According to Lynn Sweet’s Sept. 8 column (“Influential money man”), mega donor Richard Uihlein is a “free market, small government crusader.”
Friend and beneficiary Dan Proft says that Uihlein wants “a freer state and a freer country. … Where free minds and free markets are allowed to operate out of the thumb of government.”
Yet Uihlein apparently doesn’t mind that big government thumb if it’s handing him $6 million in government assistance (paid by taxpayers) to relocate his company to Wisconsin.
Nor does he seemingly object to his corporation, Uline, obtaining dozens of government contracts since 2000, qualifying it as a “large government contractor,” according to InsideGov.
It would seem that Mr. Uihlein, like most super wealthy self-proclaimed small government, small spending conservatives, really has no objection at all to big government or big spending, as long as he and his big business cronies are the beneficiaries.
I suppose he only genuinely objects to government taxing and spending when it’s the working class or the needy who benefit.
Daniel Welch, Glen Ellyn
SEND LETTERS TO: email@example.com. Please include your neighborhood or hometown and a phone number for verification purposes.
Ditka belongs to Stone Age
Mike Ditka backs Trump! Well, that’s it then. It’s time for the rest of the GOP candidates to avoid embarrassment and throw in the towel. You’re toast. Go home. Cancel the primary. And Hillary? Sorry. You can’t compete with these Stone Age remnants of testosterone fueled manly men.
Tony Galati, Lemont
Ditka for VP
After reading the Michael Sneed exclusive “Da Donald and Da Coach” (Sept. 9), where she reports that Donald Trump wants Da Coach on his team, how about Mike Ditka for vice president? America would be really great!
Daniel M. Filipek, Mt. Prospect
A green light for Uber surcharge
Uber strikes me as massively unfair to the taxi industry. Ordinary people are allowed to escape the rigorous rules applied to regular cab drivers, rules that were put in place for a reason, to ensure safety, and to generate income for the city in which they operate. Income used in part for the upkeep of our roads. So why shouldn’t companies like Uber pay their fair share? With a $1 surcharge, nobody is getting hit hard in the wallet. That cost will get passed down to the riders, but Uber is crying foul, claiming it will hurt the bottom line of the company and it’s drivers. That’s hogwash. Uber only wants to continue to take money out of the wallets of cab drivers in the city by playing by a different set of rules. It is a step in the right direction to level the playing field.
Scot Sinclair, Gurnee
The Chicago Housing Authority placed two ads in the newspaper, one in English and one in Spanish. I can see placing an ad in English but why Spanish? We have many ethnic people here in Chicago and I think it’s discriminatory that the only foreign language used is Spanish. Place these ads in all foreign languages or better yet, in English only.
Donald J. Lazo, Gage Park