CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


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

(D) Joe Neguse*


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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
December 04, 2010 08:44 PM UTC

Frank McNulty: Hates Your Car, Too!

  • by: Colorado Pols

Before we get to the main subject of today’s story in the Denver newspaper regarding incoming GOP Speaker Frank McNulty, which is his apparent reversal on the repeal of the 2009 FASTER transportation revenue measure, we think it’s useful to take a step back and think about the rhetoric directed against FASTER and its proponents in the last two years.

In July of 2009, the Colorado Independent covered the heat of FASTER outrage:

[T]he hikes have rallied state Republican lawmakers like Colorado Springs Republican Kent Lambert. He’s tweeting all about it. He calls the hikes “Ritter’s illegal car tax” and is encouraging people to come out and protest.

“Governor Ritter hates your car!”

In his weekly newsletter, House Minority Leader Mike May urged citizens to pressure Ritter to revise the law in reaction to “the public backlash” and provided phone and email contacts for the governor…

The same month, news reports breathlessly told the tale of extra police offers posted at DMVs, and terrible plight of then-gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis and the $100 late fee he owed on his “sheep camp” trailer. And let’s not forget the Moffat County clerk’s taxpayer-funded protest cards to the governor. Conservative columnists and radio hosts demonized the “car tax” at every possible opportunity, to the extent that it was arguably the most visible Democratic policy at the state level going into the 2010 elections.

Reporter Tim Hoover of the Denver newspaper does a good job today recounting some of the bellicose rhetoric about FASTER that McNulty and others freely employed on the campaign trail this year–unquestionably, the strident promise to repeal FASTER won Republicans some votes, in any number of the many close legislative races decided last month.

You see where we’re going with this, don’t you?

If you’re a “Tea Party”-sympathetic conservative reading this story today, you can pretty much only feel betrayed–the secondary considerations about practicality, bond ratings, none of that is likely to move you. If you supported FASTER in 2009 as a necessary measure to partially fund repairs to Colorado’s decaying roads and bridges, there are two ways to look at this. You can applaud McNulty for his apparent change of heart toward the reasonable, perhaps recognizing that McNulty is more likely simply choosing his battles–FASTER may quickly become small potatoes compared to the looming fights over redistricting and health care implementation.

However, you might also make sure, while appropriately thanking McNulty for ‘coming to Jesus,’ that every voter in Colorado knows something fairly important: the whole campaign to undermine FASTER, more to the point the Democrats who passed it, was a sham.

It seems to us that the two are not mutually exclusive; but Democrats have a tendency to be so giddy that a Republican is suddenly agreeing with them after the election, they blow off priceless chances to hold Republicans accountable for what they said before the election.


29 thoughts on “Frank McNulty: Hates Your Car, Too!

  1. throughout the campaign. They called for a repeal of FASTER, to be followed by finding a “dependable revenue stream” for highways. All without raising taxes, of course.

    If any reporters tried to hold their feet to the fire during the campaign, I missed it.

  2. So, if I read this correctly, the new Republican leadership that has yet to be sworn in or make a single motion as the majority has started to take on water and is beginning to flounder under its own lack of maturity and experience?

    I guess McNulty has a problem seeing icebergs?

    This could become an embarassing – but mercifully short – ascendancy to power.

    And that doesn’t even count Hoover’s obvious bias against the Republicans and for the Democrats.  Pace may not need Hoover this year.

  3. It’s not like deficits matter – cause they don’t.

    It’s not like big debt matters – it doesn’t.

    I hate your car too – you don’t see me complaining aobout.  Cut taxes, build more roads and bridges.  

    1. Does your group think you’ll raise revenue by cutting taxes on the rich, because they’ll suddenly stop seeking tax shelters out of the goodness of their hearts and their civic responsibility? Or do you just think everyone is too stupid to see through your scam?

      Fuck off and die, scumbag scammer.

      1. It’s actually more complicated than that.

        I don’t want the debt inflated away, or dollar devalued away, though that would be better.

        I, and others with assets, would rather cut spending.  So I gotta convince you – and the Senate – that inflation is bad, bad, bad.   And that only big spending reductions will work.

        If I have to buy the media to get that message out – ok, it’s the price of being a patriotic American citizen.

        1. Hence the word “and.”

          Either you’re the official representative of scammer assholes like Peter Peterson who want to dress up giant corporate tax cuts in Ross Perot rhetoric, or you’re an impersonator troll with a weak sense of humor. Either way, my offer stands.

          1. I chose the latter of this false choice.

            As to your command – seems like a tough way to persuade strangers and win friends.  Whatever floats your yacht boat

              1. Eisenhower – no. The international liquidity of capital investment and cash in general means we would be riving out those dollars.  Or driving them to divert payments to dividends and cap gains instead of “income”. (It’s all income.)

                Reagan after the tax increase. (Which was a little over 2.5% of GDP – the largest increase ever, and way bigger than what should happen Jan 1.)

                We need infrastructure sure. But what we really need is innovation.

                P= f(K,L,A)

                K- capital


                A innovation

                Romer should get the Nobel for his work on A.

                And it should be something like productive output is some positive function of capital, labor and innovaiton, where innovation is subject to a positive multiplier that ranges from 1- 100’s or more.

                How do we invest in innovation?

                If we do it well- the resulting positive impact to GDP coupled with Congressional restraint, makes the deficit do what it should, like it did in the 15 years after 1946.

                1. cut of all military spending to mercenary corporations like Xe. Stop building weapons for WW2 style battles, those aren’t happening anymore. Cut military and defense spending by 2/3. Make sure Vets are taken care of. Cut the active military in half.  

                    1. and Kusinch both think that cutting defense spending is the way to get the budget under control. We don’t need to be engaged in 2 active wars. We don’t need bases in Europe or Japan. We need to get out of Central and South America.

                      You can either be a democracy or an empire, not both.  

                    2. I’m not saying these are not spending reductions, just that neither party has shown a willingness to do anything about it.

                      So I say why try? Borrow like there’s no tomorrow, it will all work out somehow.

                1. Which is why we should cut taxes even further, to generate more tax revenue.  Then, after we get the debt under control, we can get serious about deficit spending.

                  But until then – why should we pay it when we can fob it off on our children and grandchildren?

    1. if he would’ve said it before the election.

      Being Republican in this climate must be fun.  

      Ponies for all!  Ha!  You aren’t getting any ponies.  A Democrat shot him.  Because we are the adults in the room.  Suck it, Silver. (He can’t.  Silver’s dead.)

    1. Was when he had to decide between what was best politically (for him) and what was best for the country, he picked what was best for the country. I don’t think you’ll see any of the Republicans in D.C. making that mistake again…

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

55 readers online now


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