Was a Wisconsin data centers tax break put in place solely by Gov. Tony Evers? 48%

By Audrey Lopez-Stane13% Wisconsin Watch12%

7/20/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Anchoring Bias, and Out-Group Homogeneity Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 25.2% saturation with 52 hits. Analysis detected 303 faulty-reasoning hits from 206 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48.9% and a BS Rank of 48% (11,567 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 52.80% of the article peer group.

A 2023-25 budget provision granting a sales tax exemption to data centers was passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by Democratic Gov. 
Tony Evers in July 2023. 
The Legislative Fiscal Bureau said in March that the tax break will cost the state more than $2 billion in sales tax revenue, mostly from massive data centers in Beaver Dam, Port Washington and Mount Pleasant. 
When the budget was approved in July 2023, hyperscale data centers were so new the fiscal bureau didn’t estimate how much an exemption would affect state tax collections. 
While the high cost has drawn scrutiny, the incentive was originally designed to drive economic growth. 
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 38 states offer tax incentives on data centers. 
Wisconsin has about 50 data centers, largely in the Milwaukee and Madison areas. 
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one . 
Wisconsin Watch: Wisconsin data center tax break to cost state more than $2 billion 
Legislative Fiscal Bureau: 2023-25 Wisconsin State Budget 
Data Center Map: Wisconsin Data Centers 
National Conference of State Legislatures: Subsidizing Servers: How States Are Competing to Attract Data Centers 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.6%Wisconsin Watch: 2.1%Confirmation Bias1.0%This article: 13.6%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 1.5%Wisconsin Watch: 1.1%Anchoring Bias13.6%This article: 7.8%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.9%Wisconsin Watch: 2.2%Availability Heuristic7.8%This article: 6.3%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 1.1%Wisconsin Watch: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic6.3%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.4%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.7%Wisconsin Watch: 0.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 5.3%Wisconsin Watch: 3.8%Framing Effect6.3%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.7%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.8%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 1.2%Wisconsin Watch: 2.5%Optimism Bias7.8%This article: 7.8%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.8%Wisconsin Watch: 1.7%Pessimism Bias7.8%This article: 24.3%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 3.1%Wisconsin Watch: 5.3%Negativity Bias24.3%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.4%Wisconsin Watch: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.7%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.1%Wisconsin Watch: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 11.2%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.2%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias11.2%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 2.1%Wisconsin Watch: 1.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.6%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.2%Wisconsin Watch: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.3%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Primacy Effect2.4%This article: 5.8%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.1%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.4%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 25.2%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 4.4%Wisconsin Watch: 3.1%Appeal to Authority25.2%This article: 6.3%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 1.5%Wisconsin Watch: 1.2%False Dilemma6.3%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.3%Wisconsin Watch: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 1.3%Wisconsin Watch: 2.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 1.1%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 2.1%Wisconsin Watch: 4.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 1.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.1%Wisconsin Watch: 0.5%Begging the Question1.0%This article: 7.8%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 1.2%Wisconsin Watch: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.8%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.2%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.4%Wisconsin Watch: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.1%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.8%Wisconsin Watch: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 1.7%Wisconsin Watch: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.3%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.3%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 6.8%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.2%Wisconsin Watch: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection6.8%This article: 5.8%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.7%Wisconsin Watch: 1.3%Biased Writer Voice5.8%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.1%Wisconsin Watch: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.5%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.5%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Audrey Lopez-Stane: 0.7%Wisconsin Watch: 1.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

206 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers38%attributed speech127writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageTony Evers • 5 words • 0.0% coverageLegislative Fiscal Bureau • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageNational Conference of State Legislatures • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageLegislative Fiscal Bureau • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageNational Conference of State Legislatures • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
84%flagged-word coverage
43 attributed words54% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Quote-first Misdirection-11.0 ptsWriter: 11.0%Legislative Fiscal Bureau: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.4 ptsWriter: 9.4%Legislative Fiscal Bureau: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.