We need a president who is going to cut unnecessary spending.  In that light, it is a little discouraging that Scott Walker spent $220 million of taxpayer money to help finance a stadium.

Calling his plan a "common-sense, fiscally conservative approach," Gov. Scott Walker on Tuesday said new growth in income tax revenue from Milwaukee Bucks players, employees and visiting teams will generate enough money to cover debt payments on $220 million in state-issued bonds for a new arena.

In other words, tax revenue that the team is required to pay to the government will instead be refunded to them so they can build their new arena.  I don't think the rest of Wisconsin taxpayers had the generous option to have their income tax refunded to them to be used as they liked.

"There's absolute security for the taxpayers," Walker said. "No new taxes, no drawing on existing revenues, no exposure to the future..."

Scott Walker is not being truthful.  Future tax revenue from the team is being used to finance this, so there is "exposure to the future."  "[N]o existing revenue" is a very deceptive way of describing it, since he knows it will affect future revenue.  It reminds me of how President Clinton once famously said, "Well, it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

Opponents will be expected to argue that bonding authority for an arena for a team owned by billionaires and played in by millionaires would divert much-needed income tax revenue.

In a statement, David Fladeboe, director of Americans for Prosperity's Wisconsin chapter, said the group feels Walker's plan "would put the state and taxpayers on the hook for future obligations. Funding for sports arenas should not be the responsibility of the state and the hard-working taxpayers of Wisconsin."

The billionaire owner of the Bucks is putting in $150 million for the new stadium, so in other words, Walker is contributing more than the owner of the team who will benefit from it.  Why should taxpayers be subsidizing private stadiums of any kind?  A fiscal conservative wouldn't do this.  How is Scott Walker going to cut the fat from government when he keeps adding to it?

There are a few things I like about Scott Walker, if you put aside his inability to be truthful about his many positions on amnesty.  He fought government unions, and he lowered state income taxes a little bit.  But the fact that he would waste taxpayer money on something like this is not an encouraging sign that he would cut unnecessary programs from government.  He's also not much of a budget-cutter.  In Wisconsin he increased spending by 5% from 2013 to 2014 – that's a pretty big increase.

Please tell me in the comments section why funding this stadium and increasing spending 5% a year makes Walker an economic conservative.

This article was produced by NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.