Freedom Unaffiliated

By Mike Rosen

In my last column, I debunked the claim that the rich don’t pay their fair share of the taxes. A reader’s online comment grudgingly conceded my point but sidestepped it with a counter argument about unfair income distribution. Had I more space I’d have dealt with that then, so let’s do it here.

The commenter said: “These numbers were telling but how? The top 1% have 2 ½ times the share of income of the bottom 50%. The top half have more than 8 times the share of the bottom half. No wonder half the country wants the federal government to facilitate wealth transfer and better opportunities. Of course, poor schools and big government will not fix this problem, but the income statistics are more troubling than the taxpaying numbers.”

While accurately stating my statistics he was apparently unaware of how income distribution data has been misrepresented by others. When Democrats, Leftists, and media liberals intentionally exaggerate income distribution, they torture the data with misrepresentations of effective income from the top to the bottom. In the report I cited, the IRS uses “adjusted gross income” (AGI), or income before taxes, which is significantly higher than the after-tax income of those in the upper categories. This widens the stated income gap.

Those in the bottom 50% pay very little or nothing in income taxes. (Many who qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit have no tax bill, but actually get money from the IRS. Strangely, this is called a “refundable tax credit,” even though they had no tax bill to credit.) Most importantly, the AGI of lower-income filers does not include the greatest source of their direct and indirect income. That’s the trillions of dollars of aggregate federal, state and local government spending that flows to them through the cornucopia of “means-tested entitlements” (what used to be called “welfare”). It’s as if none of these programs existed to supplement their income and improve their lives.

One of the biggest programs is Supplemental Security Income (SSI), at almost $70 billion this year, for poor, older adults or people with disabilities who haven’t worked enough to qualify for Social Security. The long list of others includes housing and other subsidies, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, or SNAP (formerly called food stamps), student financial assistance, child nutrition and special milk programs, Medicaid and grants to states for Medicaid, children’s health insurance programs, payments to states for child support enforcement and family support, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), low income home energy assistance, payments to states for day care assistance, substance abuse and mental health services, refugee assistance, and many more.

Another misleading nuance in income distribution data is the income life cycle. Young people, including those who live at home with well-to-do parents, file tax returns reporting very low AGI from summer jobs or part-time jobs after school. Also, there are millions of older retirees living in mortgage-free luxury homes with lots of savings and a comfortable lifestyle whose tax returns now misleadingly place them in middle or lower AGI categories.

As for income “disparity” as an offense to social justice ideology, this is the obsession of socialists and Marxists who oppose capitalism, private enterprise, meritocracy, and individual liberty; the very ingredients of America’s historical national wealth and standard of living. Their socialist model is a proven formula for worldwide totalitarianism and poverty. “Parity” means sameness or uniformity. Disparity in incomes is proper and justified if it means that ambitious people who work smarter, harder and responsibly deserve greater economic rewards than slackers and those who demand a “national minimum income” even for no work at all.

Extraordinary inventiveness also merits premium economic rewards. As does exceptional talent. One socialist cliché is that pro athletes are paid much more than teachers whom they believe do a far more important job. Duh, that’s because there are many millions of Americans who have the ability to be a teacher but only a handful with the talent to be an elite quarterback in the NFL. This is economic justice driven by the law of supply and demand. Our government spends most of its budget on social programs with commendable intent but—as measured by its perpetual deficits and soaring national debt—more than we can afford. “Soaking” the rich and successful is a path to economic ruin.

By Jon Caldara

Out of the 14 statewide ballot questions, which by the way ties the record, it’s Proposition 131 that would bring the most political change and disruption with its jungle primaries and ranked-choice voting general elections.

Assuming voter fatigue doesn’t keep voters from reaching this down-ballot issue, it’s the last of the statewide questions, it should pass. This is a prediction not an endorsement.

It will pass because of its more than $15 million in funding, and because there is no effective or funded campaign against it, and generally voters are frustrated with both major parties.

The only area of agreement between the Colorado GOP and the Colorado Democratic Party is that they hate this proposal. That also bodes very well for 131’s passage.

Prop 131 does not create a pure ranked-choice voting system. Instead, it makes a hybrid system where the top four candidates from an open primary move to the general election which is decided by ranked-choice voting.

Democrats hate the proposal because it could challenge their one-party dominance of all three branches of Colorado’s government. Republicans fear that should two Republicans make it to the general election they will cancel each other out, allowing the Democrat to win.

This is arguably what happened in Alaska, as the Republican-heavy state elected a Democrat to represent it in the U.S. Congress. On Nov. 5, voters in Alaska may rescind the very system Colorado is likely to pass.

So, what will Colorado look like under a system where anyone can petition on to a shared primary ballot? Honestly, no one knows. But the thought of it is causing conniptions among Ds and Rs.

Though nowhere near guaranteed, there is a hopeful outcome after 131 passes. It could bring some lucidity back to our state’s progressive government. It all depends on how this system is implemented and utilized.

First, it requires we accept some realities about Colorado many social conservatives refuse to accept. And I’ll keep repeating these realities, even though it’s like trying to convince your drunk uncle he’s an alcoholic. Some Republicans will violently never accept it, to the point of indignantly accusing you of being the alcoholic.

For the next decade or so, Colorado is not going to become an anti-abortion state. It is not going to become an anti-cannabis state. It’s not going to become an anti-gay state. And it will continue to be a very environmentally activist state.

In other words, the Dave Williams type of gay flag-burning, Trump-worshiping, pro-life conservative will continue to turn off swing voters. And despite what that crowd believes, you can’t win by turning off swing voters. Winning elections is about addition, not subtraction.

And should Trump retake the presidency, swing Colorado voters, particularly independent suburban women, will be loath to vote for any Republicans until he is out of office.

But being anti-Trump and pro-choice doesn’t make an unaffiliated voter pro-tax, pro-crime, pro-regulation or woke. And this is where Prop 131 might, might bring some sanity back to Colorado.

Nearly 50% of all Colorado voters are now unaffiliated. And that number is only growing (yet another reason Prop 131 will very likely win). To these independents, the current Democratic party’s version of socialism is distasteful, and the social conservativism of the Republican party is unwelcoming.

So, half of the state’s voters are now politically displaced. Or, to put it in terms NPR listeners can comprehend, half of Colorado is currently experiencing political homelessness.

After 131 becomes law, rural legislative districts should continue to elect Republicans. Urban districts should continue to elect Democrats. It is the swing suburban districts that could see something very different — unaffiliated candidates running and winning.

The system to elect the mayor of Colorado Springs is comparable to what Prop 131 brings with its open jungle primary. For better or worse, as the Springs lost its well-known conservatism, it elected an unaffiliated mayor, Yemi Mololade. It is a sign of what is to come.

Colorado is poised to become the first state where unaffiliated candidates could swing the balance in the legislature. They could work with rural Republicans to lower taxes and regulations and increase penalties for crime, while joining urban Democrats to defend social issues.

At least that’s my hope. Either way, unaffiliated candidates will run and will win.

By Pam Benigno

Beginning this fall, Colorado’s first and second graders might learn about the story behind Harvey Milk’s gay pride flag, while down the hallway, third graders learn about California’s failed 1978 ban on lesbian and gay teachers, Milk’s death, and his murderer’s controversial sentencing.

Teachers now have access to new state-provided sexually based educational resources to teach students about the history, culture, and social contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals to meet the state’s revised social studies academic standards. Using the state’s teaching materials is optional; the subject matter and developing a resource bank was required by House Bill 19-1192.

Colorado law does not allow comprehensive human sexuality education to be taught until fourth grade. Yet, majorities in the state legislature and the Colorado State Board of Education determined that teachers must introduce sexual orientation and gender identity to children as young as first grade during social studies classes.

School districts don’t have to offer comprehensive human sexuality education, but if they do, they must provide parents with the course content and written notification of their right to excuse their children from the lessons. Even so, there is no required parental notification of sexually based topics or the opportunity to opt children out of social studies. Parents are best suited to decide when their children are mature enough to discuss such topics. They should be alerted as social studies units may expose young children to weighty and complex topics.

Examining some LGBTQ resources for first grade makes one wonder what questions curious six-year-olds will ask their trusted teachers as they try to grasp the meaning of a photo of a man clad in a rainbow costume during a Gay Pride Parade, an article about Governor Polis being the country’s first openly gay elected governor, a video of a teacher telling the children that sometimes boys love boys and girls love girls before reading a storybook about Harvey Milk’s Gay Pride Flag, and a book about Pete Buttigieg, the first openly gay Democratic presidential candidate. More concerning is how teachers will answer the questions during the discussions.

According to Colorado’s academic standards, first-grade students are expected to explain how diverse perspectives and traditions of families from many cultures have shaped the United States. In addition, they are to identify and explain how the significance of notable people and places, holidays, and civic symbols reflect the origins and values of the government and its citizens. Students demonstrate their knowledge through several outcomes, including:

• Discuss common and unique characteristics of different cultures, including African American, Latino, Asian American, Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, Indigenous Peoples, LGBTQ, and religious minorities, using multiple sources of information.
• Identify and explain the relevance of notable civic leaders from different community groups, including African American, Latino, Asian American, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Indigenous Peoples, LGBTQ, and religious minorities.
• Identify and explain the meaning of various civic symbols important to diverse community groups. For example: The American flag, the National Anthem, Statue of Liberty, Mount Rushmore, Crazy Horse Memorial, Liberty Bell, Emancipation Proclamation, a yellow sash (i.e., for women’s rights), tribal flags of Native Nations whose ancestral homelands include present-day Colorado, LGBTQ Pride Flag, and the Colorado Flag.

Parents generally don’t have time to read the state academic standards, but educators might suggest they read the “Community and Family Guides,” which summarize the standards. Nonetheless, guides for the first and second grades don’t disclose to parents that their children will learn about the history and contributions of LGBTQ individuals.  This omission is disingenuous and leaves parents of first- and second-grade children in the dark. The third-grade guide is more forthcoming.

The state’s third-grade resources are another example of age inappropriateness. Eight-year-olds learn about Harvey Milk’s successful effort to defeat California’s 1978 Proposition 6, an initiative to require the firing of lesbian and gay teachers. Milk was murdered soon after the election. The third-grade resources include an audio recording of interviews from people who were attending Milk’s memorial service, as well as audio from discussions about his murderer’s jury trial and the controversial verdict.

Before the Colorado State Board of Education could adopt the new proposed standards, they underwent the typical public feedback process. Never had the Colorado Department of Education dealt with thousands of statements from the public about proposed academic standards. Emotions ran high from both those in support and against the recommendations.

In the state board’s final action, the Democrat majority voted to disregard parents’ pleas to at least hold off until fourth grade to introduce their children to sexual topics, a logical request based on existing health education law.

Informed parents who disagree with the state’s overreach are now burdened with uncomfortable conversations with their children’s teachers about what will be taught in social studies class. Unfortunately, most elementary school parents don’t know what’s included in academic standards, let alone the state’s new contentious LGBTQ social studies resources.

In today’s culture, there is significant disagreement about what is an age-appropriate topic for elementary children. Be that as it may, cultural shifts should not nullify parents’ instinctive discernment of their children’s cognitive and emotional maturity and should be respected by policymakers.

By Jon Caldara

I urge people to vote against retaining judges in Colorado. Yes, all of them.

We do not directly elect judges as other states do, where Republican and Democrat candidates face off. Instead, the governor appoints the state’s judges after a nominating committee brings him two or three to choose from. The only check and balance we meaningless citizens have is to vote thumbs up or down on their retention every so often. Every so often can be as long as a decade.

The problem is seemingly 99.9% of the time the judges are all retained, usually with around a two-third vote in favor. It’s a rubber stamp, not accountability.

I vote no on all judges in the hopes at some point these retention elections might become competitive, and judges must defend their rulings to we simpletons, the voting public.

If you’re like me and believe Colorado courts are too progressive and judges prefer to rewrite law rather than interpret it, there is a fair opposite argument to instead vote yes on retaining all judges. The logic goes like this: If you are somehow successful in kicking a judge out, it means Gov. Jared Polis will just choose a more progressive replacement.

I find this argument unconvincing for the simple reason judges almost never, ever lose their retention votes. Furthermore, if a couple judges did lose their seats, it could shock complacent judges into better rulings.

In my Blue Book this year I found the various commissions on judicial performance again said that every judge I get to vote on “meets performance standards.” Like children in the mythical Lake Wobegon, all Colorado judges are above average.

Convenient then that many of the members of this commissions on judicial performance are appointed — in a glaring conflict of interest — by the Colorado Supreme Court.

Wouldn’t it be great if you could appoint the person who reviews your work performance?!

Additionally, they only review the superficial aspects of a judge’s job. Does he run a nice courtroom? Does he move his cases along well? Is he polite to those who come in front of him? Is he nice to kittens?

None of this says anything about his judicial philosophy, how he reads our laws and constitution. Jimmy Carter was an exceedingly nice and polite president. But his policy decisions were why people voted against his reelection.

But this year, voting “no” is more than trying to make a point, especially with the Colorado Supreme Court justices.

Our Colorado Supreme Court has been self-serving in its lack of transparency and lack of discipline. Gazette reporter David Migoya did the work the Supreme Court justices failed to do when he broke the story of the high court’s pay-for-silence scandal. That is, he made it public and transparent. But that was the court’s job!

Migoya broke the scandal in early 2021. The allegation is the court offered a $2.5 million contract to Mindy Masias, from the State Court Administrator’s Office, to prevent her from disclosing financial irregularities, sexual harassment and other inappropriate behaviors within the judiciary.

The court knew about the allegations in 2019 but didn’t openly acknowledge it until two years later, when the story broke. And who appoints many of the people to the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, which was created to investigate such allegations? You got it, the Colorado Supreme Court.

Though not nearly as serious it certainly has echoes of the Catholic Church scandals of sexual abuse. This is what happens when an untouchable organization polices themselves. And, though the church is a private organization, and we don’t vote on bishops, some of us still believe the government is of the people.

If you don’t vote against all judges, you should at least vote against the Supreme Court justices up for retention. And like some, I said “some,” in the Catholic Church, Justices Brian Boatright, Monica Marquez and Maria Berkenkotter were aware of the scandal and failed in their responsibility to report the judicial misconduct as required.

Isn’t it nifty then that, as per the Blue Book, everyone, every single freakin’ person who voted on the State Judicial Performance Commission agreed all three justices “meet performance standards”? No dissent.

Our system of evaluating, retaining, investigating and disciplining Colorado judges is an incestuous, unethical ugly mess.

By Dennis Maes

In October, Colorado voters will be receiving their blue book, the guide to the 2024 statewide ballot issues. Included in the book will be a report on the justices and judges standing for retention. The reports are generated by commissions designed to provide information to the electorate about the judicial officer standing for retention. But voters will find that much is missing.

Judicial officers are evaluated on the following criteria: Integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public designed to educate and improve the legal system

What will be missing from the report is any semblance of impartiality, displaying the commissions’ desire to protect the secrets judges keep as opposed to providing balanced and accurate reporting from which voters can make an informed decision. For example, Colorado voters will not receive any information on the 120 judges who failed to comply with the financial disclosure laws or the numerous scandals engaged in by the Colorado Supreme Court, and specifically by ex-Chief Justice Brian Boatright concerning the $2.5 million pay for silence scandal that rocked the judicial system at its core and its murky aftermath.

Supreme Court justices Brian Boatright, Monica Marquez and Maria Berkenkotter are asking the voters to permit them to continue to deceive the public for the next ten years. The unequivocal response should be NO for the reasons discussed below. Because the supreme court insists on protecting its own and is unwilling to fully and transparently address judicial misconduct it is necessary for the voters to assume that responsibility by removing these three justices.

The performance commission gave the three justices glowing recommendations with nary a hint of wrongdoing during their tenure. Because the state commission was derelict in providing a balanced report upon which the electorate could make an informed decision, certain behavior, particularly by Boatright must be addressed.

A bombshell report by David Migoya of the Denver Gazette in early 2021 disclosed the Colorado Supreme Court engaged, as early as 2019, in a “pay for silence” scandal that initially had then Chief Justice Ben Coats offering a $2.5 million contract to a high-ranking administrator in the State Court Administrator Office to keep her silent about various judicial officer complaints that were swept under the rug. The administrator at the time was also facing dismissal over alleged financial irregularities. The contract was withdrawn once the story broke.

The reporting originated from a memo alleging judicial misconduct that was was known by the justices 2 years before it became public in December 2022, although the Supreme Court previously told the public they first saw it on or about February 2021.

A subsequent investigation led to disciplinary action taken against Chief Justice Coats for his failure to properly administer the department and poor judgment. The first and only time a justice has been disciplined in the history of the Colorado Supreme Court.

So why is it suggested Boatright, Marquez and Berkenkotter should not be returned to the Supreme Court? Because they were aware of the scandal and failed in their responsibility to report judicial misconduct to the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline (CJD) as required. Subsequent reporting provided additional evidence of cover-ups by them in the aftermath of the Masias pay for silence debacle. Recall that the initial criterion in evaluating a judge is integrity, which includes avoiding impropriety or the appearance of impropriety. Failing to address and acknowledge judicial misconduct particularly when it concerns allegations of sexual harassment, emotional harassment and intemperance is unacceptable under any circumstances, but rises to the highest level when condoned by the leaders of the institution.

The report compliments Chief Justice Boatright on his contributions to the judicial system but failed to provide any information on the unprecedented turmoil which occurred during his time as Chief Justice.

In Boatright’s State of the Judiciary speech on February 18, 2021, addressing the scandal, he said, “Where there is wrongdoing, we will address it. Where there was an abuse of power, we will stop it. Where our policies are deficient, we will change them. We want to know the truth. We recognize the branch faces a crisis of confidence in the leadership.”

Here’s what occurred subsequent to Boatright’s promises.

Contrary to the requirement that judicial misconduct be reported to the CJD, Boatright promised to have misconduct reported directly to him. Yet, further investigation revealed that there were several other instances of judicial misconduct involving sexual harassment, employee harassment, harassing whistleblowers and alcohol concerns that were known by the leadership but were not acted upon until made public through newspaper reporting.

Not included in the narrative was that a bi-partisan committee of the Colorado legislature (Legislative Interim Committee on Judicial Discipline) was convened to further investigate the troubling reports which were exposing the extent of the scandal. It was the investigation that propelled Boatright to make changes. The committee recommended changes to the judicial discipline system which will be on the 2024 ballot.

Additionally, Boatright commissioned two “independent” investigations to look into judicial misconduct and workplace concerns at a cost of $350,000, paid for by the taxpayers. Upon inspection the reports could hardly be defined as “independent.” Several key witnesses were unable to provide critical testimony because financial settlements they entered with the judicial department required them to sign non-disclosure agreements prohibiting them from commenting.

Boatright was also instrumental in blocking two investigations. First, he withheld relevant files from the Denver District Attorney who was investigating potentially criminal behavior. The delay prohibited the DA from a full investigation in a timely manner, resulting in the termination of the investigation because the relevant statutes of limitation had expired. Second, he ignored requests from the judicial commission for information which was needed to get to the truth of the matter. Mind you, the two “independent” investigators had virtually unfettered access to information needed from the Supreme Court. The behavior violated the requirement that judicial officers have a duty to fulfill their administrative responsibilities by being attentive to, and exercising control, over judicial proceedings. It should have been obvious that the numerous allegations could potentially lead to criminal, civil, and/or disciplinary litigation.

Boatright also chose to comment on the veracity and character of certain individuals who chose to provide damaging information to the public surrounding the scandal. Additionally, Boatright professed the absence of wrong-doing by certain judicial employees including then Chief Justice Coats before a complete investigation had been conducted. Integrity includes an examination of the judicial officer’s ability to be fair and impartial. It appears Boatright’s evaluation should have at least minimally commented on that point.

In the interest of transparency, I filed a complaint with the CJD against Boatright alleging, among other violations, that he violated Canon Rule 2.10(A) which provides a judge “shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court, or make any nonpublic statement that might interfere with a fair trial or proceeding.”

The CJD responded to my complaint, which they had initially ruled worthy of investigation. A letter to me dated June 11, 2024, reads as follows “Your allegation that Chief Justice Boatright violated Canon Rule 2.10(A) (regarding alleged inappropriate public comments) has also been dismissed, but with an expression of concern, per Colo. RJD 35(a). In short, the Commission has determined that the allegations in the complaint did not warrant discipline.”

There was no further explanation of the meaning of “with an expression of concern.” Like the discipline commission, the Judicial Performance Commission skirted its responsibility to fully report on matters that were widely known concerning Boatright’s involvement in the scandal and ignored even a hint of addressing the misconduct in a thorough and professional manner.

Boatright and Jessica Yates, Executive Director of the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC), an arm of the Supreme Court, actively engaged in retaliatory actions against those who were most critical and vocal of the Supreme Court’s obstruction of the investigation into the scandal.

Judge David Prince was Vice-Chair and a vocal critic of the Boatright court’s obstruction of the judicial commission in the search for the truth concerning the scandal and other instances of judicial misconduct which were also ignored by Boatright. Prince served on the CJD at the pleasure of Chief Justice Boatright. Boatright refused to re-appoint Prince to the CJD on June 30, 2023. A clear act of retaliation and one unbecoming a justice who is charged with being fair and impartial.

Christopher Gregory, the previous Executive Director of the CJD was relieved of his duties in early March 2023. His ouster occurred within days of informing legislators that the CJD was investigating more than 70 judges for allegedly violating laws requiring them to file financial disclosure statements with the secretary of state.

Senator Pete Lee, Chair of the Legislative Interim Committee on Judicial Discipline resigned as Chair because of unfounded allegations of voting fraud. Criminal charges were filed against Lee. The felony charges were dismissed shortly after Lee left the committee on the basis that the charges were filed as a result of false information provided to the prosecutor by OARC.

Jessica Yates, Executive Director of OARC, an arm of the supreme court, and whose office was responsible for providing the misleading information on Senator Lee, also penned a letter to the lawyers on the CJD and Judge Prince criticizing certain statements made to the interim committee. David Kaplan, attorney for the CJD, denied the allegations and characterized Yates’ statement as a threat to the CJD having a chilling effect on anyone asked to testify before the legislature. To date it is unknown if the people from OARC who leaked the false information were ever disciplined for the egregious action taken against a person with a history of public service to the State.

The OARC through Yates, a faithful ally to the supreme court, obstructed the CJD investigation by threatening to withhold funds, resources, personnel and even evicting the commission from its quarters. The legislature subsequently removed the OARC from any management over the CJD in direct response to its interference in the investigation.

Further evidence that the commissions essentially rubber stamp their approval of judges is the fact that many judges up for retention did not comply with the law requiring them to file financial disclosures every January. Not a single commission commented on the failures of judges to file the disclosure statements, which is important for litigants to determine if a judge has a conflict of interest. In fact, one of the judges who has repeatedly failed to file the disclosure is a member of the CJD who would be responsible for investigating such a violation. While a judge might or should not necessarily be rejected only on the basis of non-filing, the commission should provide the information to the voters to allow them to make their own decision rather than hiding it from them.

It is arguable that the entities charged with ensuring that our judiciary adhere to and robustly support a sincere respect for the rule of law and equal treatment under the law can no longer be trusted. It is up to the electorate to demand that no one, including judges, are above the law. The first step is ridding the courts of judges like Boatright, Marquez and Berkenkotter who do not believe the law applies to them.

For further information concerning judicial misconduct and discipline see ColoradoJudges.org

By Mike Rosen

It’s an election year and Democrats are, as usual, outbidding Republicans with unlimited giveaways to the masses. How will they finance this when the national debt already tops $35 trillion and federal spending is projected to exceed revenues by $2 trillion this fiscal year? By “soaking the rich,” of course. On the campaign trail Kamala Harris and Tim Waltz repeatedly recite the Democrat mantra, “the rich don’t pay their fair share of the taxes,” but never say what that fair share is.

The Statistics on Income Division of the Internal Revenue Service issues a report, Publication 1304, each year on who makes what and who pays what in federal income taxes. Its most recent report was issued in April 2024 based on individual income tax returns for 2021. The results are displayed in Figure 1.

Of total individual income taxes on 153 million tax returns filed in 2021, the top 1% numbered 1.5 million filers whose adjusted gross income (AGI) exceeded $662,577. That group earned 26.3% of all national income and paid fully 45.8% of all income taxes. The top 5%, 7.6 million filers with AGI above $252,840, earned 42% of all national income and paid 65.6% of all income taxes. Those in the bottom 50%, 76 million filers whose AGI is below $46,637, paid only 2.3% of all national income taxes. (Incidentally, those in the bottom 47% paid 0%.) When you view all the groupings displayed, make your own judgment about “fairness.”

Figure 1: 2021 income versus tax share. Click to enlarge

The top 1%, of course, includes Elon Musk and other captains of industry, but the entry level of only $662,000 leaves ample room for mere millionaires like entertainers, actors, pro athletes, media personalities, lawyers, politicians, etc.

This IRS report appropriately isolates income taxes. Democrats like to confuse the issue by lumping income taxes together with Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. But payroll taxpayers specifically derive the benefits of those programs. Income taxes are directed at everyone and everything else in general. And income tax rates directly affect incentives and disincentives for work and investment. The reason Social Security taxes are capped above a certain income level is not as a favor to the rich, but because their benefits are similarly capped. (Moreover, Social Security is a lousy mandatory investment for upper-income taxpayers given their alternatives.)

Tax rate cuts don’t necessarily lead to reductions in tax revenues. In 1981, when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, the top one percent’s share of the national income tax burden was 17%. Ronald Reagan’s tax rate cuts for all stimulated an economic boom that increased total tax revenues. When the top marginal rate was lowered to 28%, it led the rich to abandon less profitable tax-sheltered investments and expose more of their income to taxation of more profitable ventures, with a consequent increase in their share of the national income tax burden. In the 1990s, Bill Clinton’s capital gains tax rate cut also produced higher revenues. George W. Bush’s and Donald Trump’s tax rate cuts for every one had the same effect. Thanks to a marginal tax rate (which is now 37%), much lower than to 70% rate in 1981, the top one percent’s share of the national income tax burden has continued to grow from 17% in 1981 to 45.8% in 2021 (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Income tax burden 1981-21. Click to enlarge

The same dynamic explains why retail stores lower their prices as an incentive to shoppers in big holiday sales. The increased volume leads to higher profits. In a market economy incentives matter, a concept progressive Democrats just don’t get.

Kamala Harris has proposed a tax on “unrealized capital gains,” the latest socialist brainstorm. For example, if you invest $50,000 to buy 1,000 shares of a stock at $50 a share and it goes to $100, your holdings are now worth $100,000 including the capital gain of $50,000. At year-end, you’d be taxed on that $50,000 capital gain even though you haven’t sold the stock nor received any proceeds. If the price drops back to $50 the next year, you’d be poorer than you started.

This tax can be expanded to “unrealized increases” in the value of your home, gold, unimproved land, artwork on your walls, and your Mickey Mantle rookie baseball card. Socialism has no limits. This is absurd.

Kamala and her fellow socialist Democrats are itching for a wealth tax. On your annual income tax forms you’d also be required to detail your wealth and net worth. IRS will add another 50,000 agents to audit everyone. Then they’d take a percentage of your life savings each year until it’s gone or you’re dead. It’s fairer that way, isn’t it?

By Jon Caldara

“350 Colorado” is an anti-fossil fuels organization which lobbies to end the state’s oil and gas industry. They organize anti-energy zealots to march, protest and pressure lawmakers. Proud of their role in civil disobedience during Colorado Oil and Gas Commission hearings, they take credit for helping pass the “strictest anti-fracking regulations in the state.” Blah, blah, blah.

One tiny little thing here: you are coerced through your taxes to fund their lobbying to make your energy bills skyrocket.

In gambling there is a term, “playing with the house’s money.” In politics it’s “playing with your opponents’ money.” Your tax money is used to influence policy that hurts your own interests.

In case you hadn’t noticed, the push to all renewable energy is making your utility bills explode. New environmental building regulations are increasing home costs. And you’re paying more at the gas pump.

350 Colorado gets about $900,000 in tax-deductible donations, and their tax forms show a sizable percentage then goes to direct lobbying. Good to know they got $173,700 from the Environmental Justice Grant Program administered by your state Office of Environmental Justice.

In other news, Colorado has an Office of Environmental Justice, and they give away your money.

Their mission? To work with alt-left groups to lobby government to terminate energy choice and affordable energy in Colorado.

Now if you sympathize with the anti-energy crowd, then funding outside lobbying groups with tax money might sound dandy. For consistency’s sake I assume you are supportive of government giving lobbying money to fossil fuel groups when a different team is in charge.

Remember when we demanded ethics in government? Remember when the media would work to uncover behavior like this?

The Office of Environmental Justice also gave a $143,100 grant to Green House Connection Center, which pairs “the arts and activism with healing, connection, education and transformation” as they “develop climate solutions with lasting environmental and social benefits.”

Their founder also works for the alt-left extremist group Colorado Rising, which calls itself “Oil and gas’s chief adversary.”

Another grant of $217,193 went to Urban Symbiosis. They “are focused on building a fair ecosystem and food system.” Their latest tax filing showed they brought in only $118,000 of revenue, meaning your recent gift to them tripled the size of their budget. I’m sure you got a thank-you card.

You can be comforted knowing all your coerced funding of lobbying and community organizing is under the banner of “environmental justice,” if only that was definable. But like pornography, you’re supposed to know it when you see it.

The state goes to great lengths to describe this very sloppy term. Cutting through all the bureaucratic fluff and choruses of woke-speak, you’ll find “environmental justice” sits atop the pinnacle of identity politics. The goal? To split our communities into smaller and smaller boxes and organize them to work for socialistic causes.

Think of it as the Victim- Olympics. The more political identity boxes you can check, the more you’ve been oppressed, the more government you’re told you need.

You pay the Office of Environmental Justice to give aid to “disproportionately impacted communities,” which then requires even more definitions.

The office goes on to explain “disproportionately impacted communities” include (I can’t make up this wokespeak): low-income communities, communities of color, housing-burdened communities, linguistically isolated communities (love that one), historically marginalized communities, communities with environmental and socioeconomic impacts, tribal lands and mobile home communities.

Wouldn’t “poor people who have a hard time paying their energy bills,” be an easier definition without the blatant racism?

And if the crazy part isn’t obvious, under the disguise of trying to help the poor, via environmental justice, your government elitists are working to make energy prices explode, which disproportionately hurts (check notes)… the poor.

They exploit the financially vulnerable to lobby for unworkable renewable energy policies that will in turn devastate the financially vulnerable … all with your money.

Of course, using taxpayer money to promote one constituency’s political goal over others is unethical. But this is so much more.

This is beyond evil. Encouraging people to see themselves as victims and then use those newly identified victims to lobby for laws that will hurt those very same people, well, that is sick. Something so ugly only government could do it.

By Jon Caldara

Being gay but not holding a liberal opinion makes you a hate group.

It’s fine to be part of the LGBTQIA+ crowd in Colorado. In fact, you’ll be celebrated, and, if you wish, officially honored with a flag that has flown over the Capitol.

However, if you’re part of the LGBTQIA+ community but don’t believe small children should be indoctrinated into thinking they were born to the wrong gender, well then, you’re a hater and must be canceled. So says our state government.

According to the state of Colorado, only straights can be against indoctrinating little children to want to mutilate their bodies.

So, being gay but not holding the progressive opinion on one particular issue makes you a hate group. And government may deny you a service everyone else can get, like buying a flag that flew over our Capitol, the people’s building, owned by all (except those gays who are so perverted they don’t like convincing kids they’re in the wrong bodies).

Colorado Politics reporter Marianne Goodland broke the story of the state suspending a program that allows people, even people who have opinions you might not agree with, to buy a flag that’s been flown over the state and federal Capitols along with a certificate signed by the governor.

Why? Because Gays Against Groomers did it.

They filled out the required form, got their flags, and put out a jovial post on X about it. After which, the state learned Gays Against Groomers was labeled a “hate group” by, well, not the state government and certainly not with any due process.

Enter the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, the self-chosen and complete arbiters of which groups are “hate groups” and which are not. And Colorado government accepts their opinions as factual and non-disputed. And guess who’s a hate group?

Gays Against Groomers, as the name might suggest, is a private organization of gay people who wish to stop the over sexualization, indoctrination and medical mutilation of children to become transgender. They have no position on what people do once they become an adult.

Perhaps you think they’re wrong, even hateful. But I would hope you think they should have the same access to governmental services as any pro-trans group.

Gays Against Groomers never had their moment in court or any due process before they were labeled a hate group. Yet your state government casually accepted the SPLC verdict and called them hateful, stopping the flag sales program.

Though all this might seem rather trivial, there is a sizable danger here. Our state accepts and publicly pronounces as a finding of fact this group of caring people is a hate group. Such a pronouncement can have a devastating effect on any organization.

Much like the McCarthy-era accusations of screen writers being communists destroyed lives and livelihoods, the Polis administration accusation of “hate” can do the same. At least McCarthy had public hearings.

The executive director of the Department of Personnel and Administration declared, “regrettably, this request was not appropriately vetted by the department.” Of course, the form used to order the flags made no mention that applicants would be vetted at all. Nothing like making up new policy on the spot to take out groups that don’t agree with you.

The governor’s mouthpiece in denouncing Gays Against Groomers said, “Hate has no place in Colorado, and Gov. Polis denounces hate in all of its forms.” Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, perhaps some people consider encouraging small children to seek medical mutilation is hateful against children?

The ACLU of old battled for neo-Nazis in Skokie, Ill., to have their right of free speech. Ordering some flags from the state is now more hateful than neo-Nazis parading? What happened to those principled liberals of old? Today’s liberals, like those at the Southern Poverty Law Center, aid in silencing speech and dissent.

We all should sleep well tonight knowing the bigoted opinions of out-of-state pressure groups are taken as fact by our state officials. But we should have nightmares that our state officials are choosing the winners and losers in what we used to call free speech and rule of law. You know, the ideal that government must treat all of us the same.

Though not meaning to, the state of Colorado just proved the power of the fascist trans movement. It’s government weaponized against citizens they don’t like.

By Savana Kascak

LAKEWOOD–The Lakewood City Council in August referred a measure to the November 5 ballot asking voters to permanently eliminate revenue limitations in place under the Colorado Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR). Despite some complicated ballot wording, a yes vote on the measure boils down to an end to refunds of taxes over-collected by the city for good starting in 2026.

TABOR is a constitutional amendment that, among other things, limits the growth of local government spending to a reasonable annual rate based on inflation and local economic growth. Excess revenue must be returned to taxpayers unless voters give permission to exceed those limits. The Lakewood measure would allow city government to keep and spend revenue that would otherwise be refunded in perpetuity.

But according to Lakewood resident Natalie Menten, the city has paid $65,000 to a political strategy firm in an effort to word the ballot question in an intentionally misleading way.

Menten, who is also running for a Jefferson County Commissioner seat, has a long history advocating for taxpayers, having previously led the repeal of the grocery tax in Lakewood, as well as the defeat of two previous attempts by Jefferson County to eliminate TABOR limits.

“When I say I’m a taxpayer’s government watchdog, that is true, I have saved taxpayers millions,” notes Menten, who questions the true motives of the Lakewood City Council in asking for a permanent end the revenue limits.

“They are ignoring TABOR and presenting it to the voters in a fraudulent type of way and that shows very little respect to the voters” Menten said, “What it really does is eliminate the consent of future voters, forever.”

Menten says that the council is also pitting homeowners against renters, claiming the only way they can give a TABOR refund is if homeowners get it and renters don’t.

Lakewood residents have previously received TABOR rebates in the form of a property tax reduction, as well as a temporarily reduced fee charged to property owners.

But, according to Menten, the city could also refund overpayed taxes through things such as a temporary sales tax reduction, or lower vehicle registration fees.

“The city could easily give refunds that include all taxpaying Lakewood residents, renters as well well as property owners, but instead they wanted to present inaccurate and misleading information,” Menten said, noting that there should be another TABOR rebate coming to Lakewood taxpayers starting in 2025 should voters reject the November ballot measure.

Lakewood voters will also see several other TABOR related questions on the November ballot, as Jefferson County is also asking for permanent lifting of TABOR revenue restrictions, as is the Regional Transportation District (RTD), which includes Lakewood as part of its jurisdiction.

By Mike Rosen

For those who haven’t the time or interest in plowing through the 91 pages of the State’s published Blue Book explaining each of the 14 measures on this year’s election ballot, as in years past, I’m saving you the trouble by humbly offering my recommendations as follows.

As for the judges on the ballot, the retention process is for the most part perfunctory. Rarely is a judge not retained. The judicial performance criteria don’t include a judge’s judicial philosophy or provide a record of rulings. Every single one of the 26 judges up for retention in this election have been found to have “met performance standards” by a unanimous vote of the respective commissions. If I happen to know about a particular judge, I’ll vote “Yes” or “No.” Otherwise, I don’t cast a vote.

Amendment G: Property Tax Exemption for Disabled Veterans

Recommendation: Yes

Yay, vets.

Amendment H: Judicial Discipline Procedures

Recommendation: Yes

Creates an independent board to judge judges on unethical conduct.

Amendment I: Constitutional Bail Exception for First Degree Murder

Recommendation: Yes

The repeal of the death penalty by the state legislature in 2020 inadvertently made persons so charged eligible for bail. This measure restores the power of judges to deny them bail. Opposition by the criminal-coddling left-wing ACLU is reason enough to vote for it.

Amendment J: Repealing the Definition of Marriage in the Colorado Constitution

Recommendation: Yes

In 2022, when both SCOTUS and the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a right to marry, language in the state Constitution that defined a valid marriage as solely the union between one man and one woman was rendered contradictory to current law.

Amendment K: Modify Constitutional Election Deadlines

Recommendation: No

With Democrat control of the state legislature and all statewide offices, the only power dissenting citizens have is the ballot initiative process. Amendment K excessively squeezes the time citizens have to collect signatures and file petitions.

 Amendment 79: Constitutional Right to Abortion

Recommendation: No

When SCOTUS overturned Roe V. Wade in 2022, it returned abortion law to the states. The Democrat majority in the Colorado legislature responded by passing the most radically permissive pro-abortion law in the nation. Amendment 79 would set it in concrete in the state Constitution. The measure would also repeal the ban on government funding for abortion, forcing taxpayers who morally oppose abortions to pay for them.

Amendment 80: Constitutional Right to School Choice

Recommendation: Yes

The remedy for the sorry state of performance and political indoctrination in our public schools is the rising school choice movement that will break the strangle-hold of teacher unions and progressive ideology. Amendment 80 would protect and expand private and charter schools that offer alternative approaches and curricula to combat the left’s near monopoly in K-12 education. Expect staunch opposition from teacher unions and legislative Democrats who would narrowly define “school choice” to exclude private school vouchers that allow lower-income parents to access public funds to enroll their kids in far superior private schools.

Proposition JJ: Retain Additional Sports Betting Revenue

Recommendation: No

This is another scheme by Democrats to circumvent TABOR and increase taxes on sports betting. The original ballot measure approved by voters placed a tax limit on these gambling venues, mandating refunds when tax revenues exceeded that cap. Now, the government wants to welsh on that bet.

Proposition KK: Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax

Recommendation: No

This imposes a state sales tax of 6.5% on top of the existing 10%-11% federal excise tax for these items. It’s just another anti-gun measure masquerading as a fund raiser for worthy causes, including crime victim support services, mental health services for veterans and youth, and school safety programs, a political marketing ploy of anti-gunners to seduce voters.

Proposition 127: Prohibit Bobcat, Lynx, and Mountain Lion Hunting

Recommendation: No

More meddling from animal rights crazies that hate hunters. They hate ranchers, too. Their last ballot measure imported the wolves that are now killing sheep and cows.

Proposition 128: Parole Eligibility for Crimes of Violence

Recommendation: Yes

This extends prison time for violent criminals and third-time offenders before they become eligible for parole. The more time they spend in the slammer, the less they’ll be among us.

Proposition 129:  Establishing Veterinary Professional Associates

Recommendation: Yes

All I know about vets I learned from “ All Creatures Great and Small” on PBS. The more the merrier.

Proposition 130: Funding for Law Enforcement

Recommendation: Yes

Provides $350 million to help recruit, train, and retain local law enforcement officers; and add benefits for families of officers killed in the line of duty. A lot better idea than “Defunding the Police.”

 Proposition 131: Establishing All-Candidate Primary and Ranked Choice Voting General Elections

Recommendation: Hell, No!

This is an absurdly convoluted and impractical electoral scheme that eliminates party primaries on the pretense of replacing our two-party system to elect “moderate” candidates. RCV requires voters to check boxes ranking all competing candidates for the same office, including those they’d never vote for. It’s creators and supporters, like George Soros, are overwhelmingly on the left or simply naïve. In practice, it’s been manipulated by Democrats. At least ten Republican states have already revoked or banned it.