Dick DeVos has laser vision

I promised a post this past weekend, and I'm one day late. I'm running into a problem that conisists of saying the same thing over and over again in different and hopefully entertaining ways. I was pondering why it's been so difficult to explore at length the flaws with the Republicans and their vision of the future. As I meandered about the internet searching, honestly, to find something to raise a stink about that I hadn't either already blogged about or that hadn't been blogged better elsewhere (click links to the right), and I came across Wizardkittens brilliant post over at the Daily Kos. It's as if the Republican party has been left to pandering to whatever fears they think play best to their stregths, without any basis in reality. Some are to be expected, some are downright, well, lame.

For example, it's difficult to argue the case against Dick DeVos because people like this exist:
"I don’t know about the rest of the world, but the mere fact that Jennifer is considering solving the jobs problem by using the state to employ the out-of-work, makes me shake right down to my Buster Browns. It means three things. One, we’re going to have a lot more road construction, which, if the current road construction is any indication, will go on for the next thirty years until my children are wondering how hard it really is to dig a hole. Two, any time anyone is employed by the government, their ambition to do anything else (and their productivity) takes an inverse relation to their pay, with the added bonus of being completely unable to fire them. And then there’s three. Who on Earth is going to pay for all of these public works programs? Apparently, me, at least until I move out of the state to follow the jobs. Taxpayers pay for state work. Right now, we don’t have a lot of money to pay for this kind of stuff, so it follows logically that taxes will go up, which, we were under the impression was the problem in the first place. Higher taxes, less business. Less business, less jobs. Less jobs mean more state programs trying to hire people who don’t have jobs. More state programs, higher taxes."

This is from "American Princess" who blogs over at Got Detroit? and Conservative Princess, and is probably the most coherent thing i've heard from any conservative in, well, weeks. And it still makes no sense.
She's shaking in her shoes because of road construction? Really? That's the boogie man now? Take a deep breath AP, in through the mouth out through the nose, and follow very carefully because I don't want to confuse you (based on this post you seem easily confused).
1. Take a road trip and then tell me our state infrastructure is in tip top shape. Tell me business leaders want their drive to work to be filled with potholes, and have an overwheleming sense that things are falling apart.
2. Maybe you should focus more on painting than writing, because you seem to be fantastic at the all encompassing broad strokes that are offensive and untrue. "any time anyone is employed by the government, their ambition to do anything else (and their productivity) takes an inverse relation to their pay, with the added bonus of" being completely unable to fire them." Such a sweeping and ignorant statement. With a statement like that it would take only one (of many) examples to the contrary to refute. How about this. I used to work for the Michigan Department of Transportation. I was productive while I worked there. My personal ambition drove me into the post production field that i enjoy and find personal satisfaction in.
3. Who will pay for this? Roughly half will come from the federal government, and yes we will have to make up the rest. Which is why making up for ALL of the dreaded SBT revenue is essential, so that it doesn't fall directly on the average resident. I think you'd probably agree that a solid community with strong schools, solid infrastructure and a business friendly environment will help with business growth, which is what you're all about, right AP? That's worth something, isn't it?
Bottom line: seriously, if this is part of your case against Granholm, that part of her plan includes putting more people to work through building up our outdated and crumbling infrastructure, then your case is weak and illogical. I find it hard to believe that employing people to do construction is long overdue could in any way be considered a negative in any circumstance. If this is what has you shaking in your boots I recommend locking your door tomorrow night and turning off the lights, because all kinds of nasty creatures will be lurking about demanding some form of handout or another. Better safe than sorry, right AP?