'Spent' is an interesting word here, given that this was entirely done in tax breaks. It's not as if the state's coffers have $50m less than if they hadn't done

'Spent' is an interesting word here, given that this was entirely done in tax breaks. It's not as if the state's coffers have $50m less than if they hadn't done this deal at all - in fact it was still likely a net + for them. If they hadn't given the tax breaks then IBM wouldn't have come at all - bringing zero dollars with them. At least this way there are hundreds of people employed, land being rented, utilities being used etc. Oh, and according to the article the tax breaks were suspended when the number of employees dropped too low - perhaps that minimum number could have been set higher? Obviously this didn't turn out as well as the state wanted it to, but it's not like it actually cost them any real dollars in the long run...