Was a Wisconsin data centers tax break put in place solely by Gov. Tony Evers? 46%

By Audrey Lopez-Stane8% Wisconsin Watch9%

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 46% (10,140 of 18,787 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 54.00% 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 
Confirmation Bias
1%
Anchoring Bias
13.6%
Availability Heuristic
7.8%
Representativeness Heuristic
6.3%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
6.3%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
7.8%
Pessimism Bias
7.8%
Negativity Bias
24.3%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
11.2%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
2.4%
Blind-Spot Bias
5.8%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
25.2%
False Dilemma
6.3%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
1%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
7.8%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
6.8%
Biased Writer Voice
5.8%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

206 words analyzed.

Analysis

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