Ten Ethics Observations On The President’s 2020 State Of The Union Message

The text of the speech is here.

1. As I mentioned at the end of the previous post, my professional assessment, as a speech coach and a stage director, is that Trump’s delivery–timing, pacing, energy, focus, expressiveness, emphasis, technique–was excellent. Like other politicians (and me, frankly) the President is best, most relaxed, most persuasive and likable, when he is speaking extemporaneously. This time, though the speech was obviously scripted, he delivered it like his more familiar riffs.

And he has improved over his term in office. So many POTUSes have not.

2. As for content, I saw the speech described as “Reaganesque.” That’s high praise, but not far off. There were no ringing catch phrases, but the most important feature was that the speech was positive, optimistic, and upbeat. This was especially remarkable because many expected the President to be combative and defiant, and to directly address his impeachment. Not doing so was wise, and indeed ethical. Living well is the best revenge, and the President’s recitation of his administration’s achievements, no matter how the factcheckers spin them—it’s Trump, so we assume hyperbole—was a virtuoso dismantling of Big Lie #5: “Everything is Terrible.”

It’s not terrible, of course, far from it, and the false narratives constantly repeated by the Democratic candidates about how the middle and lower classes weren’t benefiting  were belied by Trump’s statistics asNancy Pelosi stared.

3. The repeat stunt of having all the female members of Congress on the Democratic  side wear white  was juvenile, incoherent and dehumanizing. I was reminded of the sperms in Woody Allen’s “Everything You Wanted To Know About Sex But Were Afraid To Ask.” Whatever their chant was, it didn’t work. The President deserves ethics points for specifically condemning late term abortion in front of this group, and featuring a little girl born at 23 weeks was a powerful visual aid.

Most Americans do not approve of late term abortions, and the device of making Democrats explicitly show their disapproval of Trump’s vow to stop it exposes a gaping ethics black hole on the Left.

4. At times I wish Ronald Reagan had never introduced the manipulative technique of using guests in the audience for applause and heart-rending moments, but I have to admit President Trump used it like no one before him, shamelessly but effectively.  I just hope nobody tries to top it, because that was my limit, and perhaps a bit over.

There was the African-American boy who wants to join the Space Force, and his 100 year-old Tuskegee airman great-grandfather, in uniform, having just been promoted to  general by Trump. There was the young African American girl who had been denied her application for a tax credit scholarship to attend a private school in Philadelphia because the state’s Democratic governor had vetoed a funding bill. The President told her she would get her scholarship after all, as she and her mother beamed. There was the new President of Venezuala, symbolizing a capitalist rescuer for a nation wrecked by socialism. Rush Limbaugh, recently diagnosed with Stage 4 lung cancer, appeared genuinely overcome when Mrs. Trump awarded him the Medal of Freedom on the spot. Also on the spot was a surprise reunion between a military wife and her soldier husband, back from deployment.

Great drama, great sentimentality, great showmanship. It was a combination of Oprah, Maury, and “Queen for a Day,” but schmaltz works, and the President proved himself a master of it.

5. Pelosi’s guests included Fred Guttenberg, the father of a high school freshman killed in the 2018 mass shooting at Parkland’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. He got himself removed from the audience by shouting something about his daughter as the President pledged to preserve the Second Amendment. Using the victim of tragedies as political props is an objectionable stunt (Trump did this too, with Kelli Hake and her son;  Army Staff Sergeant Christopher Hake, was killed  in Iraq, a victim of the late Iranian terrorist leader Qasem Soleimani. Another guest was the brother of Rocky Jones, the victim of an illegal immigrant in Tulare County, California, and the parents of an ISIS victim, but Trump’s guests didn’t disrupt the event. They had also lost loved ones to bad people, just like Guttenberg, but do not advocate taking away law-abiding people’s rights in their grief.

6. The guests as well as the President’s self-promoting and policy pronouncements repeatedly put Pelosi and the Democrats in an impossible Cognitive Dissonance Scale bind. Here’s that familiar diagram again:

The President, whom the Democrats treat as a virtual Anti-Christ (See Big Lie #3: “Trump Is A Fascist/Hitler/Dictator/Monster”), is at the dead bottom of the scale. Unfortunately for them, the booming economy is at the top for most sane people, and Trump, being linked to that, is pulled up the scale by his connection to something overwhelmingly regarded as unequivocally good. However, if the Democrats applauded, cheered or stood for the economy or anything else that most Americans would regard as positive, virtuous or praiseworthy developments, policies or people, that would mean participating in the President’s enhancement on the scale.

The simple and decent solution, of course, would be to behave as Americans rather than partisans, treat the President as the President and not some kind of a virus on this one special night, and cheer along with people who don’t allow irrational hate to make them take absurd positions.  This is something the Democrats cannot do, however, especially in the middle of a sham impeachment. So they stood stony faced while Republicans applauded…

  • “We must choose between greatness or gridlock, results or resistance, vision or vengeance, incredible progress or pointless destruction. Tonight, I ask you to choose greatness.”
  • “Unemployment has reached the lowest rate in over half a century.”
  • “African American, Hispanic American, and Asian American unemployment have all reached their lowest levels ever recorded.”
  • “Unemployment for Americans with disabilities has also reached an all-time low.”
  • “More people are working now than at any time in the history of our country — 157 million people at work.”

…and so on, all through the speech.  “Why do the Democrats hate that America is doing so well?” chided more than one conservative commentator. When Rush Limbaugh opined, in 2008, that he wanted newsly elected President Barack Obama to fail he was widely condemned by Democrats and, among others, me. Appearing to disapprove when a Republican President succeeds is just a mirror image of the exact same repulsive sentiment.

7. On the topic of Limbaugh: it would have been gracious and appropriate for Democrats to at least politely applaud a man probably dying of cancer and openly weeping as he was bestowed the Medal of Freedom.

Nah.

8. Reps. Rashida “Impeach the motherfucker!” Tlaib (D-MI), Tim Ryan (D-OH) and Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) all performed a grandstanding walk-out when the President cited the fact that “Nearly 5 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps.” President Obama,  had claimed increases in the number of Americans on food stamps as an achievement. This is a philosophical disagreement, but when you assume that any position not congruent with yours is unconscionable, this is how you act. “This man’s presidency is a national tragedy,” Pascrell tweeted. Well, the way the “resistance” and Democrats have ripped the nation apart trying to sabotage this man’s Presidency is a national tragedy. Close enough, I guess. Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Al Green (D-TX), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Frederica Wilson (D-FL), and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) had previously announced that they were boycotting the speech as part of the ongoing promotion of Big Lie #2. “Trump is not a legitimate President.”

They are children, irresponsible, petty and petulant, and toxic to the fabric of national unity.

9. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona broke ranks at several points in the speech, refusing to scowl and shake her head at Pelosi’s cue, wearing brilliant blue rather than white, and standing to applaud the President’s remarks praising “opportunity zones” and  tax breaks for certain developments in poor areas. Naturally, she’s being savaged for this—that scale thingee, you know. Groused Elvia Díaz of the Arizona Republic:

Sinema may think she displayed bipartisanship. Instead, she appeared to be cheering a president who just minutes before had refused to shake Pelosi’s hand, a president she’ll have to convict or acquit over abuse of power and contempt of Congress. A president who constantly lies, attacks nonwhites and anyone who doesn’t agree with him.

Translation: “HATE!!! HATE!!!”

10. The President closed his speech in rousing fashion, defying political correcteness and historical revisionism to evoke the nation’s pioneer spirit and its settling of the West. His grand finale is not the one given to the media beforehand, nor does it hatch the version on the White House website.  If you love the American saga and its unique traditions and values as I do,  it had to raise your spirits, which is what a State of the Union speech should do.

“As the world bears witness tonight, America is a land of heroes. This is the place where greatness is born, where destinies are forged, and where legends come to life. This is the home of Thomas Edison and Teddy Roosevelt, of many great Generals, including Washington, Pershing, Patton, and MacArthur. This is the home of Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, Amelia Earhart, Harriet Tubman, the Wright Brothers, Neil Armstrong, and so many more. This is the country where children learn names like Wyatt Earp, Davy Crockett, and Annie Oakley. This is the place where the pilgrims landed at Plymouth and where Texas patriots made their last stand at the Alamo.

[Yes, even in this, the month when the siege of the converted Mission began, the Democrats could not bring themselves to cheer the Alamo.

“The American Nation was carved out of the vast frontier by the toughest, strongest, fiercest, and most determined men and women ever to walk the face of the Earth. Our ancestors braved the unknown; tamed the wilderness; settled the Wild West; lifted millions from poverty, disease, and hunger; vanquished tyranny and fascism; ushered the world to new heights of science and medicine; laid down the railroads, dug out canals, raised up the skyscrapers — and, ladies and gentlemen, our ancestors built the most exceptional Republic ever to exist in all of human history. And we are making it greater than ever before! This is our glorious and magnificent inheritance.

“We are Americans. We are the pioneers. We are the pathfinders. We settled the new world, we built the modern world, and we changed history forever by embracing the eternal truth that everyone is made equal by the hand of Almighty God.

“America is the place where anything can happen! America is the place where anyone can rise. And here, on this land, on this soil, on this continent, the most incredible dreams come true!

“This Nation is our canvas, and this country is our masterpiece. We look at tomorrow and see unlimited frontiers just waiting to be explored. Our brightest discoveries are not yet known. Our most thrilling stories are not yet told. Our grandest journeys are not yet made. The American Age, the American Epic, the American Adventure, has only just begun!

“Our spirit is still young; the sun is still rising; God’s grace is still shining; and my fellow Americans, the best is yet to come!

“Thank you. God Bless You. God Bless America.”

Well done, Mr. President.

Yet immediately after that stirring finish and those names and words, Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up he copy of the President’s speech.

Res ipsa loquitur.

But although the act does speak for itself, let the last word be this tweet from Prof. Jonathan Turley, whose blog, after all, is called Res Ipsa Loquitur. The Constitutional Law scholar, who earlier in the evening pointed out that the President is the guest of Congress, and that all the head-shaking and face-making by Pelosi’s minions was rude  and wrong, issued this:

____________________________________________________

Please use this Twitter link to share this on Facebook (which I hope you do): https://twitter.com/CaptCompliance/status/1225037056990240768

63 thoughts on “Ten Ethics Observations On The President’s 2020 State Of The Union Message

  1. Let me apologize right now for the typos I’m sure are in this post: I wrote this beginning around 5 AM on two hours of sleep, and was too punchy at the end for my attempst at proofreading to be reliable. I swear I’ll clean it up when I get up…

    • “Yes, even in this, the month of the Alamo’s fall, the democrats could not bring themselves to cheer the Alamo.”

      The Alamo was isolated this month. It fell in March.

      I’m done being pedantic now.

        • Apropos of nothing, what do we think of Texas’s Land Commissioner and the mess he has made of the Alamo? Even I, being an Ohioan, know that the Alamo is sacred ground. Any change, modification, addition, subtraction to the site must be handled with delicacy and respect for the fallen. Otherwise, you get run out of town on a rail, with angry mobs with pitchforks and torches hot on your heels. Ol’ Jeb Bush’s son thought he had a great idea but it blew up in his face. How is it possible to turn a relatively benign office in a political disaster in less than a year?

          Here is link to an Austin Statesman article discussing the PR mess. Remember, I loathe and detest everything Dan Patrick stands for but he is spot on on this one.

          https://www.statesman.com/news/20191217/dan-patrick-criticizes-george-p-bush-over-alamo-feud

          jvb

          • We think that it is time to retire the Clinton and Bush dynasties. San Antonio fought back HARD at the epically stupid ‘glass walls around the Alamo.’ The plan to move the Centopath has taken strong blows as well. Texans are a hard headed, traditional bunch. Keeps us economically healthy.

            I could not read the story: The Austin Statesman blurs out the text and I refuse to give them a dime. I think less of them than the NY Times: The Times folks are yankees, and do not have the advantage of being born or living in Texas. I pity their bubble enclosed lives. Austinites should know better.

          • Well, I assume Bush is a relative of the other Bushes. I must say that Lt. Gov. Patrick doesn’t come across well in the story, misquoting Bush several times. That said, I cannot imagine why anyone would want to move the Alamo (or a part of it). It’d be like moving Bunker’s Hill or The Bloody Angle or any number of historic landmarks.

          • I’m not opposed to the moving of the cenotaph…move it into the current Alamo park area.

            But I’m also a bit of a radical on this.

            They should tear down the stores that currently occupy where the West Wall stood. They should tear down the Federal building and the Hotel Gibbs where the North Wall stood. They should tear up Houston Street and Alamo Plaza. Rebuild based on best research what the walls looked like, turn the interior into a grass covered park. Reopen the Crockett street connection that is currently just a sidewalk to alleviate the the fact that Houston Street would not be cut off.

              • You have to understand that the Alamo, until VERY recently, was effectively private property. Little or no public oversight.

                A bit of a shock, isn’t it?

                Texas did not pay for upkeep, although the land was theoretically public. The Daughters of the Republic of Texas (DRT) ran things as a volunteer organization (poorly, most of the time) until 2015, which is the same year it was designated a World Heritage site.

                Most of the land has been sold over the years and is rightfully owned by those kitschy shops and hotels. To restore the Mission to how it stood before Santa Anna razed the walls would require the property being ‘acquired’ from those who own it now. What are we to do if one owner does not want to sell, or holds the project for ransom?

                In Texas, property rights are real and powerful. What could be done?*

                What are the ethics of forcing people out of their livelihoods and property over a landmark?

                *Eminent domain (spit) does not go over well in Texas. Many a politician has become radioactive for advocating the taking of private property. Many times the ‘taking’ has been for some individual’s private gain

                • Slick is absolutely correct. This is part of the problem with Jeb the Younger. He neither understood Texas property law or the history/lore/veneration of the Alamo. He unilaterally made decisions that rubbed Alamo Venerationists the wrong way. If Texas is anything, its citizens don’t take kindly to perceived outsiders telling them what to do. The “Damn Yankee” insult lives well in Texas.

                  jvb

                • Shoot, one of the “defenders” of the Alamo who survived by being assigned as a delegate to the convention on Washington-on-the-Brazos, Samuel Maverick, graduate of Yale, practically owned the Alamo *at the time of the battle*. He came to Texas as a land entrepreneur and rapidly started purchasing plots in and around San Antonio with several of the land surveys revealing he owned several components of the Alamo compound.

                  Of course, the ethics involved here: the very people involved in the battle were less interested in commemorating the battle and more interested in making Texas Texas…which subsequently involved developing San Antonio. Samuel Maverick at the forefront.

                  What’s the boundary line in time?

                  There’s a line somewhere where the very private land becomes something much more communal.

                  Unfortunately for the Alamo, that boundary in time occurred well after the West Wall and North Wall areas were annihilated for development.

            • Radical, indeed. In fact, there is talk of doing exactly that. Seeing the federal building demolished would be a shame. I like that building’s architecture, though navigating the interior of the building is quite a challenge.

              jvb

  2. This whole thing is just so upsetting and disturbing, I just don’t have words, or even really understand my feelings yet. But here are the things that pop into my mind, and do remember, this is stream-of-consciousness-barely-one-cup-of-coffee-in stuff:

    1. Handshakes are essentially a public symbol that indicate, at least, you will not try to kill or maim the person who’s hand you are shaking at that engagement. Refusing a handshake when one is required by the social situation in America is, in my mind, one of the deadliest insults that can be mustered by a modern person. That is a bad look for a president, if you don’t mind my talent for understatement. Pelosi should double her personal bodyguard, and so should Trump.

    2. I cannot listen to Trump speak. I had the same problem with George W. Bush to a lesser extent. I could tolerate Obama and Clinton, but every word from Obama’s mouth seemed to drip with condescension, and Clinton had the kind of aw-shucks smugness that made me itch.

    But Trump’s speaking style, or lack thereof, is like nails on a chalkboard and causes me physical and psychological pain. I much prefer to read his speeches after, when I can take in the message and ignore the delivery. I’m too old to put up with that much discomfort in addition to what nature inflicts already.

    3. Tearing up Trump’s speech was the height of juvenile vengeance for Pelosi, shows her weakness, and is suggestive of the frailty of age. The act will live in infamy for exactly the reasons Professor Turley explained.

    4. I hope this is the death-knell of the State of the Union address. It does more to inflame passions and exacerbate our divisions than any non-election event I have ever seen. Even the impeachment suffers by comparison in that regrettable area. We should stop it, because we are no longer capable of pulling it off without embarrassing ourselves as a nation.

    5. This nation cannot continue to survive as constituted. This is just one more in a long line of evidence that a breakup is not just coming, but seemingly inevitable.

    • 1. I think Pelosi knew he would reject the handshake. She knows he punches down.
      2. As someone who speaks for a living, I, too, get the fingernails-on-a-chalkboard feeling whenever I listen to someone who doesn’t do it well, whether it’s some guy in a call center or the POTUS. I don’t disagree with his message, but his delivery should be so much better (I also agree with your assessments of the other Presidents on your list).
      3. I’m waiting for the Trump campaign to put Hillary’s deplorables comment, Lemon’s hysterical breakdown, Beto’s “Hell, yes” comment and Pelosi ripping up the speech into an ad.
      4. SOTU shouldn’t go away. When people treat it, as well as the person giving it, with the respect it deserves, there’s no problem.
      5. We certainly can’t keep this up, no. 😦

    • Glenn, Nancy Pelosi has been furiously engaged in trying to make Donald Trump the first and only president ever removed from office. How could anyone expect him to be civil or cordial with her, even symbolically? In light of her historical hostility to the president, she could have simply nodded at him and he could have nodded back. It would have had her saying, “I’m your sworn enemy and I’m going to take you out.” His nodding back would have said “I hear you.” And they could have each gone on about their business. Instead, she put him in the position that not shaking her hand would make him appear stupidly conciliatory, emphasis on stupid. She’s extremely calculating. I’m going to start calling her Mrs. Macbeth.

  3. Reposting from a previous thread, and the comments play here as well:

    …Jack nailed how most of fly over country (who are paying attention, as more and more are) will feel about this. Pelosi has become a clear and present danger to the President and his family, all but begging someone to assassinate him. Her party openly boasts that they want to confiscate his wealth, destroy his businesses, imprison him without due process, and execute him.*

    The attacks have been personal for almost 4 years, and Pelosi wants to still play the smarmy DC Swamp game by shaking hands. Progressives can do whatever and act however they want, and expect the right to shut up, take it, and lose… graciously.

    The hard core progressives laugh when they force the right to be civil when they have never been. No more. Progressives have made this bed, and now can lay on the nails.

    *They want to do the same to every opponent, left or right, as well. This means YOU, my reader.

    Progressives hate you: act accordingly.

  4. RE #4: I agree that using guests as props is problematic. I despise it, even when it’s effective.

    Pelosi’s actions at the end of the speech were beyond disgraceful, and between the blowback that will happen and the outcome of today’s conclusion of the impeachment trial, I’m actually starting to wonder whether she’ll be speaker much longer. I suspect Dems have a reasonable hold on the House in November, but she’s so badly botched this round at the gavel I wonder if the Dems won’t be looking for a new majority leader even sooner than that.

      • This is true. So is the way the Speaker usually introduces the president at an SOTU:

        ‘I have the high honor and privilege to introduce the President of the United States.” Pelosi has been speaker for enough of these to know that. So she actually snubbed him before the handshake snub.

        Even NPR noted that this morning.

        • And switching from pure etiquette to politics: if Pelosi hadn’t planned to rip up the speech and Trump’s snub triggered her, he once again made the Democrats misbehave so badly that he scores a win. Her gesture is swamping his snub in the commentary.

          • Bingo! Trump, if not an astute “politician” in the sense of trading policy points to get a bigger issue through Congress, he is a master at public relations. He has managed to maneuver the Democrats and the Media into siding with Iranian terrorists and defending MS13. Last night, they Democrats refused to honor a little Black girl who wants to go to another school. And, they managed to insult crime victims by not supporting the enforcement of immigration laws on worthless people who cause nothing but trouble.

            Trump congratulates Kansas for the Chiefs’ Super Bowl victory and the entire nation condemns him for being stupid. There is no outrage on the Democrats’ awful, partisan behavior when it comes to members of the citizenry. Don Lemon and Friends clearly demonstrated what the Elite think of the rest of the nation.

            jvb

  5. I wasn’t able to watch the State of the Union speech live, I had another previously planned event to attend but I got up early this morning and started watching it on C-Span at 5:30am. After a few morning interruptions, I finally finished watching it and immediately went over to Quora and asked this question.

    What do you think of the physical reactions of both Republicans and Democrats during President Trump’s February 5, 2020 State of the Union speech?

    The first two replies were; “I think we have a bunch of children in congress.” and an interesting single word reply from David Harington which was simply “Predictable.”

    Harington’s answer “predictable” struck me as being a bit out of touch with what I had just witnessed on C-Span; was this kind of behavior from Democrats really predictable? I’ll have to ponder that one for a while.

  6. Meanwhile, back in Iowa, nearly thirty percent of precincts have yet to get their results to wherever they need to get to. DesMoines? You’d think carrier pigeons or pony express riders could have made it by now. Or FedEx? Greyhound?

  7. As a point of clarification, I’ve seen it circulating that Pelosi may have run afoul of the law that requires presidential records to be preserved. That might not be true even if Pelosi’s copy was the original. I remember articles from early in the Trump administration wondering if he could be charged for ripping up his speeches after delivering them, as he had a habit of doing so. The answer was no, but staffers had to gather the pieces of the speech, tape them together and scan them for preservation. Make work project? Sure. Crime? No. Pelosi’s tearing the speech isn’t even that. She didn’t scramble over Trump’s shoulder to grab his speech, and he didn’t ball the paper up and huck them over his shoulder at her as he finished a page, she had a *copy*.

  8. Someone set me straight on #8. I think the Dem stance on Food Stamps is that the Trump administration has been reducing funding and making it harder to obtain assistance. The stance of the administration is that fewer people are receiving assistance, so they’re better off today, they’ve been lifted up.

    What’s the reality here? Are the rules the same and people who previously, and still today qualify, have stopped receiving assistance? Or is this manipulating how the data is reported to kick people off the assistance wagon and claim victory?

    • I think the Dem stance on Food Stamps is that the Trump administration has been reducing funding and making it harder to obtain assistance.

      I fail to understand why this is supposed to be a bad thing.

      Did not Democrats in California reduce water usage during a drought, on the justification that it will ensure there is water next year?

      Why does not this same principle apply to food stamps?

    • In order to qualify for SNAP, your household income must be less than 130% of the poverty line, and the poverty line increases year over year. without doing a whole lot of napkin math with inflation rates, I’d be more inclined to accept the Republican narrative on this. More people are working. It makes sense that they’re at least off the poverty line.

      That said… A person who makes 120% of poverty getting up to 140% of poverty still might see their income net of expenses decrease because the loss of assistance might swallow the entirety of the 20% of poverty they increased, but you have to start somewhere.

  9. Here is something that you might want to write about.

    http://www.newsweek.com/fred-guttenberg-ejected-sotu-during-trumps-address-yelling-about-his-daughter-1485748

    As Trump talked about the Second Amendment being “under siege,” Guttenberg, who was reportedly at the event as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s guest, began yelling, “What about my daughter!” Security then quickly moved to escort Guttenberg out of the chamber, Newsweek can confirm.
    Related Stories

    “Just as we believe in the First Amendment, we also believe in another Constitutional right that is under siege all across our country. So long as I am president I will always protect your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,” the president said during his annual address to the nation, prompting Guttenberg’s outburst.

    What does he think Trump is going to do?

  10. Question asked, “Why did you rip the speech up Madame Speaker”

    Nancy Pelosi answered, “Because it was the courteous thing to do considering the alternatives.”

    Me thinks Pelosi presented one of those nasty unethical rationalizations thingies from Jacks list.

    I wonder what those alternatives she spoke of are?

  11. I was aghast that the Democrats Chose Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to give their rebuttal to President Trump. As was announced, she ran on a promise to “Fix the roads”. Well, has she fixed the roads? Why do the roads need to be fixed? Well, Michigan has a roads tax, but it doesn’t go to the roads. The courts ruled that even though the law says the taxes go to fix the roads, the government (agencies) have to be allowed the flexibility to spend it on other areas if they feel it is necessary. So, the state taxpayers were told that the road tax money needs to go to welfare programs and vulnerable people would be hurt if it were used for the roads, so the solution is to pass more roads taxes, an additional 7.3 cent/gallon tax on gasoline and a 20% increase in car registrations. OK, so now the roads are being fixed, right? No, those new taxes are being used mostly for schools and Medicaid. So, Whitmer said she will get the money used for the roads and was elected on that promise. Did she fix the roads? No, she determined it would be too damaging to vulnerable people to use the roads money on the roads, so she proposed a $0.45/ gallon ADDITIONAL tax on gasoline. “Yes, we didn’t use the first roads tax on the roads and yes, we promised we would use the second roads tax on the roads but we didn’t, but this time, this time we PROMISE that some of the money will go to fix the roads”. To her surprise and shock, the voters rejected that. So, she is issuing $3.5 billion in state bonds on an executive order (not a law, not a referendum, and executive order). She ‘promises’ that this money will go to fix SOME of the state highways. None of this was mentioned by the press. You were probably left with the idea that she was successfully fixing the roads.

    Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is an example of government waste, overreach, arbitrary government and fiscal irresponsibility. Then it hit me, she actually IS the perfect person to present the Democrat alternative to the approach that had just been presented by President Trump.

    https://www.michiganfarmnews.com/where-the-road-moneys-going
    https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/2018/02/22/pothole-questions-why-arent-michigans-high-gas-taxes-fixing-our-

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.