn’t be punished, but encouraged.

Encouragement, of course, does not mean corporate welfare, and this is why so many conservatives are so divided about the current proposal to use $250 million in taxpayer money to pay for approximately half of the Bucks’ new arena.

This is why I am so conflicted, because while I love my team, I also love my fellow taxpayers and don’t want city and state government to place an undue burden on them so that fans like me can keep wearing our jerseys and buying our tickets.

Remember, though, the Bucks are a local business every bit as much as they are a local team, and are as such a significant contributor to the state and local tax base. Each year, the estimated tax revenue from NBA salaries alone is estimated to be approximately $6.52 million.  The NBA has just signed a new $24 billion network television rights agreement, and the resulting player salaries and revenue sharing cuts are expected to rise exponentially when that agreement kicks in next season.

Anticipating this rise, Governor Walker estimated that the annual revenue from taxes on NBA player salaries could rise 8% next year to a little more than $7 million and a full 25% to $8.15 million in 2017.

And that’s just in player salaries.  The Bucks themselves also employ more than 160 workers, from coaches to trainers to professional scouts to ticket sales representatives—all of whom pay state income taxes and many of whom pay local property taxes.

If the Bucks leave Milwaukee (which is a near-certainty if an arena deal isn’t agreed upon), all 160 of those jobs—and the tax revenue they generate—would disappear.

Moreover, the most recent Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce analysis of the BMO Harris Bradley Center’s overall economic impact found that it “supports 2,350 jobs with an annual payroll of more than $73 million, while its net impact supports 1,068 jobs with an annual payroll of more than $29 million.”

If the Bucks leave Milwaukee, many of those jobs—and the tax revenue they generate—would disappear as well, leaving taxpayers to fund the maintenance of the facility without the millions in revenue generated by 41 (or more) NBA games per year.

Without those games, sales tax revenue on tickets, concessions, and merchandise would be lost as well.  So would hotel tax revenue from not only out-of-town fans, but also visiting NBA teams, which typically have traveling parties of 30 or more.

Radio and television rights to broadcast Bucks games also generate tax revenue and help to support the salaries of hundreds of FOX Sports Wisconsin and Scripps Media employees, from on-air personalities to camera operators to producers to salespeople. …

In addition, a substantial amount of the Bucks’ annual taxable revenue comes from outside of Wisconsin in the form of the NBA’s revenue sharing agreement and luxury tax system under which the league’s more profitable teams in effect subsidize its less profitable teams.  Last year, the Bucks made a whopping $18 million in revenue sharing and an additional $3 million in luxury tax payouts.  That reportedly turned a $6.5 million loss for the 2013-2014 season into $14.8 million worth of profits that were then subject to taxation.

If the Bucks leave Milwaukee, all of that out-of-state revenue sharing and luxury tax money will leave Wisconsin’s tax base.

In other words, Wisconsin’s taxpayers would be out millions of dollars per year in corporate and individual income tax revenue and stuck with millions of dollars in BMO Harris Bradley Center maintenance fees that would likely not be covered by the Marquette basketball and Milwaukee Admirals hockey games and occasional concerts that the arena would still host.

Esenberg’s and O’Donnell’s perspectives are interesting beyond what they say for this reason: Esenberg writes for Right Wisconsin, a creation of the late Journal Communications, whose WTMJ radio has been the originating station for the Bucks for their entire existence. WTMJ and Right Wisconsin are now owned by Scripps Media (the broadcast half of the ill-advised Journal sale), which definitely has a financial stake in whether the Bucks stay or go. I haven’t kept track, but I think Right Wisconsin has run more pieces against the stadium deal than for it, despite the fact that Scripps stands to lose money if the Bucks leave. (WTMJ, in fact, dumped the Badgers in favor of the Bucks two years ago.)

O’Donnell, meanwhile, works for WISN, WTMJ’s competition, which could stand to gain by WTMJ’s losing the Bucks. (Perhaps, however, WISN has on its to-do list wrestling the Bucks’ rights away from WTMJ.)