Yeah, a lot of folks seem to have some of the same problems with math that you and the governor do.  A lot of folks have a misunderstanding of what it takes to go forward with this boondoggle that nothing in it for Michigan. And a lot of folks, just like you, think the solution is a product of the 'infrastructure argument.'

I believe you said "I believe infrastructure is the proper role of government."  and then added the "international crossing should be a government endeavor". (very possibly paraphrased.)

I get you.  You like all that get-government-off-our-back stuff, but heaven forbid if anyone ever owns anything so big as a bridge.  Because bridges should be owned by government.  

Why?

What difference does it make?

Mr H.  Ask yourself how does private ownership of the bridge make you less secure?  How does it cost you anything?  Has it ever prevented you from going into Canada? Has it caused your car to fall into the river?  Has private ownership of the existing bridge hurt trade?

What advantage comes from a government owned bridge that is unique and identifiable?

This is something that has yet to be answered by the Snyder administration in its quest to end the Ambassador bridge company.  It would be interesting to hear a logical answer. ANY logical answer.

What is it we are gaining by such an arrangement?

Nothing Joe.  Its an argument the governor has carried forward from the last failed administration.  Unfortunately, the insipid hatred of true private enterprise is contagious in the executive office.  Were it not for the courage of the smarter Republicans on this issue to not just say NO to the governor, but HELL NO!, we would be adding another business to the list of Michigan's lost industries already.

This argument is not one you should ever win.

And in a little payback.  And on a real issue basis, this one being your stand on the new international crossing, I can return the favor of directness.