I'm not going to let people spread misinformation without someone telling you are either lying, wrong, or misleading people with half-truths. So I must say this. This is an economic development issue and I have spent a considerable time cutting through Moroun's lies and half-truths that are being repeated by people like you for whatever stupid reason. The bottom line is this: The plan for this bridge is constitutional and the bridge is needed economically. Here is why in a nutshell:
The 100 million dollars is the annual toll revenue paid back to Canada. Some will be Michigan taxpayers. The toll however is not a tax. We pay a toll on the Ambassador Bridge... In fact the bridge currently has a monopoly. A little competition sounds like it is in order and through competition the cost per crossing will very likely lower--saving Michigan taxpayers money. Losing his monopoly is largely why Moroun has spent millions on ads and political donations to our state legislature... Well, too bad. The party is over for this billionaire. He will have to compete with another bridge.
Should our only main crossing be a privately owned bridge which also takes money from Michigan taxpayers? No. That is absolutely stupid. Exports are a very important part of our economy. During 2008, Michigan exported 45 billion dollars of goods. In 2011, this amount increased 10%. With other components like the CIT (6 percent flat tax) replacing the MBT and removing six regulations this trend will continue. These components that foster an environment for job creation and manufactured goods drive the demand for transportation across the border with our main trading partner--Canada.
The Ambassador Bridge is over 80 years old. Do we really want to put the majority of our exports in one basket when much of our manufacturing relies on just-in-time delivery? No. Spreading the risk by adding another bridge (which is fronted by Canada) is common sense.
Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution. The author cites only this:
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation ..."
It is successfully noted that there is no "Consent of Congress" phrase in Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1. (The part quoted above.) However, you guys fail to realize there are two more clauses in this Section. In fact Clause 3 states the following: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Notice the consent of congress phrase here. Now we should take a look at the International Bridge Act of 1972. Congress gives consent to States for building international bridges. It states:
"The consent of Congress is hereby granted to the construction, maintenance, and operation of any bridge and approaches thereto, which will connect the United States with any foreign country."
In summary: The new bridge is Constitutional and it is needed economically.
