U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(D) Julie Gonzales

(R) Janak Joshi

80%

40%

20%

(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser
55%

50%↑
Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Hetal Doshi

50%

40%↓

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) J. Danielson

(D) A. Gonzalez
50%↑

20%↓
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Jeff Bridges

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

50%↑

40%↓

30%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(D) Wanda James

(D) Milat Kiros

80%

20%

10%↓

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Alex Kelloff

(R) H. Scheppelman

60%↓

40%↓

30%↑

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) E. Laubacher

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

30%↑

20%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Jessica Killin

55%↓

45%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Shannon Bird

(D) Manny Rutinel

45%↓

30%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 10, 2010 12:10 AM UTC

The Eternal Delusions of Colorado Springs' Right-Wing Minds

  •  
  • by: davidsirota

(We continue to be fascinated with what has happened in Colorado Springs. If you haven’t been following, Colorado Springs is actually finding out what happens when you cut taxes and cut spending indefinitely (hint: it ain’t good) – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Colorado Springs councilman Sean Paige has a funny – and telling – screed up defending Colorado Springs from, well, the basic facts. He accuses my recent column and the Denver Post’s recent front-page story of “slurring” his city by reporting on the draconian budget cuts its anti-tax zealotry are now compelling.

I’m not quite sure how simply recounting cuts to police, firefighting, park services, road maintenance is a “slur,” but then, I’ve learned not to try to make sense of the eternal delusions of a right-wing mind. What I can, however, do is point out some of the “tells” – the poker term for a bluffing player’s giveaways:

– Paige says Colorado Springs attracts new residents and economic growth “by actually putting America’s limited government ideals into practice.” In this, he asks us to forget that one of the city’s biggest employers is the defense industry – that is, an industry that has absolutely nothing to do with “limited government” and everything to do with the hugest of Huge Government. Here’s the Colorado Springs Business Journal:

One of every three residents of the Pikes Peak Region depends directly or indirectly upon the military. According to the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, the total economic impact of the military in Colorado Springs is $4.58 billion. This represents more than one third of the total regional economy.

That’s right, one of every three people living in the Colorado Springs area “depends directly or indirectly upon the military” – ie. upon Huge Government. Add in city, county and state workers, and you are probably approaching half of the entire Colorado Springs economy relying on the government. In that sense, Colorado Springs is an American version of almost pure Marxism: a city that is as close as any major city in the United States to being a full-fledged ward of the state (only one that is now planning to stop its road/park maintenance, cut police/firefighting forces, etc.).

Whether you support this kind of Huge Government or not – whether you think a city relying so heavily on military spending is a good or bad thing – that spending’s size and centrality to the Colorado Springs economy is undeniable, as is it’s antithesis to the concept of “limited,” small or efficient government. You don’t have to trust me, the guy who Paige calls a “statist” (do people even use that red-baiting McCarthy-esque word anymore?). You can look at the bloated $700 billion annual defense budget, or you can look to people John McCain and Don Rumsfeld who have repeatedly noted just how wasteful the government’s defense budget really is (I wonder if Paige believes McCain and Rummy are “statists,” too?).*

– As evidence that Colorado Springs is a great place, Paige cites magazine fluff rankings, many from right-wing business publications like Forbes. Frankly, I never said Colorado Springs wasn’t a good and decent place, and didn’t have real potential, nor do I wish it ill will. Quit the opposite: I simply argued that its tax and spending decisions are tragically threatening some of the very social fabric that would help it fulfill its potential. Maybe he believes that a city that will now severely slash its basic security and firefighting forces and its road maintenance (to name just a few things) is a way to preserve a city’s future – but my guess is many mainstream business people and voters would disagree.

– Hilariously, in puffing out his chest with fake outrage, Paige actually concedes the very fundamental point of my column and the Denver Post’s article. “Voters could have helped the city out several months back, by approving a property tax increase,” he writes. Yes, Paige correctly says voters could have helped their city out by doing that. And yet, he then says its a “slur” to say, um, exactly that. Odd…or, really, beyond odd. Insane.

So what to make of Paige’s incoherence? I’d say it’s a reflection of the incoherence of conservative ideology in general. The right will desperately paint the biggest of big government as “limited government,” attempt to change the subject, and then – preposterously – argue that it’s somehow a “slur” to argue something that the right quietly concedes. These are the eternal delusions of the right-wing mind – and as I said to start, it is a fool’s errand to try to make sense of them.

* To those right-wingers who might argue that the Constitution specifically calls for the funding of defense, and therefore massive Pentagon spending represents “limited government,” let me add two things: 1) The Constitution does not specifically call for a defense budget so wasteful that the Pentagon has literally lost $2 trillion (and here’s hoping nobody will actually argue that the Founding Fathers would be happy with that sad state of affairs) and 2) The Constitution has a “general welfare” clause, too – and yet, I don’t hear conservatives saying that, say, municipal police, fire fighters, roads, parks, etc. (much less national health care) represent “limited government.”

Comments

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

58 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!