U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

60%↑

40%↑

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) J. Danielson

(R) Sheri Davis
50%

40%

30%
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(D) Jeff Bridges

(R) Kevin Grantham

40%

40%

30%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

45%↓

40%↑

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
April 10, 2023 07:12 AM UTC

Monday Open Thread

  • 31 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“I always wondered why somebody doesn’t do something about that. Then I realized I was somebody.”

–Lily Tomlin

Tweet
Share

Comments

31 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread”

  1. Climate Change Housing Bubble. From Yale Climate Connections.

    Increased flooding from climate change is worsening this overvalued property bubble. And such estimates don’t account for the effects of climate change-intensified wildfires, drought, and extreme heat. For example, the surge in catastrophic wildfires in California in recent years has contributed to a major affordable-housing and insurance crisis in the state. Lack of water in dry states with water availability issues, like Arizona and California, has also created increased risk of property overvaluation. In addition, a rise in extreme heat from a warming climate combined with a growing urban heat island effect is likely to make living in hot cities like Phoenix and Miami undesirable for an increasing number of people in coming decades, potentially depressing property values there.

    Property overvaluation is particularly widespread among low-income households, which tend to be located in high-risk flood areas where land is cheaper. Poorer neighborhoods also receive fewer government dollars for flood protection infrastructure compared to wealthier neighborhoods, causing disproportionately high flood losses. If a crash in real estate values occurs, the U.S. wealth gap is likely to widen, because many households’ most valuable asset is their home.

    1. Jake Bittle’s must-read book, “The Great Displacement” (see my review) does a great job explaining why so many people live in high-risk flood areas:

       

       

       

      For most of the preceding century, developers had been moving into floodplains, not out of them. Real estate tycoons in coastal states like New Jersey and Florida had erected thousands of houses on beachfronts and barrier islands, and engineers in inland areas had drained countless rivers and swamps to allow for construction on formerly uninhabitable land. The rapid pace of this construction was in part the result of ignorance about how floods worked, but it was also the result of an economic dynamic that sociologists call the “growth machine”: more construction meant more money for developers, more people living in waterfront towns and cities, and more tax revenue for local governments. A booming tax base allowed more spending on public services, which in turn attracted more people, created more demand for construction, and spread more money around. At least in the short term, everyone in a community won.

       

       

      The federal government served as the de facto protector of this growth machine, a task it fulfilled through two major agencies. The first was the US Army Corps of Engineers, the nation’s principal builder of flood walls, levees, artificial beaches, and other structures that protected people from water. The other major player was FEMA, a younger agency that represented a mishmash of several different departments and distributed material aid after disasters. Both these agencies had always endeavored to keep flood-prone communities where they were, not move them elsewhere: the Corps wrapped levees and seawalls around existing towns to protect them from flooding, and FEMA stepped in after flood disasters to help people rebuild. This unspoken remain-in-place policy reflected the desires of the people who lived in these communities, most of whom had no desire to leave their homes, but it allowed residents of flood-prone areas to avoid bearing the burden of the risk they were incurring. If riverfront towns had had to finance their own levees and self-fund their own disaster recovery, their leaders might have thought twice about building next to the water, but that had never been the case. For as long as FEMA and the Army Corps underwrote the cost of living in risky places, whether through flood protection or post-disaster aid, vulnerable communities had both the incentive and ability to stay put.

  3. Here’s an interesting article — gift link for WAPO, so anyone can go and read.

    Seas have drastically risen along southern U.S. coast in past decade

    Scientists have documented an abnormal and dramatic surge in sea levels along the U.S. gulf and southeastern coastlines since about 2010, raising new questions about whether New Orleans, Miami, Houston and other coastal communities might be even more at risk from rising seas than once predicted….

    One study suggests that recent devastating hurricanes, including Michael in 2018 and Ian last year, were made considerably worse by a faster-rising ocean. Federal tide gauge data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration suggest that the sea level, as measured by tide gauge at Lake Pontchartrain in New Orleans, is eight inches higher than it was in 2006, just after Hurricane Katrina….

    Data from NOAA show that “high tide flooding,” even on sunny days, has more than doubled throughout the Gulf Coast and Southeast coastal regions since 2000.

    I’m figuring disasters and “ordinary” flooding are going to dramatically impact states along the Gulf of Mexico coasts — higher water will impact people directly AND via higher utility rates, insurance rates, and taxes.  As those hit increase and the population diminishes, those higher costs will be covered by fewer people. 

    The “what’s in it for me” Republican voters will soon face choices — libertarian ideology that randomly and unexpectedly bites them (and not the people in the next county) or a stronger government mandating broader risk pools and “socialized” acceptance of costs.

  4. From Charles Ashby (Grand Junction Sentinel) on Twitter:

    No jail for Tina Peters, but 120 hours community service, a fine and 4 months home detention with ankle monitor. Defense says it will appeal. Sentence stayed until then.

    1. Maybe she will do her community service by volunteering to be an election judge.

      As for the ankle monitor, that is nice but can they also put some duct tape over her pie hole?

      1. Do you really want her in polling places telling every voter who comes in they can't trust the voting equipment?

        I think better community service for any GOPer who gets it is to serve in a soup kitchen or other assistance for the homeless/poor. With any luck they might actually see the failures in GOP economic policies.

    1. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also suggested that the FDA, under Biden, ignore the TX ruling and refuse to enforce the judge’s stay on abortion pill mifepristone.

      Is this a case where “The extremes meet in the middle”, and that’s a good thing?

      Then, if the dueling judge decisions on mifepristone did go to the Supremes, they would have to rule about whether the FDA must enforce the stay and reverse 23 years of safe practice  using mifepristone. Are they that radical? I don’t know. But I hear that  it absolutely is NOT the fault of Republicans. We must blame Democrats over the last three decades, somehow. Especially progressives and females…it’s all their fault.

      Somehow,  Mitch McConnell, Judges Alito and Thomas, and all Republicans who stonewalled Obama’s court picks are presumed innocent in this matter, and we must blame Jill Stein. There are no other causes for the degradation of abortion law in this country.  Close up that circular firing squad,. Fire! Oh, yeah, don’t forget to Aim!

      OK, that reasoning is ridiculous. But I agree with Mace and Ocasio-Cortez that ignoring the ridiculous Kacsmaryk ruling is the best thing to do to preserve abortion rights. 

      The people who strategically placed a “pro-birth” majority on the Supreme Court also planned years of chaos and misinformation, and that women throughout the US would not know exactly what the law says, or that their pharmacists and doctors would not know if they were violating the law by prescribing or filling a mifeprestone prescription. They want families to be confused and in fear. They want people in red states to be afraid to go to a blue state for an abortion – afraid even to have a telehealth visit and get their prescription through the mail.

      And it isn’t just about abortion. Mifepristone is also used to help people complete natural miscarriages. If this is allowed to stand, what other safe drugs for contraception (or other uses / diseases) will be targeted?

      Above all, they want to make all regulators afraid to regulate. If just one crackpot judge in Texas can invalidate the work of teams of scientists over a period of years, and negate twenty plus years of safe use of a drug, then all regulation is suspect. That’s what they want.

      We can’t let them have what they want.

       

      1. Well, I did post about this subject over the weekend on another thread, but I cannot miss the opportunity to reply to La Pomposa, Mother Superior of the Sisters of Perpetual Victimhood …

        "We must blame Democrats over the last three decades, somehow. Especially progressives and females…it’s all their fault."

        It's not only the fault of women. As I've mentioned before, Ralph Nader gave us Samuel Alito, 9/11, Bush's invasion of Iraq, the economic meltdown of 2008, etc., etc. Alito, of course, was the author of the Dobbs decision.

        Note:  neither Nader nor Stein were Democrats. they, like their colleague in ego and vanity, Kirsten Sinema, were members of the Green Party. I'm not blaming Democrats, I'm blaming screwballs.

        I cannot blame McConnell because he did exactly what he said he would do. He had an objective, he had a strategy to achieve it, and he executed it flawlessly. Although I disagree vehemently with what he wanted to do, I have to admire his ability to achieve his goal. The left could and should learn from that. But there probably isn't much chance of that happening.

        Alan Simpson, who was one of my favorite Republican senators, back in the '80's said that we had two parties in this county:  The Stupid Party and The Hypocrite Party. He then proudly pronounced himself a member of the stupid party.

        The Hypocrite Party prides itself on many things one of which is more, better-educated members. But somehow the Stupid Party know how to achieve their objectives even though they are numerically outnumbered. How else do you win three of the last six elections while winning the popular vote only once?

        Lucy, yank that football away!

        1. OK, Rinse and Repeat. Enough of trying to take the high road, ignore your bait, or debate actual policy…..we’ll just trade personal  insults from here on out. Polsters will scroll past it all til their eyes glaze over. But first, kindly point out the “victimhood” inherent in bipartisan urging to ignore the ridiculous Kacsmaryk ruling negating 23 years of safe use of the abortifacient mifepristone. That is still the actual topic of this thread,  before you attempted to derail it into silly insults. 

          You have plenty of entitled grievance “ victimhood”  yourself, when you whine about “ your “ tax dollars supporting social services for poor and unhoused people. As if they themselves haven’t paid taxes at a much higher percent of their income than you ever have, or ever will. But you insist that you are the real economic victim here.

          As with all Republicans, which you were for many years, every accusation is a confession. Or projection. But I do enjoy when you show readers exactly who you really are. 

          1. "As if they themselves haven’t paid taxes at a much higher percent of their income"

            What income? That is the problem. If you are counting TANF benefits as income, then maybe they do pay sales taxes with money they receive as "income."

            BTW, I am a big fan of exempting low-earning workers from paying income taxes. I am a big fan of expanding Medicaid to allow the working poor to continue to get health care. But you notice the common denominator:  people who are able to work and who do work.

            One of the few benefits of the new Republican House is that they will probably try to tie public benefits to drug testing. I'm guessing you will disagree because, well — because it is stigmatizing indigent crackheads and tweakers?

             

            2. I have no problem tying public benefits to drug testing – as long as "drugs" includes all opioids and excludes legal cannabis products.

               Also,  all public benefits should be included – so subsidies for fossil fuel production, excess PPP benefits for companies that laid off workers, farmer subsidies for not growing crops or insuring crops that don't grow, fields that lie fallow, etc.

              So the meth and fentanyl and oxy and coke heads snorting and smoking away your tax dollars shouldn't get a break just because they wear suits and work in penthouse suites. I would include alcohol in the group of drugs to be tested, and which would preclude receiving benefits, if we could define "abuse" of alcohol, ( and cannabis)  since these are legal drugs for adults.

              Probably, "abuse" would have to be tied to a crime involving alcohol or cannabis.  So Walker Stapleton, the Bush family, the Boeberts, other politicians….no freebies for them. Mere use of a legal substance wouldn't constitute abuse unless a crime was committed while intoxicated.

              Since I work with adults in recovery and rehabilitation, I know there has to be an off-ramp – some way of showing recovery: months of sobriety, attendance at 12 step meetings, restorative justice process. There should be a way that people could receive public benefits again once they show that they are no longer a danger to the public.

              1. I have no problem tying public benefits to drug testing – as long as “drugs” includes all opioids and excludes legal cannabis products.

                I agree with your addition of all opioids, but I disagree with your omission of weed and alcohol. I should have included in my reference to tweaker and crackheads, actively using alcohol.

                I also agree with you that someone’s status as having been an actively using drug addict should not be a lifetime ban on receiving any kind of public benefits.

                If an applicant can show so sustained effort and some degree of success at sobriety, then they would become re-eligible.

                And this isn’t just for TANF benefits but Section 8 housing, student loans, etc.

                Hard as it may be to believe, I do think people should be afforded a second chance.

            3. Got any evidence that public benefits tied to drug testing actually works in some fashion?  High school debate rounds years ago left me with the impression that such a tie:

               * doesn't diminish drug use;  There isn't much to begin with (I don't remember details, but Arizona had a rule and if I recall correctly, the tests turned up less than 1% of those tested).  And there was little evidence that those stripped of benefits actually changed their behavior.

               * has a minimal impact on the overall need for public benefits by those in the family who are NOT abusing drugs, but may increase the extent of overall homelessness and family dysfunction; and

               * may even increase the incentives for people to become sellers of drugs, thus broadening the number of users.

              So, what benefits have been demonstrated?

              1. I’m not aware of any recent long term studies on tying drug testing to benefits.

                I should say that I personally favor tying drug testing to benefits, and increasing availability of free or low-cost therapy and addiction treatment for indigent people.

                What I see, working with folks in rehabilitation/ recovery, is that recidivism is a vicious cycle….and can’t be separated from the overall environment of low wage work and high cost housing, racial and other discrimination.

                If drug testing were tied to mandatory, and free or low cost, culturally responsive therapy and treatment, we would have many less long term addicts on the streets ( and in the boardrooms ).

                So I’m approaching ramping up testing for illegal drugs as a practical matter, not a moral or financial issue. We have to get a hold on this “pandemic” , which is what  people in recovery call Fentanyl use. If you don’t believe me, drive around West Colfax from Sheridan to Wadsworth and count the number of people at bus stops, huffing smoke under blankets and coats. Most of them, contrary to popular myth, had jobs, families, and homes at some time. Addiction and substance abuse, plus low wage / high rent / low housing availability, put them on the streets.
                Fentanyl is a powerful, profitable, vicious, pernicious, cheap, easy to smuggle drug. It’s now paired with “Trank”, a veterinary tranquilizer that causes long term brain damage.

                “. I’m tired of watching people waste their lives. I’m part of the solution, but there is so much more that could be and should be done.

                That is probably where LB and I part ways after our brief moment of accord on this.

                 

              2. Wake me on the day when we start drug testing for estate tax exemptions, tax credits, and farm subsidy payments eligibilities.

            4. Kwtree's correct. just FICA takes a big chunk of a minimum wage worker's pay. It's not technically a tax, but it's money the working poor don't have the use of for the foreseeable future. The Feds used to be able to tell them it was an investment in their retirement, but it's a coin flip whether it will be there by the time they reach 60-whatever and want to retire. 

               

  6. Lauren Boebert's Eldest Son's Car Wreck Injured Friend, Led to Criminal Charges
     

    Tyler's slap on the wrist included court-ordered driving school through Colorado's "Alive at 25" driver's awareness program and a mandatory review hearing scheduled for today, April 10, to make sure the soon-to-be father completed the course, the clerk's office says.

    But according to D'Amato, the Boebert family has yet to take any real responsibility for the accident. 

     

Leave a Comment

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

67 readers online now

Newsletter

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

Colorado Pols