My recollection from earlier stories covering this deal is that "subsidy" actually means "tax break". If that's correct, then the tone of this story is very misleading.
The term "subsidy" implies that the state is actively paying out cash to Foxconn. If I'm correct that these are actually tax breaks, then the state is merely claiming less tax revenue from Foxconn than state law would otherwise dictate. That's tax revenue that the state wouldn't see at all in the absence of Foxconn. And if Foxconn's locally-generated revenue ends up being smaller than originally anticipated, then it would stand to reason that the effective reduction in tax revenue is reduced as well.
The article goes on and on about wasted subsidy funds (there are other valid criticisms of the deal, but this is the big one). The Foxconn deal may not be working out, but if everything is structured in terms of tax then the state finances are not really getting impacted.
