My Response To Jim Sills On John Lynch’s Support of Corporate Welfare

Bradley J. Fikes Bradley J. Fikes

Share

Since comments to Sills’ last post appear to be closed, I’m placing my reply in its own post. This reply-reply-to-reply format is cumbersome, so I’ve shortened it — hopefully without distorting the meaning. Read the original thread linked above to get everything.  My comments are in boldface.

I respect Sills’ spirited defense of alleged conservatives John Lynch and Doug Manchester, but some of my own views have been misunderstood in the process. I’m for free enterprise. I’m against corporate welfare feeding at the public trough.

Corporate welfare pigs at the trough
——————————————————————————————————————————–

Sills:

You called Mr. Manchester a “putative” (i.e. supposed) conservative and I offered the very relevant example of his support for Prop. 8. The Mervyn Field Poll of October 30,2008 showed 76% of self-identified Conservative voters backed Prop. 8. So Manchester was in good company, the great bulk of conservatives. How that somehow relates to ‘corporate welfare” I don’t know.

Fikes:

It doesn’t relate to corporate welfare, and that’s my point exactly. Conservatives are in favor of limited government and against using government funds to enrich a select few at the expense of the taxpayers. But Lynch and Manchester support corporate welfare projects such as building a new Chargers stadium downtown.  How do I know it’s corporate welfare? Because the Spanos family is asking for concessions from the city of San Diego, after going to Escondido and other cities looking for a hand-out. Millionaire beggars is what they are.

This is the path the former owners of the Padres took with Petco Park. They dumped as much of the risk as possible onto the city of San Diego and kept as much of the profit. Profits are privatized, losses are socialized.

Corporate socialists, along with their union buddies, have sucked San Diego city government nearly dry. Even if the city wanted to give more taxpayer resources, where would it get the money? Another raid on the pension fund?

If the Spanos family were to build a new stadium downtown with their own resources, and not with city resources, I’d be thrilled.


******************************************************

How are John Lynch and Doug Manchester to blame for the policies of previous U-T owners on pension issues? Obviously they are not. . . .Here is your direct quote:

“Had the Union-Tribune been more alert in the years leading up to the pension crisis, had the paper been less of a cheerleader and more of a watchdog San Diego might have taken a different course.”

Everyone knows Lynch and Manchester didn’t own the U-T during the period in question. It was the Copley family. Never did I say otherwise.

******************************************************

Expressing his support of the Chargers = Corporate welfare? If Lynch owned the team, sure, but to my knowledge he has no financial connection to them. He ran sports talk radio stations for decades. No surprise that he loves sports.

The Spanos family would get the corporate welfare. Whether or not Lynch or Manchester are involved, it’s still wrong to fleece San Diego’s taxpayers for a private interest. The Spanos family should pay their own way. If Lynch and Manchester took the side of the average San Diegan, they’d say that too.

There is all the world’s difference between the average business owner and the likes of Spanos. The average business owner is beset by government regulations and bureaucracy, and would like to be let alone.   Corporate welfare types like the Spanos family thrive on government. They profit by bending government to their will, even to the detriment of taxpayers. They are the kind of people the Occupy Wall Street folks are protesting against. They enable big government and profit while the taxpayers get fleeced. They  have nothing in common with the average business owner or fiscal conservatives.

******************************************************
The great majority of conservative leaders Opposed Prop. D, led by Republican Party of SD Chairman Tony Krvaric. Your colleaugue Richard Rider said Kravric’s stand on Prop. D was his deciding factor in switching from Libertarian to becoming a registered Republican.

Good for Krvaric and Rider. But I’m not writing about them.  I’m writing about the new U-T owners’ support of corporate welfare. The Spanos team is going to whine and plead poverty, and ask the city for financial concessions. And Lynch has indicated he’ll use the Union-Tribune as his propaganda vehicle. If the Spanos family were to build on their own dime, there’d be no controversy.

***********************************************************

And I’ll take your bet! ……I predict the next tax-increase proposed for SD City voters will be editorially opposed by the UT under its new leadership. The Loser buys the Winner lunch at Fillippi’s Italian Restaurant, one of San Diego’s other great traditions….

You’re on! Even if I lose,  Fillippi’s is a great venue I’ve not visited enough.

 ———————————–

(DISCLAIMER: Opinions I express here are mine and not necessarily those of my employer, the North County Times.)

Share