Quote Originally Posted by Lowell View Post
So what are the Moroun contributions? What is the total of his media spends?

I think you would be hard-pressed argue that those donations from 'pro-DRIC' unions to the deposed federal congressperson were solely or even largely to get her support for DRIC. They donated to her because she was a pro-union Democrat sympathetic to a broad range of their causes and would have [and historically have] donated bridge or no bridge.

And what good were those even if that was the case? You describe her in your linked article as, "...the longtime Detroit Democrat who has taken Moroun donations and questioned the need for DRIC." We are also aware of his generous donations to the her disgraced son's campaign fund and questionable dalliance with unloading the MCD from Moroun for a police HQ.

The ends of Moroun's donations are far more clearly focused for personal gain. The more essential reportorial research should produce number on donations and spends at the local and state levels along with the media campaign dollars. Who is spending the most for the direct purpose of influencing the bridge issue? Money at this level could do far more to stop the DRIC then vague donations at the federal level.

As for competition and starting with the same tolls as the Ambassador, so what? Do you mean to argue that a second bridge, even at the same toll rates, will not put downward pressure on prices? Do you think neither bridge authority would consider lowering rates to gain traffic? History shows that competition = lower prices and monopolies don't.

I never made the jobs argument and generally agree with you that it should not be the sole or even a major reason. But it will create jobs so it still is frosting on the larger cake. Other projects funded by MEGA and other corporate welfare sources routinely dole out huge sums on the mere promise of jobs with less clarity than this project. What this 'might' cost Michigan would be more than compensated by the whole package of benefits, commercial security, cost savings in improved flow of commerce, resulting tax revenues, price competition and, yes, jobs.
The problem with the hand-wringing and pearl-clutching over political donations is that it's legal. It might be a flawed system, but it's legal. And Moroun is making a rational economic decision in spending money on campaign donations and his media effort. You may not like it, but it's what a person does in his position [[that can afford it).

The implied suggestion that politicians wouldn't have serious economic and ideological questions about DRIC/NITC without Moroun's largess is absurd. It suggests all members of the statehouse are for sale to the highest bidder. While I'm jaded, I'm not that jaded. Moroun propaganda aside, there are significant justification questions unanswered about NITC. I'm sure some undecided politicians might have been swayed by the money, but that doesn't mean there are not questions about the project.

FYI: I didn't research what state politicians have taken pro-DRIC union donations. They're out there, and I didn't suggest they match Moroun's. I'm sure they don't, but they're not insignificant and they're just as legal. My larger point is that people bitch about Moroun's donations, but choose to ignore that the unions also donate. It's the same system, and the unions are donating for their own gain, just like Moroun.

The toll question is important because the Snyder administration is going around the state telling people that NITC is good for competition, and trying to spin NITC as a private-sector project instead of a government project -- an absolutely absurd notion that rivals some of the howlers from Moroun's camp. Anyway, the economic fundamentals of NITC don't work in a toll war. The private-sector bidders have already warned MDOT of that last year. We've been promised the bridge would pay for itself via tolls, but when the people who know what they're talking about -- the people who build and operate bridges -- said tolls won't cover the capital and operations costs, and they wanted publicly subsidies instead. That's when Canada's $550m offer emerged, because the project wasn't able to be financed as initially thought. Why? Because the traffic no longer even remotely justified the project. That's why we've seen the floating justifications since -- terrorism, construction jobs, competition. It used to be about moving vehicles over the right -- the reason you build a bridge.

The entire project is predicated on tolls and traffic projection that no one takes seriously except DRIC backers. The growth in trade with Canada hasn't corresponded with an increase in traffic. And the nonsense about Buffalo isn't worth talking about because it's the silliest of red herrings -- their FOUR current bridges didn't attract commercial traffic from Detroit, and it won't in the future. Also, keep in mind that the long-haul trucking industry sees Port Huron as part of the Detroit corridor.

And I totally agree on MEGA. The jobs numbers are bogus. Same with DRIC, according to the people who actually will be creating the construction jobs. It'll be about 600 jobs in Michigan, according to the construction unions. The 10K number was one of those "If Company X hires some iron workers, someone will open a coffee shop near the construction site, and that's 10 more jobs, and those people will need to buy stuff, so Target will hire more people ..."

In other words, the jobs numbers are simply propaganda. Everyone excited about the prospect of Delray being transformed into a bustling little trade burg just has to travel to Port Huron to see what MDOT's promises wrought there: Zilch. Commercial traffic passes through and rarely stops. The trains don't stop there. Port Huron was promised all sorts of things, and none of it came to pass -- and in the meantime, the city lost 2 percent of its tax base over the almost criminal boondoggle that is the plaza expansion up there.