Republicans in Congress, alongside President Donald Trump, are delivering on their mandate from the American people to make America safe again, and the results are impossible to ignore. As President Donald Trump reflects on his second-term in office during the State of the Union, I couldn’t help but reflect on how Colorado communities are seeing firsthand that Republicans prioritize public safety.
Trump is reversing the many years of rising crime and chaos inflicted on families under Democrat rule. The American people asked for safer streets and secure borders, and today, GOP-led policies are delivering measurable results.
A new report from the Major Cities Chiefs Association shows violent crime is plummeting across major U.S. cities between 2024 and 2025. Homicides fell 19%, robberies dropped 20% and aggravated assaults were down nearly 10% in 2025 across 67 of the nation’s biggest police departments. These improvements came after Americans rejected soft-on-crime and defund-the-police policies, which resulted in a spike in crime over the previous 4 years. Denver saw one of the highest drops in homicide rates in the nation.
Empowering federal law enforcement to do their jobs in soft-on-crime cities and states, supporting cops, and holding criminals accountable sets a precedent that Republicans are serious about their promises to Make America Safe Again.
GOP-led immigration policies are keeping American citizens safe from bad actors, including murderers, rapists, and traffickers who pose serious threats to our communities. In fact, a drug and immigration enforcement operation in Adams County resulted in the arrest of dozens of Tren de Aragua gang members running a makeshift nightclub where weapons, cash, and drugs, including cocaine and Tusi, were seized. For those criminals, there is zero tolerance — they should be immediately deported or imprisoned, and sanctuary jurisdictions that give them safe harbor must be held accountable.
Through the implementation of strong border policies, fentanyl trafficking across the southern border has been slashed in half, leading to fewer overdose deaths devastating American families. Every 15 days under the previous administration, more Americans died as a result of drugs than were killed on 9/11. As a combat veteran of the Global War on Terror, this fight is personal. Republicans and President Trump are putting a stop to the peddling of deadly drugs coming through our southern border and poisoning Americans.
While our public safety policies are delivering results, there is still more work to be done. Safer streets require sustained leadership and cooperation from state and local governments who are equally vested in the security of our nation, but our direction is clear. President Trump and Republicans in Congress are leading the country in a renewed effort to support law enforcement, protect or communities, and save American lives.
As the nation listens to President Trump’s State of the Union address, Americans will hear a record of measurable progress. From declining crime rates to strengthened border enforcement, the policies shaping today’s public landscape are making a tangible difference.
As your Congressman, I remain committed to advancing common-sense legislation to maintain border security, secure our streets, and ensure the United States remains a nation where communities can live, work, and raise a family without fear.
U.S. Rep. Gabe Evans represents Colorado’s 8th Congressional District in Adams, Weld and Larimer counties.
For 125 years, U.S. Senators were selected by state legislatures. That changed in 1913, when the nation saw it fit to ensure that voters got to choose who represented them by passing the 17th Amendment.
More than 100 years later, Colorado voters could be left out of the process of selecting our representative to the upper chamber of Congress.
That’s not how democracy should work. And the Colorado General Assembly should do something about it.
No ballots will be cast. Voters likely won’t even know the names being considered for our state’s highest federal office until after the decision has been made. If Bennet is elected governor, that decision will fall to him alone – taking advantage of a flaw in the current system that must be corrected.
Bennet has been routinely pressed on the issue on the campaign trail, and campaign supporters were recently directed to tell anyone who asked: “There will be some really great, young Democrat who is there to vote exactly the same way that Michael votes.”
Voters deserve better. Bennet should either say now who intends to appoint or — to remove even a hint of impropriety — promise to resign his Senate seat should he win the governor’s race and let Gov. Polis make the appointment before leaving office. Then, the legislature should come up with a fix moving forward that puts the decision in the hands of voters — which is already how it works in Colorado for U.S. House vacancies.
It’s my view that once Sen. Bennet thinks on it a bit — he will agree.
Colorado law gives governors the authority to fill Senate vacancies without any restrictions other than that the appointee satisfy constitutional requirements for the office. Sen. Bennet, whose third full term isn’t up until 2028, has confirmed his intention to make use of that authority upon election — foregoing even the marginally preferable option of allowing current Gov. Polis to appoint a replacement — and retaining his Senate seat should he lose the gubernatorial election.
One of the major problems with the current system is it gives Bennet an unfair advantage over his competition – anyone who would like to be the senator of our state (which is a lot of people) will feel huge pressure to support Bennet for senator.
Although I have no reason to doubt his good intentions, one cannot help but think of the debacle of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was sentenced (and ultimately pardoned by President Trump) on charges of trying to profit from his power to appoint someone to President Barack Obama’s vacated Senate seat.
While Bennet’s decision — should he be elected governor — to select his replacement falls within the legal authority of the governor’s office, the perception of a conflict (in which those considered or, ultimately, appointed must kiss the proverbial ring) is simply too great. Anyone and everyone with a desire to be chosen to serve as senator (which comes with a huge, unearned incumbency advantage in the next election cycle) will feel pressure to play along.
I believe voters, not politicians, should have the final say on who represents them in Washington, D.C. A special election was held when Rep. Ken Buck vacated his Congressional District 4 seat in 2024, and the state legislature needs to give voters the right to pick their senator back.
Following the Blagojevich saga, several states passed laws either removing the power of appointment from governors entirely or allowing brief placeholder appointments until voters could fill the vacancy through a special election. Methods vary, and details like election timelines and whether custodial appointees are eligible to run must be considered before passing such laws in Colorado. Polling shows the commonsense point you would expect: A clear majority of Coloradans want to vote to pick their senator, not have them appointed.
As a starting point, I would suggest a special election be held to fill the vacancy as soon as practical, and a placeholder appointed – either by the governor or the legislature – only to ensure Coloradans are represented in the Senate until voters quickly select the replacement to fill the remainder of the term.
While some might decry the cost of holding a special election, I assert that a democracy that’s in the hands of voters – not politicians – is worth it. At least 15 other states have proven that by already establishing such a system, several in response to the Blagojevich mess. But let’s get serious: It does not take being a criminal to want to use this absolute power without creating in the appointee some sense of obligation or without having them commit to policy positions they would not otherwise.
The infringement upon the democratic process that vacancy appointments impose must be recognized and addressed without any further delay. Bennet’s gubernatorial run has brought this issue to the forefront, but it’s hardly an isolated incident. We’ve seen a plethora of vacancies in our state legislature (so much that in the last few years as many as one in three lawmakers arrived via appointment) and it’s not out of the realm of possibility that U.S. Senate vacancies could surge as well.
Bennet was appointed to his own Senate seat in 2009, going on to be democratically reelected three times. For democracy’s sake, I hope he’s one of the last appointments.
Kent Thiry has co-chaired multiple successful Colorado citizen ballot initiatives including the 2016 efforts to restore the state’s presidential primary election (Proposition 107) and to open Colorado’s primary elections to unaffiliated voters (Proposition 108), and 2018 efforts to ban political gerrymandering and create independent commissions to draw Colorado’s congressional and legislative voter maps (Amendments Y and Z, respectively). He is the former chair and chief executive officer of DaVita.
Forming a union — the most reliable pathway to the middle class — is hard enough in this country, but unfortunately, it’s harder in Colorado than in many states, thanks to a one-of-a-kind law that places unnecessary, redundant hurdles on workers.
At a time when federal worker protections are under attack, the National Labor Relations Board is being gutted, and Americans live with such financial stress that they are often too intimidated to speak up at their workplaces, it’s time for state leaders to make it easier for working people to win the life-changing benefits of a union.
As the president of Office and Professional Employees International Union Local 30, I’ve seen these challenges firsthand, as we recently won a first contract for workers who support refugees and people in conflict zones at the International Rescue Committee’s Denver office.
Through steadfast organizing, these OPEIU members won pay increases, more sick days and a voice in their workplace. But these wins did not come without additional challenges that deter workers across the state from organizing unions of their own. Not only did they have to win an election to form a union, but they then had to win an election to charge union dues, and will have to do so again for each future contract, an onerous requirement that none of the other twelve IRC offices we represent have to deal with.
Due to the so-called Labor Peace Act, Coloradans have never enjoyed the full benefits of the National Labor Relations Act, which protects Americans’ right to unionize, bringing them salaries 10% higher on average than their non-union counterparts. The state’s rampant inequality is the direct byproduct of outdated laws that created a system designed to impede the growth of unions with the explicit original purpose of quelling interracial organizing. These laws leave Colorado’s union density lagging behind the national rate and have inspired anti-union legislation nationally.
To bring these contract wins to workers throughout Colorado, it is essential that we amend the so-called Labor Peace Act now and pass House Bill 1005, a bill spearheaded by Representatives Javier Mabrey and Jennifer Bacon and Senators Jessie Danielson and Iman Jodeh. We call on Gov. Jared Polis to start listening to workers across the state and sign this vital legislation when it lands on his desk again this year.
By forcing workers to constantly re-vote on whether dues can be deducted, employers can easily undermine the will of their employees by prioritizing anti-union hires and undermining the financial stability of the union. This law also forces workers to endlessly focus on rallying their colleagues around the very preservation of their union, diverting limited resources that could be used to fix workplace issues.
Despite Colorado’s law being positioned as a “compromise” between workers and management, the Labor Peace Act actually plays out more like the famously anti-union “right-to-work” laws seen elsewhere. In these states, union density is lower and workers earn an average of $1,670 less than their counterparts in states that protect union security.
This is the difference between a family being thrown out on the streets or having enough money for rent, parents having the resources to send their children to college, or a senior being able to enjoy a dignified retirement. For people who must work for a living, who don’t have hundreds of millions to sustain them as they bounce between political offices, this $1,670 can mean everything.
The amendment would remove this burdensome extra vote and bring Colorado’s labor laws up to the standards of states ranging from California to Montana, sending a message that Colorado is serious about developing an economy that provides working people access to a comfortable middle-class life.
At a moment when 70% of the country approves of labor unions and our federal government has waged a full-on war against workers, amending this backwards law is essential for working Coloradans to win what they are owed.
And at a time when insurance premiums are soaring and Medicaid, as we know it, could disappear, workers need the employer-provided health insurance that they are almost twice as likely to receive through a collectively bargained contract. Our recent victory at IRC exemplifies this, bringing Denver workers higher incomes, better work-life balances and increased job stability.
The law as it stands does not reflect Coloradans’ values, and OPEIU encourages Polis to follow Michigan’s 2023 repeal of right-to-work and make it easier for Colorado workers to win the better wages, benefits and working conditions they are entitled to — and that union membership makes much more likely.
Marianne Giordano is a vice president at OPEIU who serves as executive director and CFO of Local 30, where she is also a Coalition Tri-Chair of Kaiser Permanente’s Regional Labor Management Council, a member of the National Labor Management Council Steering Committee and a delegate to the Coalition of Labor Union Women. She is an echo technologist in the Internal Medicine Cardiology Department at Kaiser Permanente San Diego.
Colorado congressmembers showed Washington, D.C., last week why the West is renowned for our independence.
U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, Rep. Joe Neguse and Rep. Jason Crow fought back against corruption, overreach and abuse of power.
For Boebert, Neguse and Crow, the fight is against a U.S. Department of Justice that has gone rogue under Attorney General Pam Bondi and U.S. attorneys across the nation who are not ashamed to do President Donald Trump’s political bidding with the justice system.
During these trying times, Colorado needs bipartisan agreement that abuse of power in a nation that stands for “justice for all” will not be tolerated.
Rep. Jason Crow
Nothing from this administration has disturbed us more than Trump’s assertion that members of Congress, including Colorado’s Jason Crow, should be tried for treason – noting that it was “punishable by death” — because they urged members of the U.S. military not to obey illegal orders.
But the fact that Trump found a U.S. attorney willing to do his bidding and seat a grand jury to pursue those charges is baffling. Fortunately, the jurors saw through the U.S. government’s efforts to railroad six American patriots, all of whom first served in the military before becoming politicians. A grand jury refused to indict Crow and the other five Democrats who participated in the video.
Crow has not been silent despite the threats from the president of the United States, saying emphatically that he and others are standing up to a corrupt Justice Department.
“But that is the moment that we are in,” Crow told The Denver Post. “And I think every American is starting to see that, and the tide is turning.”
The tide is indeed turning.
Rep. Lauren Boebert
Boebert was one of four Republicans who signed a discharge petition in the U.S. House to force a vote on legislation requiring the Justice Department to release a trove of documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein child sex abuse.
The Epstein Files Transparency Act passed by the U.S. House and Senate and signed into law by Trump specifically prohibited redacting the documents to protect people “on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure or foreign dignitary.”
This week, after viewing unredacted versions of the Epstein files, Boebert doubled down on her criticism of those in positions of power who are covering up for those suspected of abuse. In a brief video interview immediately after viewing the documents, she said there were names redacted who were discussing rape who were clearly not victims. If that is true, then the U.S. Justice Department has failed to comply with the clear language of the transparency act. Making matters worse, the Justice Department failed to protect victims, some of whom were named or pictured in the files, missing key redactions that would protect survivors of prostitution, sexual abuse and rape.
Neguse also went after the Justice Department last week, helping a bipartisan group of lawmakers highlight the agency’s corruption during a five-hour hearing with Bondi.
Lawmakers mostly focused on the botched release of the Epstein files and the failure of the Justice Department over decades and multiple administrations to bring criminal charges in the case. If it were not for the work of a Miami Herald reporter exposing sweetheart deals in a series called “Perversion of Justice,” Epstein would have gotten away with his crimes. Now Americans are demanding that those who joined Epstein in raping children and abusing women must face justice.
Neguse took a different tack, highlighting other ways the Bondi has spurned justice.
First, he quoted Bondi, “If you come for law enforcement, the Trump administration will come for you.”
Then he played a video clip of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. A man in the video can clearly be heard yelling at Capitol police and accusing them of selling out for a pension, and calling them the Nazi and the Gestapo. Then the man then yells “(Expletive) them. Kill them!”
“Attorney General Bondi, that man works for you now, right?” Neguse asks, running through the criminal charges the man faced stemming from his involvement in the Jan. 6 effort to prevent Biden from being seated as president.
“He does work for me,” Bondi said. “I believe he was pardoned by President Donald Trump.”
Then Neguse asked Bondi about the gutting of the Public Integrity Section within the Department of Justice, an agency tasked with the “investigation and prosecution of all federal crimes affecting government integrity, including bribery of public officials, election crimes, and other related offenses.”
Neguse said the agency went from 35 employees to two under Bondi. Bondi fired back that prior administrations had weaponized the agency, but Neguse cut her off, instead turning to her gutting of the Justice Department’s unit tasked with investigating cryptocurrency.
“She eliminated the team. Why? Because her boss, the president of the United States, is making money hand over fist. $1.4 billion over the last year through cryptocurrency holdings. I think what is happening at the Department of Justice is a disgrace.”
Other ways Pretti’s and Good’s lives could have been spared
Re: “Follow federal officers’ orders, and stay alive,” Feb. 13 letter to the editor
I suppose it is true that if Alex Pretti and Renee Good had obeyed, they would be alive. How about some other ifs?
If the officers who killed them were trained in the appropriate use of force and de-escalation, Pretti and Good would be alive.
If the federal government would stop putting on a violent show intended to suppress opposition and entertain their true believers, Pretti and Good would be alive.
If the federal government were smart enough to find more effective and less expensive ways to manage immigration rather than conducting a reign of terror, then Pretti and Good would be alive.
No doubt history would be very different if a citizen’s duty were simple obeyance. However, what we have seen and are experiencing is real Americans being Americans. The Bill of Rights is not just a collection of “thou shalt nots” directed at the federal government. It is also a citizen’s call to duty. A “well regulated Militia” is not the only necessity to the security of a free State. A free and thriving press and a loud and vocal citizenry willing to assemble in the public square and shout their grievances are required too. That is our duty, and if we want to preserve the spirit of 1776 in 2026, we must exercise our rights. Use our rights or lose them.
No doubt history would be very different if a citizen’s duty was simple obeyance. The problem with obeyance is that it becomes a habit. Before you know it, one is no better off than a sheep.
Len Esparza, Fort Collins
Trump has the power to end the war in Ukraine
Re: “Both nations suffering as Russian invasion enters its fifth year,” Feb. 14 commentary
Regarding Saturday’s essay on Ukraine, remember how Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz had the power to go back to Kansas by clicking her heels? Similarly, Trump, who said he would end the war on Day One (which was always a lie), always had the power to end this war. He could click his ankles together, re-arm Ukraine with the weapons they need, and end this Russian crusade.
I know Ronald Reagan would have armed Ukraine in a heartbeat. Make no mistake; Ukraine is our ally. They deserve our support. Russia’s Vladimir Putin is weak, has lost hundreds of thousands of troops, his economy is a wreck, and he is not our friend, nor will he ever be.
If Trump did this, he would likely receive his coveted Peace Prize.
Why is it so expensive to live in our liberal blue state? Look no further than the Post’s front page Saturday. Every liberal Democrat (is there any other kind?) has a pet project. To implement pet projects, one needs money. The only way to get it is through more fees and more taxes.
Your front page tells us these liberals want to tax property owned but not occupied year-round. Don’t these property owners already pay property taxes? Sounds like double taxation to me.
Or, liberals will now put produce companies out of business by requiring overtime for farm workers. If this happens, can you imagine the cost to us for produce grown locally?
These liberals have ruined this state.
Jack Inderwish, Aurora
U.S. Attorney General has been convicted before
Re: “Epstein files: Bondi clashes with Democrats,” Feb. 12 news story
Perhaps Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi should be reminded that in 1975, President Richard Nixon’s Attorney General, John N. Mitchell, was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury, imprisoned for nineteen months, and disbarred from the practice of law.
Dona and Dan Chilcoat
The acting U.S. Attorney General has a burn book on every sitting member of Congress. Who knows what she has on you and me? Let that one sink in, folks.
Last summer, hunters and anglers stepped up in a huge way to help defeat a proposal by Utah Sen. Mike Lee to sell off millions of acres of public land.
In the end, public land defenders won. Confronted by an outpouring of grassroots opposition, Senator Lee removed his amendment to the Trump administration’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” But the struggle demonstrated that we need to act sooner.
Four elk hunters in Wyoming showed us what stepping up can look like. Instead of sitting back and looking sadly at a huge chunk of prime elk country blocked by a billionaire’s ranch, they built a special ladder. By climbing over it, they crossed from one corner of public land to another, setting in motion a legal process that freed up millions of acres of public land in six states.
They also shot some nice bulls.
The hunters’ creativity in the field has become an inspiration. That’s why the two of us — state legislators in Wyoming and Montana — are teaming up to fight for public land access, just as the hunters on Wyoming’s Elk Mountain did.
Across the West, millions of acres of public land are still legally open but practically inaccessible. At checkerboard corners where public and private land meet, a person can stand on public ground, look directly at more public ground just an inch away, and still be told they cannot step from one to the other.
In Wyoming, the question of corner crossing dragged through the courts for years. Last October, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case challenging a lower court decision allowing corner crossing. The ruling establishes that crossing between public land corners without touching private property does not constitute trespass.
In Montana, Gov. Greg Gianforte and the director of Fish, Wildlife and Parks say that corner crossing remains unlawful under state law. That declaration puts political clout behind the status quo, where public land remains accessible to those who can buy control of key parcels and hire fancy attorneys.
The consequences are not abstract. For working families in Montana and Wyoming, access to public land is a necessity, not a luxury. It is how people put meat in the freezer as grocery prices rise. It is how parents take their kids outdoors without paying fees. It is how rural communities hold on to traditions that are increasingly out of reach.
We, as elected leaders, need to act. We can’t let confusing court decisions or laws that don’t serve the people be the last word on any issue dealing with public land.
That’s why the two of us support state legislation in both Wyoming and Montana that will clarify the law and protect public access. The stakes are high and rising. Land prices have become astronomically out of reach for most people, outside wealth continues to pour into our states, and politicians in Congress and our state legislatures increasingly side with wealthy landowners.
Unless public land supporters in office act to clarify corner crossing in law, access will continue to shrink. The result will be a two-tiered system: a West for people who can afford exclusive access, another West that’s diminished for everyone else.
Corner crossing may be ingenious, but it is not radical. It is a straightforward affirmation that public land needs to be available to the public. We don’t think this is a partisan issue. Hunters, anglers, hikers, conservationists, landowners, and working families span every political stripe in our states. Fair access to public land for future generations is a shared value.
The choice ahead is simple. We can defend public land as a public right for our children and grandchildren, or we can allow the West to slide toward a situation where those with wealth continue to block vast swaths of public land.
As legislators from Montana and Wyoming, we know which side we are on.
Karlee Provenza is a Democrat serving House District 45, Laramie, in the Wyoming House of Representatives. Democrat Joshua A. Seckinger serves House District 62, Bozeman, in the Montana House of Representatives. The writers are contributors to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conservation about the West. The Wyoming Legislature convenes Feb. 9 and plans to consider corner crossing.
A time to reflect on the words and works of past presidents, and the ‘honored dead’
As we approach the “250th birthday” of our nation, it is my hope that this Presidents Day is truly a day of remembrance of the great words and works of past presidents, rather than being distracted by companies and corporations that would rather have us all making it a day for buying a new mattress, or furniture, or whatever.
The works and words of Abraham Lincoln are especially meaningful at this time in our nation, and in particular those words spoken at Gettysburg in remembrance of those “honored dead” who gave their lives in the struggle to preserve this nation.
Now it is again a time that we here need to highly resolve that the now millions of persons worldwide that have died in struggles to protect freedom have not died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
So help us God,
William Sherrell, Lafayette
Rodent poison is dangerous for our children, pets and wildlife
Have you seen a black box with an opening sitting on the ground outside a local store? For clarity, I encourage you to Google images of “Rodenticide Bait Boxes.” If these look familiar to you, they should make you uneasy — they’re boxes filled with poison.
While the idea is that the poison targets only rodents, that’s not the reality. Rodenticides affect animals that help control rodent populations (i.e, hawks and coyotes), curious dogs, and even young children who accidentally mistake bright colored pellets for a tasty treat.
According to the American Association of Poison Control Centers’ National Poison System, in 2023, there were nearly 5,700 cases of rodenticide poisoning in children 12 and under in the United States.
Rodenticides are also found in the ASPCA’s “Top Ten Toxins of 2024” list for pets. Additionally, a study tested the livers of five coyotes in the Denver metro area and found second-generation anticoagulants in all five.
Rodenticides are not safe for our children, pets, or local wildlife. There are safer alternatives. Please ask your local government official to support Senate Bill 62.
Lindsay Hoppestad, Parker
Lawmakers are back at work, so expect cost increases
This is a very scary time of year for all of us.
Whenever our legislators are meeting, expect everything to become more expensive when they finish. It does not matter if you are a homeowner or a business. They will figure out a new way to grab money from us, whether it’s natural gas mandates or delivery fees. (Does anyone know where the delivery fee money goes?)
I can see why many people and business owners are leaving this place.
Neal B. Cully, Colorado Springs
How would we even field a team of Trump-loyal Olympians?
Re: “U.S. athletes speaking up about politics face backlash,” Feb. 9 news story
I read that some folks say that if someone plays for a national team, they should agree with all federal policies. I don’t know if those folks are Americans or not, but it seems like a rather un-American position, partly because it would be impossible to send a team of athletes most loyal to the president unless we assume that lie detectors are accurate, so we could weed out the athletes that Trump calls “losers.”
Minneapolis concerns for GOP: Human toll or political cost
The response from many Republican politicians to the violence committed by federal immigration agents in Minnesota has been telling. The loss of life has prompted large protests across Minneapolis and is spreading to other parts of the country. Yet for many Republican officials, recognition of these deaths has been cursory at best. Their focus seems less on the human toll and more on the political cost. Rather than directly addressing the violence or the federal policies that have contributed to it, they worry that their messaging isn’t resonating with the public.
They seem to perceive the issue as a communication and public relations problem, not a policy issue. They ignore accountability and the prevention of future violence. They prefer to blame others, including the victims. They appear to think that they just need to reclaim the narrative and the problem will disappear. This is what happens when messaging becomes a priority, and real-world impacts become secondary.
We must demand more from our political leaders. It is time for accountability and solutions that work.
John Wells, Leadville
Slowed growth is a good thing if it’s slowed immigration
Re: “State’s growth slowest since ’90.” Jan. 28 news story
There was a lot of good news in The Post’s article on growth. Colorado’s growth rate dropped by two-thirds! Less illegal immigration means more jobs for legal workers, along with a lower number of workers willing to work for slave wages. That also could translate to lower car insurance rates.
It’s no surprise that California, of course, leads the exodus along with Vermont and New Mexico. Florida had one of the largest gains, along with Texas and North Carolina.
Other good news is that with the decrease in the growth of migrants, the birth rate has increased. Win-win.
The story reports “Slower growth should allow the state to catch up on its housing shortfall, and if population gains are weak enough, reduced demand could even push rents and home prices lower.”
Now for the bad news. “More established and wealthier households were picking up and leaving.”
One would think that any governor or legislator with a room-temperature IQ would look at that, wake up, and consider changing policy; unfortunately, we have neither one!
Larry Fries, Aurora
DENVER, JANUARY 25: Colorado Senator Michael Bennet walks through the crowd talking to protesters outside the Colorado State Capitol, Sunday January 25, 2026 in Denver. Crowds came out in response to protest against ICE in light of the death of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. (Rebecca Slezak/Special to The Denver Post)
Glad to see Sen. Bennet representing in the protest crowd
I attended the demonstration at the Capitol last Sunday. I was extremely heartened to see Sen. Michael Bennet in the crowd. I have written to his office, as well as to other elected officials in Colorado, asking them to attend these demonstrations. It was the first time I had seen an elected official in attendance (and I have been to seven such events).
Unfortunately, a young man harassed the senator and ruined a good opportunity for him to witness how, generally, the crowds are very respectful (excepting, of course, the expletives directed towards Trump and ICE). We, the people, are increasingly reaching a boiling point in our frustration at the current administration’s destruction of the norms of our society. While it showed a high degree of disrespect on the part of the heckler, I am hoping that Sen. Bennet will take note of how impassioned the crowds are and will come again.
Even though there isn’t much they can do right now, Democratic representatives do need to see what is going on out in the streets. I hope Sen. Bennet saw that and will not only come to the next rally, but also encourage his Colorado colleagues to come too. We, at these rallies and protests, are the people, and maybe Sen. Bennet can use some of our energy to continue to fight for our democracy in D.C.
Mark Edward Geyer, Denver
Readers debate how to make taxation of residents fair
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” ― John Kenneth Galbraith
Mirla Coronado de Low nailed the problem with TABOR: “TABOR is failing our families. TABOR requires a flat tax rate for every income earner in the state. That means that the majority of the families in Colorado who are barely making ends meet and those who are not are carrying a heavier tax burden than those who make $500,000 or more! How?”
TABOR exemplifies Gailbraith’s comment on morally justifying selfishness. Like too many Republican financial laws, TABOR was and always will be a Trojan horse. Those yearly state refunds sound nice, but they only keep the state of Colorado from needed funds to provide needed services, while enriching the wealthy. Does the term “trickle down economics” ring a bell?
TABOR has to be repealed.
Here is another Trojan horse, courtesy of Donald Trump. Remember those $2000 rebate checks we are supposed to get? Last month, the president gave a new timeline on when those payments could arrive for Americans, giving it “toward the end of the year.”
Yep, those checks will come in time for the midterm elections. Another Republican bribe.
Mike Filion, Lakewood
While I agree with the author regarding Washington’s unreliability of late, I disagree with their defense of the graduated tax proposal. This initiative uses childcare as a sympathetic front for a simple state revenue increase.
Regarding the “fairness” of the flat tax: the author’s argument overlooks the reality of the tax burden. Mathematically, a flat tax ensures that those who earn more already pay more. Under the current 4.4% rate, an earner at $500,000 pays $22,000 in tax, while someone making $50,000 pays $2,200. To suggest this isn’t a “heavier burden” ignores the $19,800 in additional revenue provided by the higher earner.
While childcare challenges are real, navigating funding within TABOR’s framework is exactly what we elect state legislators to do. We can debate the social utility of taxing the wealthy, but we should not confuse “ability to pay” with “fairness.”
Buzz Davis, Wheat Ridge
There’s one sure-fire way to effectively address, if not resolve, Colorado’s persistent budget woes, and that is by restoring a graduated income tax in Colorado’s tax code.
We now have a Democratic (DINO?) governor who talks openly about cutting income taxes. And I ask: Whatever happened to a fundamental plank in the platform of the Democratic Party since the days of Woodrow Wilson? That is, a graduated income tax, even a severely graduated tax. That’s right. The rich, who gain most from our economic and political systems, pay more and the rest of us pay less. The poorest among us pay nothing (but, like all of us, they pay sales taxes and a host of fees often designed to fill budget gaps).
Before supporting a candidate for state office, either financially or otherwise, ask them this question: Do you support and will you advocate for restoration of a graduated income tax in Colorado, either by legislative referendum or by citizen initiative? If the answer is “no” or an equivocation, look elsewhere for a candidate to support.
Allan Ferguson, Denver
You don’t fight bullies with name-calling
Re: “No one can do it alone. We all must stand up together against our bullies,” and “Hepatitis B is a terrifying virus with life-long consequences. The vaccine saves lives,” Jan. 25 commentaries
I agree with the writer about needing to address the bullying that is happening in our current political scene. Needing to maintain “our calmness and resolve in the face of the chaotic physical and mental threats” is stated as a way to address bullying. Also, it is stated that “we must use public assertiveness against the nasty bullying words and actions.
Three types of bullying behavior are described: verbal, social/relational and physical.
Then, in the body of the piece, he negates the proposed appropriate responses by proceeding to use two of those three bullying types by using words such as “coterie of quacks”, “angel of e-death”, “Bully-in-Chief”, and “Horcruxes” to talk about members of the administration.
It is not helpful to address bullying by bullying back and stooping to the behavior level of the ones you are complaining about. We need to respond more appropriately and respectfully, even when others aren’t. Additionally, in the article right next to this one (regarding hepatitis B vaccinations), some of the same name-calling tactics are used (blockheads & dumpster 47).
We need to respond more appropriately and respectfully, even when others aren’t.
Ellen Staton, Castle Rock
Candidates need to fight the ‘federal school voucher scheme’
I’ve been waiting weeks for reader response to the news that Gov. Jared Polis will opt Colorado into the federal school voucher scheme. Finding none, I’ve concluded that readers aren’t aware of the threat this decision poses to public education.
This scheme comes directly from the Project 2025 playbook. Polis said it would be foolish to leave the federal money on the table. Millionaires have never met a tax credit they couldn’t support, but the governor is foolish to believe this is free money. The nonpartisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates the annual cost could be nearly $51 billion. Those are federal education dollars that won’t be available to support students with the greatest needs, through Title I and IDEA.
You only need to look at these so-called “tax-credit scholarships” in other states to realize the intention. They are overwhelmingly used by students already enrolled in private schools. They also are used at schools that openly discriminate against LGBTQ students and families. They exacerbate the growing divide between rich and poor.
Attorney General Phil Weiser, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for governor, is on record saying that he would not opt the state into this program if elected. U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet has said he disagrees with vouchers but refusing the money could be short sighted.
Polis needs to back off this dangerous course, and Bennet should oppose the tax-credit scholarships. Going along with Trump to get along has not worked well for Colorado.
More than 30 years on I can still remember pealing back the tinfoil. There was no sour cream, avocado or other adornments, just spicy meat in a soft tortilla. Every night we watched for a little, elderly woman with a cooler. We also watched for the security guards who would chase her from the mall.
The burrito lady spoke no English. None was required for that surreptitious exchange– two dollars for a warm burrito neatly wrapped.
This legislative session, those burritos could at long last be legal. If House Bill 26-1033 passes, it would add the sale of homemade foods that need refrigeration such as burritos to the Colorado Cottage Foods Act. The current law only allows the sale of homemade bread, jams, spices, honey, pickles, nuts, and other foods that do not need to be refrigerated. Under the law, sellers must take a food safety class and label their kitchen-made foods as such.
By broadening the types of food covered under the Colorado Cottage Food Act, the legislature will enable more small-scale entrepreneurs to sell their wares. Other states have done so without compromising food safety.
Colorado passed its Cottage Foods Act back in 2012. I know because it was the first opinion piece I wrote for The Denver Post. Back then only 26 states had cottage food laws. Today, every state has adopted one.
Some of these states allow cottage venders to sell the kinds of perishable foods HB 26-1033 would allow. A study that examined the safety record of the seven states with the most permissive cottage food laws (California, Iowa, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming) where is legal to sell perishable items such as tamales, pizza, and cultural street foods, found not a single case of foodborne illness from foods produced under the law. There were no incidents even in states like Wyoming that have had such laws on the books for more than a decade.
Over the past five years, I have been a seller under our state’s cottage food act. Later this week I will print out labels for wild plum jam, chokecherry jelly, pine syrup, and sumac spice. Some years I sell homegrown sunchokes made into curry spice pickled torshi. Sometimes I sell fresh eggs. The lean days of the Pandemic taught me to monetize my gardening, foraging, and cooking hobbies. Selling this fare gives me the opportunity to make a little money and wax enthusiastically about native plants. I maintain the highest standards of taste and cleanliness because my little enterprise depends on the trust of my buyers.
I am also a buyer of cottage foods. The homespun honey I bought last year ostensibly for a gift sweetens the rosehip tea I’m sipping at this moment. I also love to patronize Ruby’s Market on Denver’s Pearl Street, a multi-cultural artisan food shop that specializes in refugee and immigrant entrepreneurs some of whom got their start under the Cottage Foods Act.
Commerce isn’t just about sales. It’s the exchange of ideas, goods, and services that ends with both parties saying “thank you.” It’s connection and creativity. For the many of the venders at Ruby’s Market, the chance to sell their unique, handmade foods is the beginning of the American dream. House Bill 1033 will give more new entrepreneurs the opportunity to connect through trade.
Earlier this month, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) released the Colorado Wolverine Restoration Plan, one of the final steps required by law to reestablish a wolverine population in the state. It’s a case study in how best to restore a native species that’s been gone for a century.
Wolverines are beagle-sized carnivores related to weasels, ermines, badgers, martens, otters, and black footed ferrets, all of which are native to this state. Colorado’s high alpine environment can support 100-180 wolverines, a species considered threatened under the Endangered Species Act, without posing a threat to livestock or the state budget. CPW has successfully reestablished viable populations of elk, lynx, moose, bighorn sheep, black-footed ferrets, grouse, and wild turkeys in Colorado.
Unlike the wolf reintroduction debacle, thrust upon the state by a narrowly passed ballot initiative, wolverine reintroduction comes after decades of careful consideration by wildlife experts and lawmakers with input from ranchers and the broader public. This is how it should be done.
In the late 1990s, scientists with the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (now Colorado Parks and Wildlife) met to discuss the restoration of lynx and wolverine in Colorado. These reclusive mid-sized predators share the same high alpine forest. While lynx subsist primarily on snowshoe hare, both species eat marmots, squirrels, pika, birds, and occasionally larger animals that are young or injured. Wolverines especially favor carrion which they cache for later. Thanks to their high alpine habitat, solitary nature, and small size, neither species present a threat to livestock or humans.
Wolverine and lynx were both common throughout the Rocky Mountains until overhunting, trapping, and poisoning severely diminished their numbers a century ago. Thanks to state and federal conservation efforts, populations are slowly being restored. There are now around 400 wolverines in the contiguous US.
Having successfully established a breeding population of lynx, CPW began looking at restoring wolverines to their native habitat. Unlike highly migratory species, wolverines are unlikely to reestablish here on their own. It’s an anomaly that lone wolverine male wandered into Colorado from Wyoming in 2009. Wolverines, females in particular, don’t roam far from where they were born.
In 2024, after hearings and amendments, a bipartisan bill to reintroduce wolverines passed and was signed into law. Senate Bill 171 was introduced by then-Sen. Perry Will (now Garfield County Commissioner), a Republican with a wildlife biology degree, a family background in ranching, decades of wildlife management experience and a singularly impressive wild west mustache. Since then, CPW has worked to meet each of the obligations set by the law. The agency is currently producing a plan for communicating with stakeholders on proposed release sites and working with the federal government to get a needed waiver.
Altogether, the process has been driven by scientists and elected officials, supported by compromise, inclusive of the public and those potentially impacted, bipartisan, and transparent.
Contrast this with the process of wolf reintroduction which was driven by advocacy groups, dismissive of ranchers’ concerns, supported by the barest majority many of whom are rethinking their support, highly partisan, and far from transparent.
Advocates said it would cost taxpayers $800,000 a year but the price tag has exceeded $8 million. Much of the increase is because the cost to reimburse ranchers for depredated livestock is much higher than advocates anticipated. For last year alone, taxpayers will pay more than a million dollars to cover the costs of killed and injured cattle and sheep. Ranch and pet dogs have also been attacked. This should have been foreseen; of all the Rocky Mountain states, Colorado has greatest human population density and the highest number of sheep and cattle. This is not Montana.
When critics blame CPW for the slain livestock and the 12 dead wolves, they should be reminded that the choice to reintroduce wolves was taken out of the hands of the agency’s wildlife experts and removed from the representative lawmaking process. It isn’t just time to rethink wolves but the initiative process that put them here. Ballot box biology isn’t.
