The Oct. 29 Metro article “Council weighs Audi Field funding” discussed a bill introduced by D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D) to use $300 million of taxpayer money to help pay for a roof for Audi Field.
Why should taxpayers invest in a team whose ownership does not invest in its success? The last time D.C. United was in the MLS playoffs was 2019. The last time it won a playoff game was 2015. The last time it won the MLS championship was 2004. The club finished last in the entire league last season in points and was eliminated from playoff contention this year.
While there are sellouts for Washington Spirit games, the scarcity of people in seats at D.C. United games shows a different reality. Why build a roof for people who don’t attend games?
D.C. United’s current ownership already received $150 million from taxpayers in 2018, who in return received a losing team and owners coming back for double less than a decade later. Much like with the Commanders, the council should wait for new owners who will make the financial investments needed to build a winning team and not just get the city to pay for their needs. They should either pay for their own roof or cede ownership to someone who can.
Chris Pabon, Silver Spring
Hopefully not ‘business as usual’
One of the pictures accompanying the Oct. 27 Sports article “Business as usual” was hopefully not reflective of the headline. It showed merry Pittsburgh Steelers fans in Paris celebrating in the streets with trash strewn next to the curb. Is the picture a reflection of the way Paris maintains its streets these days? A result of the recent protests? Or is it American football fans showing disregard for their French hosts? If it’s the latter, I hope my fellow citizens showed a modicum of respect in this beautiful host city and the picture doesn’t accurately represent its appearance.
Michael Peacock, Reston
Where greatness is found
The message in the very moving Oct. 26 obituary of William DeGraf, “Army veteran of three wars stuck to his principles,” may well be lost on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as he continues to make sweeping changes to U.S. military standards and policies.
A balanced and competent military must have special forces, such as Green Berets and Navy SEALs, but also many other skills and attributes to excel in modern mechanized and electronic weaponry. The battles of the Roman legions are history.
DeGraf twice failed the U.S. Military Academy at West Point’s physical requirements, which Hegseth thinks are essential, yet he was sent directly into battle, where his bravery and intelligence overcame his vision and sinus problems. DeGraf’s successful career highlighted how his moral courage and insightful thinking strengthened the military.
Let us hope that our military can survive this administration’s misunderstanding of where individual greatness can be found.
George P. Hoskin, Burtonsville
No tit for tat
The Oct. 27 front-page article “Execs who cozied up to Trump fear a reckoning” about Silicon Valley executives’ panic leads me to caution Democratic leaders about their priorities should they win majorities in one or both houses of Congress.
Yes, unearthing the potential corruption of the Trump administration is tempting and appropriate. But that should not be a principal focus or motivation. If the Democratic Party wants to regain the trust of the electorate, a tit for tat is not the answer. By all means, set up an investigative committee, but the rest of the House and Senate members should focus on what voters care about and the country needs: affordable housing, health care, education and child care. Yes, such legislation might be vetoed, or fail to survive a GOP filibuster in the Senate, but at least it lays out a plan that could be made into reality if the party takes back the White House in 2028.
Eric Hirschhorn, Chevy Chase
The writer was the under secretary of commerce for industry and security during the Obama administration.
U.S. trade policy wasn’t completely free
Matthew Lynn’s Oct. 23 op-ed, “The U.S. needs new tariff laws,” asserted that “the U.S. had become an outlier in its commitment to completely free trade.” This characterization of U.S. trade policy ignores that the United States, like other countries, regularly practiced protectionism and imposed tariffs, even before Donald Trump took office.
For example, in 1964 a 25 percent tariff was imposed on imported light trucks and has remained ever since, and there are anti-dumping duties on imports of steel and other products. And along with using tools such as the Jones Act, the U.S. has long protected its domestic industries from foreign competition to some degree.
We can debate the merits of tariffs as a form of trade and tax policy, but the U.S. was not practicing “completely free trade” before Trump declared that “tariff” was his favorite word.
Simon Lester, Falls Church
Letter submissions
Send letters to [email protected].
Submissions must be exclusive to The Post and should include the writer’s address and day and evening telephone numbers. Letters are subject to editing and abridgment. Please do not send letters as attachments. Because of the volume of material we receive, we are unable to acknowledge submissions; writers whose letters are under consideration for publication will be contacted.
The post The best Audi Field upgrade? A winning team. appeared first on Washington Post.
