Weekend Open Thread

“A little more persistence, a little more effort, and what seemed hopeless failure may turn to glorious success.”

–Elbert Hubbard

86 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

    • Voyageur says:

      It's simple.  No on 74, hell no on 112, yes on X, it's better than sex!

       

      • DENependent says:

        Yes on A? Should be an easy "yes", both George Brauchler and Phil Weiser support it and even Doug Bruce is for A. And 95 out of 100 of our legislators. (Five excused absent members of the House)

        • Voyageur says:

          I voted no.  It's political correctness run amok.  Backers couldn't cite a single actual problem caused by existing law.  And two lawyers told me it could mess up alternative sentencing.

           

          probably it is harmless pap, but I voted to leave well enough alone.

            • Voyageur says:

              How is defining a prison sentence as slavery "treating people with respect." ? It disrespects the victims of crimes.

              No, A is political correctness run amok.

              as Joan Baez sang"raze the prisons to the ground. "

              A good song.   But an impractical policy.

            • Genghis says:

              You're wasting your time, DEN. Ol' V thinks that voting yes on A would abolish the prison system and set all current inmates loose to rape, pillage and steal. It's like having our very own Kanye West right here at Colorado Pols. 

              • Voyageur says:

                And Genghis believes that prisoners should have the right to watch tv all day and nibble bon bons, because any form of alternative service or productive labor is slavery!

                Give me one actual example of a real problem caused by this clause in our constitution during the 140 years we've had it.  Just one!

                 

                • mamajama55 says:

                  Here you go:

                  Detainees being forced to work for free, although they have not been charged with a crime. Aurora  / Florida detainee anti – ICE lawsuit.

                  If detainees die or are injured and/ or sexually assaulted as a result of the forced labor, ICE  plans to destroy the records on it.

                  The vast majority of detainees committed no crime ( illegal entry into the US is a misdemeanor).  Yet they are subject to slavery and assault, even death, as a result of the "gray area" application of this clause for prison labor.

                   

                   

                  • Voyageur says:

                    This may surprise you, mj, but ICE is not a state agency.  It is federal.  I asked for a problem caused by the STATE constitution .

                    You failed to provide one.

                    And by the way, misdemeanors are crimes. Just not as serious as felonies.

                    • mamajama55 says:

                      States have the power to regulate prison labor in private prisons, and to set conditions and pay rates for this labor, as well as to regulate how and whether prisons have to account for injury and death to inmates and detainees.

                      Several states no longer allow prison labor, or force open records on private prisons operating within the states.  Colorado isn't one of these states. Yet. Hopefully, that will change November 6.

                      Prison labor in Colorado sells products to other state entities. When we sit at a desk at a CU campus, the chair and desk were likely made by a prisoner making less than $3 a day for his/her labor. State prisons sell to state institutions, and also contract out to corporations for the labor and the products.

                      Nationwide, Whole Foods, Walmart, Victoria's Secret, New Balance Shoes, and many others make  products using cheap / free prison labor.  This billion dollar industry thrives in private prisons run by Geo, Corrections Corporation of America (now CoreCivic) and others that have greatly expanded to hold detainees and their children, incarcerated under Trump's border policies.

                      and/or the prison , both of which reap financial benefit from the arrangement.

                      Yes, it is slavery. Yes, it is wrong.

                      Colorado has a chance to vote against it by approving Amendment A next Tuesday. CU may have to pay more for its chairs. Oh well.

                    • Voyageur says:

                      States,including Colorado, already have that power,, as you said.  Adding this stupid clause to the state constitution won't solve that.  You can't name an actual problem this will solve because ther e are none.  It is political correctness run amok.

                • Genghis says:

                  And Genghis believes that prisoners should have the right to watch tv all day and nibble bon bons, because any form of alternative service or productive labor is slavery!

                  No, Kanye. However, I do believe that compulsory labor for prisoners is involuntary servitude. I believe that because it's true. The drafters of the Thirteenth Amendment and Article II, Section 26 of the Colorado Constitution knew it as well. Were it otherwise, the language "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" would not have been needed to preserve the prison labor system. There's simply no room for debate on that point.

                  • Voyageur says:

                    There is also no room to debate that you think prisoners should lie around all day watching tv and nibbling bon bons.  If any form of compulsory labor is slavery, ANY form, then you can't compel them to do anything!  Or do you prefer to feed them caramels?  What ever. You can't even make them clean their cells!  Slavery, slavery!  Can't make DUIs pick up trash on the highway.  Slavery, slavery!

                    So, admit it.  You demand that prisoners be allowed to sit around and watch tv all day.  That is the worst possible policy.

                     

      • DENependent says:

        Yes on 112. The current system of regulation is flawed enough that even this draconian law is an improvement. It is also only law and it can be easily amended and fixed by either the legislature or future initiatives.

        I think this will end up being like the Green Roof thing in Denver. It would have been bad, but it got everyone to come to the table to work out a compromise by passing. Not what I would prefer the process to be, but unfortunately the politics of oil and gas seem to require it.

        • Voyageur says:

          You may consider confiscating my property rights compromise.  I call it Stalinism..  He crushed the Kulaks, now the yuppies are crushing the farmers.

          hell no on 112.

          • DENependent says:

            112 is not a compromise. I am saying that I think that if 112 passes it will force the various parties to work out a compromise to protect the rights of surface rights holders instead of giving the holders of subsurface mineral rights excessive rights. The current system is Stalinist the other direction allowing corporations to seize the value of property without compensation to land owners disadvantaged by the fact that they are only surface right holders.

            • Voyageur says:

              If I own  a toyota and a subaru and you buy my subaru, you're saying you have the right to take my Toyota as well?  I do own a farm in eastern Colorado, in my family since 1887.  Under your plan, I lose the right to the natural gas that exploration has already shown to be there.  

              112 is Stalinism, the theft of private property, including mine, without compensation.

               

              • DENependent says:

                You describe a totally different situation. The sale of surface rights only is like selling the use of a car and retaining the scrap metal value of the Subaru. Then the owner of the scrap metal value comes along and says, "Hey, I own the metal of this Subaru, you need to let me take the doors now." Because this door stealing has been the norm people are upset and so they are organizing to pass a law to forbid all scrap metaling. Overkill, but understandable if you have any sort of sympathy for other human beings.

                Because oil and gas has ferociously lobbied against reasonable restrictions of drilling near urban areas or local control this overkill law is the result. Yes, it sucks that your land value is hurt by this.

                Passage would not be the end. It would mean that you and the other mineral right holders will need to lobby the legislature to amend the law if it passes. Get them to put in an exemption for allowing the owners of houses to allow drilling within the exclusion zone. At a stroke that would fix all your problems with this law because presumably you own the houses on your homestead.

                • Voyageur says:

                  I own both the surface and subsurface rights to my farm.   But because some yuppie owns a yurt a half mile away, I can't develop the gas.  Current law is reasonable — it guarantees the yuppie a 500 foot setback, or 1,000 feet for schools, etc.  

                  your Stalinist proposal increases the setback property 25 times!  — five squared! .I get nothing but the yuppie can be happy because he really doesn't approve of a gas well anywhere, though he heats with natural gas.

                  we'll sue your Stalinist ass.  No, I don't support 74, though you make a compelling argument for it.  But the 5th amendment is a federal right and we'll sue you in federal court.

                  how have Stalinist notions been doing in federal court lately?

                  Really?  Not so well?

                  tee hee.

                   

                  • DENependent says:

                    Huh. You'll sue me for supporting a law? Are you sure that you're not Donald Trump?

                    • Voyageur says:

                      No, we'll sue whatever jurisdiction enforced your law, probably the state and county.  But you as a taxpayer will pay the judgment.

                  • mamajama55 says:

                    A hypothetical yuppie yurt, I suppose. The actual distance that real public safety people evacuate people in the event of a methane leak is half a mile.

                    Oh, my, that's….2500 feet. That was the distance people were evacuated when the Greeley Northfield fracking rig developed a valve leak in the middle of a home game.

                    Within 1000' feet of wells flaring methane and benzene, or at risk of explosions of batteries, pipelines, etc, people are experiencing a variety of severe health effects including uncontrollable nosebleeds, migraines, cancers of the brain and organs, birth defects and low birth weight babies,  increased asthma and breathing problems.

                    http://www.who.int/ipcs/features/benzene.pdf

                    https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2017/12/13/study-newborns-close-to-fracking-site-have-higher-risk-of-low-birth-weight/

                    There are many more health studies out there, basically showing that people and animals living near gas wells and fracking operations tend to have severe health problems. This is why the Martinez case, that public health is a higher priority than gas and oil profits, has as a principle been upheld by every progressive candidate in Colorado, including your beloved Cary Kennedy.

                    But, fear not – your relatives in the gas industry will still have jobs for the forseeable future. An analyst with Colorado School of Mines found that 42% of non-federal land gas reserves will still be accessible for drilling if 112 is passed. Existing wells, of course, are grandfathered in.

                    Other studies show 53% of non-forest land is still accessible for subsurface drilling. As the cook noted, the gas and oil people have to spend more money making it work, and keeping the wellheads away from air breathing folks, and so it becomes more expensive. But 112 is not a ban.

                    Finally, the research I myself have done, using BLS stats for Colorado, indicates that at most, 2% of Colorado jobs, or about 31,000 jobs, might be slightly affected by prop 112. It's not a ban, so drillers can still work elsewhere or on existing wells. There are no 150,000 or 142,0000 or 210,000 oil and gas jobs, and there never were, even at the height of the oil boom.

                    The principle that people's health matters more than corporate profits has been adjudicated and upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court in the Martinez case. 112 is an attempt to codify that.

                    You can still make money from your mineral rights; if Carbon "fee and dividend" policies are codified into law, people, including mineral rights owners, can receive a divident for not allowing carbon into the atmosphere. "Keeping it in the ground" can become profitable.

                    Guess who likes that solution? Oil companies. It also has increasing bipartisan support, and mainstream media editorial endorsement.

                    And there is, of course, the possibility of wind turbines – plenty of farmers in NE Colorado are cashing in on space for renewable energy.

                     

                    • Voyageur says:

                      Absolute bullshit.  You, for one would never support this if it were not a ban. It is, on new drilling, in 85 percent of Colorado's private land.  

                      Why would anyone pay me to leave my natural gas in the ground when you already have your bayonet at my throat forcing me to leave it in the ground?

                      You don't give a rat's ass about my brother in law or nephew who work as oil field mechanics at $100_000 a year jobs.  But you graciously suggest they mightmake $15 an hour putting up solar panels.

                      That's mighty white of you.

                      To admit, as you do, that there are 31,000 direct jobs in the industry and then pretend that there are no secondary multiplier effect jobs is both stupid and dishonest.

                      If you are right, the workers of these jobs , averaging, $107, 000 a year, take that cash and bury it in their back yards.

                      In the real world, they buy food and clothes and cars, creating jobs in those industries.  The guy who sells the car takes his wife to dinner.  That creates a job at Olive garden.  The waitress at olive garden sends her kid to school– creating your job.  So yes, your little Stalinist scheme will cost 100,000 or more jobs when fully in place.  Probably including your own, since your school will no longer collect the taxes it now gets from the industry.

                      By the way, you will probably revive coal as a major source  of electrical power.  Solar can't handle the load all by itself and is way too expensive.

                      That's the price of Stalinist policies in the real world.

                    • mamajama55 says:

                      Replying to V's "Absolute bullshit!" comment, since we're out of reply boxes:

                      I can always tell when you are completely out of rational arguments and fact-based explanation –  you put on your Karnak hat and start trying to mind-read my motivations, thoughts, and wishes. Which somehow are always malevolent and victimize poor little you. Fumy how that works.

                      I do care about the livelihoods of oil and gas employed neighbors, even though that may be only 1-2% of the total agriculture, business, renewable, cannabis, service and hospitality economy around here.

                      Thanks, but I'll stick with the scientists who have actually analyzed the long term impacts and have concluded 1) 112 is not a ban ( 61% of land is still drillable within the Julesburg basin, when long distance horizontal drilling is deployed and 2) the health and safety impacts, especially on children, outweigh the hypothetical "takings" for mineral rights holders. The Colorado Supreme Court agrees; hence the Martinez decision.

                      You don't need to try to mansplain to me what secondary multiplier jobs are – I merely note that with oil and gas jobs consisting of only 1-2 % of the economy, the multiplier jobs are much more multiplied by all the other dominant industries with larger market share, as noted above.

                      Your coal argument is ludicrous, and I'll leave it at that. I have no taste for pig wrestling this morning, so will leave you to the tender mercies of all of the other Polsters who enjoy it.

                • Duke Cox says:

                  Almost all of what V. is saying is simply parroting the bullshit contrived and spewed by the industry. Very little of it is based in reality. The numbers are made up by twisting logic, cause and effect, and math into a forecast of economic doom. That's a bunch of crap.

                  The industry will not leave the state. They will simply have to plan better and require more directional drilling when working near human habitation. The Oily Boyz have been bullying the people of Colorado for far too many decades.

                  As you say, they brought this on themselves. The ruthless, overbearing, steamroller that is the O&G lobby has never been willing to give an inch…now they may have to give a quarter mile. But don't feel too badly for them, their drills can reach out at least 16 times that far.

                  • Voyageur says:

                    That is a deliberate untruth and you know it, Duke.  The setbacks are cumulative–2500 feet from each dwelling, almost a square mile for each dwelling.  Less than two dwellings a section can block any site.  200 dwellings in 100 square miles will block the entire 100 square miles.

                    2500 feet, by the way, is almost a half mile, not a quarter mile. And it goes in all directions — that’s a circle 5,000 feet in diameter, almost a square mile. Plus the dimensions of the house itself!

                    that is why the state estimates this Stalinist plan puts 85 percent of private land off limits.

                    • notaskinnycook says:

                      Oh, c'mon, V. The O&G companies can tap the gas from that distance. They just don't want to have to spend the money to do it. So they whine "this puts the whole state off-limits!" It's rubbish and they know it. They're counting on city folk not to. So they try to scare them with freeze-in-the- dark nonsense to save themselves the time, money and trouble to figure out a better way. The picture from the elementary school in Greeley made up my mind.

                    • Voyageur says:

                      Cookie, that is not true.  The whole point about the 2500 foot setback is that it is not a one time deal, it is cumulative.  Each dwelling freezes up 5,O00 feet.  2,500 feet in all directions.  So put 10 houses almost a mile apart and the ban is now almost 10 miles.  You can't directionally drill all the way from Kansas!

                      Visualize a checkerboard, with the black squares representing setback areas 1000 feet square — the present 500 feet in all directions — and the red squares represent places you can drill. 

                      Now increase the size of the black squares 2500 percent — 25 times.  Remember, you are going from 500 feet in all directions to 2500 feet, so that's five squared, or 25 times as big.

                      There are no Red Squares left!  

                      This is an insane plan, and would wipe out 85 percent of private land in colorado.   That includes every inch of my farm in phillips county.

                      So, of course I will join the class actio n lawsuit that landowners will file in federal court accusing the state of violating the takings clause of the U.S. Constitution.

                      Yes, you can take our property rights away.  But you have to pay us fair market value.  That will be many billions of dollars.

                      Or maybe we just beatvthis Stalinist land grab at the polls.  But in polls or in court, we will beat it.  The Constitution is on our side.

              • spaceman65 says:

                This is serious horseshit, V.  Theft of private property?  Ha.  You clearly need a legal education.

                 

                • Voyageur says:

                  I have one, Spacy.  I am a certified paralegal.  You obviously don't understand the "takings" clause.  It was designed specifically tpo stop such uncompensated confiscations as the one you are trying to pull.

                  • ParkHill says:

                    What about the "Givings Clause." If the government rezones your property, why aren't you required to reimburse the government for the extra value they gave you?

                    Or is that just plain old corruption?

                    • Voyageur says:

                      Show.me such a clause in the U.S. Constitution, Park Hill.  I don't remember it from my constitutional law classes. 

                      To be fair, you used a good line to highlight a real problem. But there is no body of law to back up your wise observation. There is a ton of “takings” law.

                  • Andrew Carnegie says:

                    V:

                    I find myself agreeing with you, at least on the takings and oil and gas.  I am sure that does not help you here.

            • Voyageur says:

              If it makes you happy, we could replace the term Stalinism with "treating people with extreme disrespect. "

              • Conserv. Head Banger says:

                Hopefully VG had a good dose of calming meds since his last comment.  😉

                If 112 does get passed; yes, it will get tied up in court. And the litigation will waste a lot of precious taxpayer dollars. 112 represents government at its worst, like TABOR. We elect legislators to do this type of work for us. Hopefully Colorado will end up with a conservation-minded governor and conservation-minded majorities in both houses of the legislature after Tuesday.

    • Hickenlooper on 74: the most dangerous idea he's ever seen, never mind seen enshrined in a state constitution.

      • Voyageur says:

        Well, 112 is worse, but they both stink.  No on 74_, hell no on 112.

        • 112 canbe overridden by the Legislature, so – no.

          • Voyageur says:

            Ahh, mj, you resort to your inevitable bottom line — I'm a man!  Men are no damn good a d therefore can contribute nothing.  Now the fact that I have a master's degree in labor economics might explain why I understandvthe concept of the multiplier effect, which apparently you never got to in your men are no damn good studies 101.  

            But I'm a man, men are no damn good and that settles it!

            Okay.  It turns out you're not ignorant about basic economics, just bigoted!  You ar e wise to quit arguing the point, you look pretty dumb when sexism is your only premise!

             

             

          • Voyageur says:

            PR: Voting for a horrible law in hopes the legislature will trim it's worst features is a very dubious plan, pr.  But you say "no." If you mean Vote no, I can live with that.  It turns out my preferred "hell no" isn't actually on the ballot : -( 

  1. RepealAndReplace says:

    The Pols masthead reads, "Protecting Us From Tax Hikes …. Vote Walker Stapleton"

    No thanks. We can protect ourselves – if we do not want tax hikes – through TABOR.

    • Gilpin Guy says:

      Protecting us from fiscally responsible government – Vote for any Republican

    • DavidThi808 says:

      I don't mind taxes. I mind taxes that are expensive for us to pay – which for all companies is the Business Property Tax and for online ones is the sales tax.

      Have just income and property tax.

      • ParkHill says:

        If you eliminate one single tax, then the others have to carry all the weight. You get some states with crazy-high property taxes because they have to cover the sales tax.

        I support all three, Income, Property & Sales tax. Of course SSN & Medicare. Not to mention, a hefty, graduated estate tax, and very hefty carbon tax.

        One reason for having all varieties of taxes is that everybody gets hit by one or the other. Even, for example, a visiting grad student from Germany would end up paying most of these taxes. Even without a SSN, visitors to our country have tax ID numbers.

        Online sales tax should probably be set to a flat, 5% or whatever, collected by the feds, and distributed to the state where the item was purchased. That levels the playing ground between online stores and local businesses.

        • Voyageur says:

          Exactly.  Keep the cost of collection and compliance low.  Ideally, federally cpllected, locally shared.  I'd go 7 pct, but the key is uniformity and simplicity.

        • DavidThi808 says:

          I'm good with a variety of taxes. And I totally agree with you on the estate and carbon taxes. Also one on financial transactions (stock trading – friction there would be a very good thing).

          It's the ones with a high cost to process I don't like. Especially the ones that make it difficult to start and run a business. We probably spend more calculating our business property tax as we have to pay.

          • Conserv. Head Banger says:

            I'm not so good with a "variety of taxes." If 73 passes, as well as Jeffco 5A and 5B, my property taxes will skyrocket. And the education bureaucrats will party hearty for days afterwards.

            • Voyageur says:

              On the other hand, CHB, if you think education is expensive, wait till you see the price of ignorance.

              Ignorance already brought us Donald Trump.

              Local school taxes I pay willingly, though like you and Sudafed, I voted against the weird and contradictory 73.

              • Conserv. Head Banger says:

                Knowing the JeffCo school bureaucracy as I do; being a JeffCo resident for 23 1/2 years now; I haven't found any reason to support the dishonest bureaucracy since I fell for their disingenuous proposals in 2004. If they ever come in with a reasonable, well explained, proposal, I'll look seriously at a 'yes' vote.

              • RepealAndReplace says:

                I did the same: voted for the local Jeffco school tax measures but against 73.

                They may still get to party in Jeffco but perhaps not as hardy as they will if 73 passes.

  2. mamajama55 says:

    Michele Austin of Save Our State pushed another anti-Polis lying ad ("POLIS WANTS TO ABOLISH ICE!!!") to my phone this morning. It costs about .40  per click to push those ads to Androids, according to Google analytics price list.

    So how does Austin's little, GOP funded, non-tax exempt business manage to fund those lying anti-Polis ads? Perhaps Austin's friends in the state legislature and the GOP dark money  Colorado Leadership Fund are helping her bankroll it.

    Polis' people should go after Austin for defamation. What we can do: report her ads to  Google. She should not be getting discounted rates for her political smear ads.  I didn't capture this morning's "Polis wants to abolish ICE!" gem, but did get last week's ad implying that Polis is somehow targeting children's "innocence":

    A new ad claims that Polis “wants to force LGBT rights on 6 year olds.” That’s right – Austin’s SaveourState is accusing Polis of child molestation.

    Austin is aided in this propaganda by Rachel Blaha Keane, who is producing and acting in the videos. Keane is the daughter of failed US Senate candidate Robert Blaha. She has a video production company and a youtube channel as conservativemomma.com”


    Email at localservices-profile-photos@google.com.

    Then there is the infamous “Polis Brings Sharia Law to the Schools” saveourstate ad that went out on Twitter and was also pushed to Androids via Google ads:

    I'm allowing these ads on my Android, just so I can see what Austin is promoting, but you can also block Android ads if you don't want to see them. If enough people do this, specifically referencing the saveourstate ads, that will also send a message to Google.

    • RepealAndReplace says:

      Another non-sensical ad from those morons. Assuming arguendo that he wanted to abolish ICE, he should have run for re-election to the House where he could actually have started the process. The governor of Colorado had no jurisdiction over ICE.

      • mamajama55 says:

        Austin's Saveourstate is also attacking Polis as gay; their latest ad says "LGBT rights? Sure, but Polis wants to force them on your 6 year old."

        I didn't get a screenshot of that one, but I will.

        And here it is…..disgusting, no?

      • Voyageur says:

        Logic?  You want logic from the "my granddad was a klansman and I 'm proud of it" crowd.

        From a guy who played hooky from the treasurer's job for four years and wants promoted to governor?

      • Genghis says:

        The governor of Colorado had no jurisdiction over ICE.

        You and your "facts," R&R. Point is, Polis hates America and little American children. If elected, he'll probably move the governor's office to the U.S.-Mexico border so he can Sherpa in all those MS13 gangstas. 

    • RepealAndReplace says:

      She is all for gay rights. Which to her consists entirely of the right to live in a comfortable closet.

  3. DavidThi808 says:

    If you want a break from the election, here's a diary I just wrote about the state trying to drive local online businesses bankrupt.

    I am so glad I started my company before this giant business killer went into effect.

     

    • Voyageur says:

      I long advocated an internet sales tax, because otherwise tax-avoiding out of state sal es kill the local businesses that give somuch to our community.

      but here is my plan: 

      A single rate, statewide, for all internet sales, representing the average tax.  Hypothetically, 7 pct.

      if I order $100 from Epic Dental in Utah — a great company — they collect $7 in taxes.

      once a quarter, Epic Dental tallies those taxes.  If they sent $3 million to Colorado buye rs, they collected $210,00 in taxes.  They send that ckeck to Colorado.

      Four times a year, the state treasurer takes those payments and divides them among taxing authorities — so much for Jefferson county, so much for lakewood, so much for Rtd.  You could use the old federal revenue sharing formula.  Or write a new one based on the districts population and tax rate.  If Jefferson county collects 2.1 percent of total sales taxes, it gets 2.1 pct ofbthis fund.  

      a high sales tax jurisdiction like Denver gets a bit less, a low tax one like yuma county a bit more.  But business has a fairly level playing field and it is easy and simple forveveryone.

       

      • DavidThi808 says:

        Five years ago I would have signed on to that. Now I think we need a tax we pay nationwide. Because companies purchase our software and it then goes on machines all over the place (including other countries).

        And we're charging a monthly fee so what do we do when the software gets moved to a server in another state and the monthly charges from that point forward should now be taxed in another state?

        The state is about 5 cycles behind in this and working to be only 3 cycles behind.

        • Voyageur says:

          The single tax plan would work even better on a national basis.  That 7 pct sales tax offset goes to the u.s. Treasury.  Once a quarter it goes back to states and local governments under the old federal revenue sharing formula.  The key is sharing the revenue with local taxing sources and equalizing the playing field among internet and brick and mortar businesses.

          The problem is getting Congress to do anthing.  But a single tax, just one jurisdiction and one set of what is taxed and exempt.  KISS  keep it simple stupid.

        • Davie says:

          This morning's Denver Post has a good article on this topic.  V'ger — the problem with your solution, while a good one, is spelled TABOR.

          For now, there is some relief for small business:

          State officials see the hurdles that lie ahead. The rules start Dec. 1 but an enforcement grace period will run through March 31.  A website dedicated to the rule change is advertising free live webinars. That same site directs business owners to a trio of free tax-by-address databases. If a retailer uses the site but collects the wrong tax they are free of liability, officials say.

          Longer term:

          Colorado officials have been trying for years to simplify the state’s rules. State Rep. Tracy Kraft-Tharp chairs the bipartisan Sales and Use Tax Simplification Task Force, which first convened in 2017.

          The task force previously supported a bill that put out a request for information from software companies that might offer a one-stop sales tax portal for the state. In the 2019 legislative session, Kraft-Tharp said the group is planning a bill that will authorize the Department of Revenue to put out a request to companies that could provide a system like that.

          The Arvada Democrat said creating a unified tax rate in Colorado is nearly impossible.

  4. Davie says:

    And for anyone that just doesn't have enough to worry about, there are a bunch of Right-Wing Christian Nationalist nutcases, who believe in the Christian dominionist ideology, according to which God has commanded true Christians to gain control of seven areas of civilization — including government, business, education and the media.

    Nutter is no doubt not only familiar with them, but likely a follower.

    • Voyageur says:

      Is the NFL one of the seven areas?  If so, the Broncos are not doing God's work.😠

      • Davie says:

        Well, since RWNJ's seem to have temporarily, at least, gained a foothold in govt, education, media and business, resulting in our current nightmare, yes, it is possible they have tainted even our beloved Broncos.  May their unholy infestation be lifted soon!  They worship a false God and will suffer eternal damnation, much worse than the one they visit upon us now on Earth.

        And yes, Nutter, I'm talkin' about you!

  5. unnamed says:

    Who thinks that this picture is a good idea for your campaign lit?

    • mamajama55 says:

      That's definitely the lesser of two Nevils.

      Good slogan, huh? You have the same prob with graphics that I do when I try to resize them too small- it does weirdies with the comment window. Size it at least 750 px across to cure it.

    • Conserv. Head Banger says:

      Oh yeah. Breitbart indeed! And a reference in the article to the Daily Caller, another far right wing rag. No thanks, Andrew. I'll get my right leaning fix from the Weekly Standard and the National Review. 

  6. spaceman65 says:

    Sorry, V, but I have a law license and 25 years in practice, including takings cases.

    • Genghis says:

      It's been a VERY long time since I looked into this, but IIRC the rule in regulatory takings cases back in the day was that a land use reg isn't actionable under the 5th Amendment at all unless the reg leaves the owner with no economically viable use of his property at all. How do courts look at 5th Amendment regulatory takings nowadays?

      • Voyageur says:

        I think that is still the rule but, 1. Remember the property here is not my farm but the separate.mineral rights — which in my case and thousands of othe rs are completely useless if Stalinist 122 passes.

        2.  Conservatives have attcked on these front s for years, notably in the barrier island cases.  When you look at the rightward lurch in the courts, I wouldn't be confident if I was in the freeze in the dark faction.  74, of course, removes any doubt but the good old 5th amendment should have prompted the Stalinists to consider compromise.  They did not, and here we are.  But opposition is mounting and organized labor has entered the fray in defense of the thousands of good paying jobs 122 would destroy.  I think we have an excellent shot of beating this barf bag at the polls.  If not, sigh, it’s off to court we go.  Justice Gorsuch: Phone Home!

  7. notaskinnycook says:

    Does anyone know where the election night watch parties are going to be? I've looked at both the Denver and state Dems sites and can't find a word about them. We don't really want to watch the returns come in from our sofa if we don't have to.

  8. mamajama55 says:

    This cheerleader kneeled during the anthem before a recent 49ers game.

    Considering that she is probably paid below minimum wage, (Pear hasn't advocated for her yet…..but she has a call in to him), has to deal with constant harassment, and has no job security, this was an extraordinarily courageous way to protest police killings of unarmed people, mostly people of color, and the mentally ill.

    What it's really like to be an NFL cheerleader

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.