Michigan Gov. Whitmer discusses infrastructure and manufacturing at Detroit Economic Club
Days after heading to the White House to fight for federal funds, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer shares her plans for the state's future.
In remarks to the Detroit Economic Club, Whitmer focused on two key issues impacting Michiganders: infrastructure and manufacturing.
"While we don't have the luxury of solving one problem at a time, we must protect public safety, build more housing, and create good jobs and fix the roads, all at the same time," said Whitmer.
Faced with a packed room at the Motor City Casino Hotel, the two-term Democratic governor explained how her administration has approached the frustrations surrounding much-needed improvements to the state's roads.
"We need a sustainable, long-term solution, covering our local roads and our state roads," said Whitmer.
Right now, experts calculate Michigan's annual shortfall is close to $4 billion, and the state is projected to fall off the funding clip of the bond plan soon.
"Rebuilding Michigan was always just a short-term fix for a long-term problem. We went the bond route because we could get to work, but it did not solve the problem," said Whitmer.
Whitmer says that is only further impacted by the more than 1,000 Tier II and Tier III businesses built in Michigan that are directly impacted by the nationwide tariffs.
"It's not just about asking for more revenue; it's about investing in Michigan's future to create jobs," said Whitmer.
Whitmer also addressed her visit to Washington, D.C. last week, noting that there are 5,500 northern Michiganders who have spent the last two weeks without power following the severe weather that tore through the state.
She said she went to the White House to try to ensure that the state could obtain a federal declaration of emergency and financial help.
"These are Michigan residents who are hurting, who are in rural parts of the state and have very small providers; that's, well, the whole reason why I was there," said Whitmer.
Whitmer says she plans to continue conversations on both the state and federal levels to find a solution as quickly as possible.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
With $122M spent, the 2025 governor's race is already New Jersey's most expensive
Spending totals for this campaign have already more than doubled those in every gubernatorial primary since at least the turn of the millennium. (Dana DiFilippo | New Jersey Monitor) Candidates and outside groups have spent more than $122.5 million on this year's gubernatorial primary, a total greater than any other in state history and one that stands to rise in the race's closing days, the New Jersey Election Law Commission said Friday. The spending total includes $54.9 million from the candidates themselves and $67.7 million from outside groups. Between them, $14 million remained unspent, and that number could swell from late-arriving donations to independent expenditure groups, which face no contribution limits. Voting is underway and ends Tuesday. Spending totals for this campaign have already more than doubled those in every gubernatorial primary since at least the turn of the millennium and have outpaced even the most expensive gubernatorial general election. That November 2005 race between Democrat Jon Corzine and Republican Doug Forrester cost about $98 million after adjustments to inflation, the commission said. This year's 11 gubernatorial candidates had about $6.7 million left in reserves on May 27, the last date covered by regular pre-election campaign finance disclosures. The commission credited the number of candidacies and a larger gubernatorial fund match for the increase. Candidates who meet fundraising and spending thresholds can receive up to $5.5 million in matching public dollars for the primary in exchange for observing an $8.7 million primary spending cap and participating in debates hosted by the commission. Five of the eight candidates have maxed out or nearly maxed out their matching funds. Of the $54.9 million spent by the candidates, Democrats Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop and Rep. Mikie Sherrill lead the pack, with Fulop spending nearly $8.7 million and Sherrill shelling out $8.5 million as of May 27. Republican Jack Ciattarelli, who unsuccessfully ran for governor in 2017 and 2021, spent $8 million, followed by Rep. Josh Gottheimer, a Democrat, at $7.9 million. Spending by outside groups is dominated by Working New Jersey, a super PAC funded by an independent expenditure group linked to statewide teachers union the New Jersey Education Association. It is responsible for more than half of the outside spending in the race, with at least $37.5 million boosting Democrat Sean Spiller, the union's president. Spiller's own campaign has spent only $342,059. Spiller's Democratic rivals have seen less but still sizable support from independent expenditure groups. They have boosted Rep. Josh Gottheimer to the tune of $11.6 million; Fulop, $7.4 million; former state Sen. Steve Sweeney, $4.3 million; and Sherrill, $3.8 million. A group run in part by Trump ally Kellyanne Conway has spent $1.3 million supporting Ciattarelli's campaign. Gubernatorial totals far exceed fundraising and spending on this year's Assembly races (all 80 seats in the chamber are on the ballot this year). Not counting independent expenditures, Assembly candidates have raised nearly $26.3 million and spent about $15.4 million, the commission said. Most of that money, $20.8 million, has flowed to incumbents. Collectively, challengers have raised just under $5.5 million. The ratio is similarly split along party lines. Democratic candidates account for $21.6 million of the funds raised, while only $4.7 million went to Republicans. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Proud Boys sue US government for $100m over Jan 6 prosecutions
Five leaders of far-right group the Proud Boys, who were convicted in connection to the 6 January, 2021 Capitol riot, have sued the US government for $100 million (£74m), claiming that their rights were violated during their prosecution. The five were convicted of plotting and taking part in the riot to overturn President Donald Trump's loss in the 2020 election. Trump pardoned or commuted their sentences earlier this year. The lawsuit, filed in Florida on Friday, claims FBI agents and prosecutors were motivated by personal biases when prosecuting their cases. They argue their constitutional rights were trampled on "to punish and oppress political allies" of Trump. The lawsuit was filed by Henry "Enrique" Tarrio, Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola. Tarrio was found guilty of plotting the 2021 attack on the US Capitol, which happened as lawmakers were certifying former President Joe Biden's 2020 election victory. He was sentenced to 22 years in prison, the longest out of the five. He was formally convicted of seditious conspiracy, a rarely used charge of planning to overthrow the government, and multiple other counts. The other four leaders faced similar charges, and were also sentenced to time behind bars. Their convictions were overturned by Trump, who issued approximately 1,500 pardons of people involved in the Capitol riot in January, on the day of his inauguration. "These people have been destroyed," Trump said after signing their pardons. "What they've done to these people is outrageous. There's rarely been anything like it in the history of our country." The lawsuit filed on Friday alleges the five leaders of the Proud Boys were subject to "egregious and systemic abuse of the legal system". It accuses prosecutors of engaging in instances of "evidence tampering" and "witness intimidation". It also alleges that their prosecution was "corrupt and politically motivated." The lawsuit was filed against the Department of Justice, which is currently operating under the Trump administration and is run by Attorney General Pam Bondi. The BBC has reached out to the Justice Department for comment. According to figures released by the department in January, approximately 1,583 defendants have been charged with crimes associated with the Capitol riot. More than 600 were charged with assaulting, resisting or obstructing law enforcement, including around 175 charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer. Capitol Police officers were attacked by rioters with weapons including metal batons, wooden planks, flagpoles, fire extinguishers and pepper spray. Many lawmakers had condemned the riot, while Trump has described it as a "day of love". His pardons of those convicted have been criticised by Democratic lawmakers as an attempt to re-write history. Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who was among the lawmakers forced to flee during the riot, called the pardons "an outrageous insult to our justice system". Ex-Proud Boys leader sentenced to 22 years in jail Proud Boys and Oath Keepers among over 1,500 Capitol riot defendants pardoned by Trump
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court rejects Republican election-rule challenge in Pennsylvania
By Andrew Chung (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court passed up a chance to give politicians more power over how federal elections are conducted, declining on Friday to hear a Republican challenge to a Pennsylvania judicial decision requiring the counting of provisional ballots cast by voters who make mistakes on their mail-in ballots. The justices turned away an appeal by the Republican National Committee and Republican Party of Pennsylvania of a decision by Pennsylvania's top court on provisional ballots that the plaintiffs said ran afoul of legislature-crafted voting rules, violating the U.S. Constitution's election-related provisions. The dispute returned to the Supreme Court after the justices, on the eve of the November 2024 presidential election, rejected the emergency bid by the Republicans to block tallying the provisional ballots. The Republicans objected to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's October ruling in favor of two Butler County voters who sought to have their provisional ballots counted after their mail-in ballots were rejected during that state's 2024 presidential primary election for lacking secrecy envelopes. Election rules in states like Pennsylvania that often play a pivotal role in determining the outcome of U.S. presidential elections are a particularly sensitive issue. Republican President Donald Trump prevailed in Pennsylvania last November, but lost the state in 2020 to his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden, who won the presidency that year. The case follows a major 2023 Supreme Court ruling that allows the justices to second-guess state courts if they undermine the power that the Constitution gives state legislatures to craft election rules. That 6-3 ruling, which upheld a North Carolina state court's decision that invalidated a Republican-drawn congressional map as unlawfully disadvantaging Democrats, also rejected a more extreme theory advanced by many Republicans and conservatives that would have removed any role of state courts and state constitutions in regulating federal elections. The ruling, however, stopped short of announcing a legal test for determining when state courts have ventured too far in "arrogating to themselves" a legislature's power. In the Pennsylvania case, Republicans asked the Supreme Court to answer that question, contending that the state supreme court's ruling violated the Constitution's elections provisions, including that the "times, places and manner" of federal elections "shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof." Provisional ballots generally protect voters from being excluded from the voting process if their eligibility is uncertain on Election Day. The vote is counted once officials confirm eligibility. Republicans intervened to defend Butler County's decision not to count the ballots from these voters, saying Pennsylvania's election law does not allow provisional ballots to be counted if a mail-in ballot was received on time by a county board of elections. Democrats intervened on the side of the voters, contending that if a mail-in ballot is defective and cannot be counted, that person has not yet voted and a provisional ballot must be counted. A divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court last October sided with the voters, saying that provisional ballots prevent double voting while protecting voters' right to have one vote counted. Friday's action by the court was unexpected. The court had planned to release it on Monday along with its other regularly scheduled orders, but a software glitch on Friday prematurely sent email notifications concerning the court's decision in the case. "As a result, the court is issuing that order list now," said court spokesperson Patricia McCabe. It is not the first time the court has inadvertently disclosed action in sensitive cases. Last year, an apparent draft of a ruling in a case involving emergency abortion access in Idaho was briefly uploaded to the court's website before being taken down. That disclosure represented an embarrassment for the top U.S. judicial body, coming two years after the draft of a blockbuster ruling rolling back abortion rights was leaked in advance.
