Is Norquist objecting for any political grounds or philosophical grounds?

He is such a creep - just had to write that.

Without all that infrastructure and stuff

The name of the act is an oxymoron, as the people will not be informed of the private details. It will be NYOB as soon as it's passed. And they will call this lowering taxes, but the toll is going to be a tax. But it will be paid to private companies. And the increase in cost will keep those without enough money from using it.

We have just had a state owned bridge that was turned into a toll, and the cost is so high working people are being forced to drive many more miles to use another one to cross a large lake. The expensive neighborhood they formerly drove through on the state highway wanted it that way, didn't want people driving there.

But the roads and bridge were built with tax payer money. The state is supposed to get the toll for the bridge. Other road projects are being stopped by Republicans unless they are tolls. Much of what is public, sends money into private hands through levies and sales taxes, like sports stadium.

Presumably in the public good, but we've had some that the public specifically rejected that got ramrodded through for the benefit of the private owners in several instances.

His alleged grounds are what they have always been, to reduce the size of government to the size it can be drowned in a bathtub. At the same time the plutocrats will no longer be pestered by the people. The government represents the people against the plutocracy.

They want that barrier taken away to get control among their friends. When the government is eliminated, all sense of fair play and equality will be erased. They can discriminate and charge whatever they want. They do not represent those who need infrastructure for upward mobility. The GOP does not want the lower groups to move out of their position of subservience, as it's good for their business model.

If I were in charge of the FBI, Grover would be getting investigated...at least covertly! I can't but help to think that what he and AQ wants are one and the same...the destruction of the US!

And he is known to have contacts in the Arab world...at least through his wife...who knows exactly what connections Grover has and with who?

Just a theory, but when someone as obsessed with bringing down the US government as Grover seems to be...and the endless supply of money that he's able to throw at Republican candidates every election cycle...you have to wonder!!!

Sneaky and slimy.

I hadn't heard. I think that's a cool thing - building something new for a change. It must be good if Grover's against.

Asshole.

I think they meant a bridge to southeast Detroit. A bridge to southwest Detroit would be an awfully long bridge indeed.

outcome will not impact THAT project one iota. The agreement was 'signed and sealed' back with the Canadian gov't back in June.

was back the new bridge. The only guy against it, Matty, owns the only bridge into East MI. He will lose millions if the new bridge is built. Now, there is long traffic jams on his bridge. A new bridge is needed.

being an avid hockey player, i'm sick and tired of them damned canucks driving down here. they are really making me look bad on the ice

Yes, norquist is an ass and he opposes it.
But the governor is also an ass and he supports it.

AFT's position on all the MI ballot proposals: http://aftmichigan.org/takeaction/endorsements.html

I figure if Rick Snyder's for it, it's not for the public good; it's so his cronies can profit off it. I will be voting against it.

The coalition of unions has not taken a stand on it: http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/09/unions_issue_groups_team_up_fo.html