7
Mar 2025
7Mar 2025 Letters
Letters: Mayor Mike Johnston delivers a moral victory for Denver with his D.C. testimony

Johnston delivers a moral victory for Denver

Re: “Johnston stays even-keeled during congressional hearing,” March 6 news story

Kudos to Mayor Mike Johnston for his testimony to the House Oversight Committee, where he stated that Denver’s decision to provide shelter to immigrants bussed here from Texas was based on deep moral values. Kudos as well for being a man of faith, quoting the Bible to a Congress containing many fundamentalist legislators. Denver’s willingness to help people in need stands in stark contrast to the lack of a moral compass in many of the elected, appointed and non-elected individuals claiming to lead our country.

Bob Bassett, Denver

Do we really need more open space in Lakewood?

As a resident of Lakewood and a supporter of new housing to meet the needs of our young working families, as well as someone who often walks Lakewoods many parks, I thought I would look at and compare our available open space to our neighboring cities.

Here are the per-person numbers of the amount of open space per-person in each city based on each city’s total acres of open space and its population: Lakewood 2,067 sq.ft.; Littleton 1,372 sq.ft.; Arvada 1,220 sq.ft.; Aurora 882 sq.ft.; City of Denver 379 sq.ft.

As you can see, Lakewood already has a much larger percentage of open space per capita than any of its neighboring cities. In fact, Lakewood could grow its population by a large percentage and still have more open space per capita than its neighboring cities.

Is there really a need for more open space in Lakewood? Or are those leading that battle for more open space just an anti-growth, anti-density coalition wanting to prevent new housing opportunities for new families; the creation of new construction, retail, and service jobs that come with and follow new residential developments; the resulting larger property tax base new residential developments bring, and a more vibrant economy fueled by new residences, new residents, new jobs, and a larger tax base? Just look at the numbers.

Louis Kolker, Lakewood

Making the case against urban sprawl

Re: “Denser housing vs. the ‘burbs,” March 4 news story

Density is not evil, but urban sprawl is. Urban sprawl promotes the consumption of open space, demands the use of the car for everything, consumes the natural habitat, and creates the ideal setting for wildfires. If we are to continue to promote economic growth, we need to promote alternatives to sprawl, such as transit-oriented development.

Concentrated urban living promotes neighborhood, convenience and more available open space for everyone to enjoy. And there is ample evidence that density does not increase crime per capita. Rather, density can reduce crime by putting more eyes on the street.

Richard von Luhrte, Denver

Let’s get speeding, reckless traffic under control

I try to avoid sarcasm, but this is a fair question: Is there any traffic violation enforcement in Denver? I’m setting aside the failure to require motorists to have plates and up-to-date registration of vehicles. I’m speaking of unticketed reckless driving.

One hardly has to go 10 blocks before seeing motorists driving 20 miles over the limit, running stoplights and signs, and weaving in and out of traffic dangerously. Where is the enforcement? As scarce as hens’ teeth.

One result is a soaring number of accidents and even injuries, which in turn drives insurance costs — for all of us — sky high. Granted, there are other drivers of those rates, but as to accidents alone, one need only look at the number of accident lawyer billboards to know insurance costs are ballooning. Hiring more traffic officers should be a priority. There are many traffic control devices, monitors and signs. Employ them — widely.

Bruce Smith, Denver

How about a cutoff point for Social Security benefits?

It’s not uncommon for an individual to receive more money in Social Security benefits than they contributed in their working life. So how about a new rule: If you’ve received 25% more than you’ve contributed and your passive income (dividends, interest, rental income, etc) is in excess of $200,000, you are immediately cut off.

This is an easy argument to make and would allow the trust fund additional years of solvency.

Jim Donovan, Denver

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

7
Mar 2025
7Mar 2025 Opinion
Opinion: Female athletes deserve to be championed, not challenged, for their strength

Strength, dominance, leadership, physicality — traits long celebrated in men’s sports are often challenged in women’s sports.

For centuries, women in sports have battled not just their opponents on the field but deeply ingrained gender norms, perpetuated by a system of misogyny that views a strong woman as lesser. Traits essential to athletic success are often reframed as “unfeminine,” reinforcing the idea that their place in sports is conditional for women.

Nowhere is this a more apparent phenomenon than in women’s rugby.

Because women’s rugby challenges traditional views of femininity, athletes often face scrutiny, ridicule, and dismissal as serious and successful figures in the sports industry. This alienation extends beyond the field, affecting how women in rugby and other sports are misrepresented and underrepresented in the media. This proves that new and different representation in women’s sports is essential.

Furthermore, women’s rugby doesn’t just tolerate the differences among athletes — it thrives on fostering a culture where all athletes, especially those from marginalized communities, may find empowerment, camaraderie, and belonging.

Women’s rugby offers an environment accepting of typically undervalued body types — a stark contrast to mainstream beauty standards that don’t appreciate a muscular, bulky, or larger-bodied physique for female athletes. This inclusivity extends far beyond physicality, as women’s rugby has long been a refuge for athletes who feel alienated or unwelcomed in other sports. By emphasizing teamwork, resilience, and self-expression over rigid gender norms, rugby provides an atmosphere where athletes can fully embrace their identities without fear of judgment.

Participation in inclusive sports can reduce feelings of isolation, enhance self-esteem, and improve overall mental health, especially for individuals who identify as LGBTQ+ and experience higher rates of anxiety and depression due to marginalization in their communities, according to a 2008 paper by Dr. Drew D. Richards of the American Psychiatric Association. 

In challenging tradition, women’s rugby doesn’t just cultivate strong athletes — it cultivates strong, confident, and resilient individuals who carry that empowerment beyond the pitch and into their daily lives. A shocking 94% of women in C-Suite executive positions have a background in team sports, according to a survey of executives conducted by Ernst & Young in 2015, further proving the benefits that team sports provide to women of all ages.

To continue tackling traditions in the realm of women’s sports, we must take collective action to grow and develop our athletic programs, inspire adolescents, and hold others accountable. At a local level, you can help by supporting and engaging with young women’s rugby teams and other inclusive athletics programs by attending games, joining teams, and advocating for more visibility of women’s sports on school campuses.

On a broader level, push for institutional changes that ensure LGBTQ+ adolescents and young adults, and other female athletes receive the mental health support, funding, and respect they deserve — whether through student governments, voting in DEI initiatives, or donating to organizations like the You Can Play Project.

Keeping these programs up and running is imperative to the health and wellness of our youth.

Finally, on a systemic level, you can challenge outdated gender norms in sports by raising awareness, educating yourself and others, and supporting policies that promote equity for all athletes.

Beyond women’s rugby, this applies to any program aimed at supporting, without judgment, all female athletes, all LGBTQ+ adolescents and young adults, all body types, and all those ready to better our world. If we want to see a future where all athletes are championed — not challenged — for their strength, it starts with us.

Paige Perricone is the Colorado State University Women’s Rugby senior officer and peer education and social media manager.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

6
Mar 2025
6Mar 2025 Letters
Letters: If Democrats can’t learn from Trump’s win, democracy may be doomed

If Democrats can’t learn from Trump’s win, democracy may be doomed

Democratic Party mouthpiece Van Jones recently stated, “We’re the idiots. We lost. So we have to go back in the locker room and we have to sit down and figure out how in the hell did we get beat.”

Democratic leadership need not invest too much time figuring that out. The majority of voters did not focus on medical costs for the elderly or investment in infrastructure or reproductive rights. Instead, they saw funding for prison inmates to have sex-change operations. They saw an ever-growing homeless population, safe houses for drug addicts on the taxpayer dollar, and a border situation totally out of control. For many, despite the DOGE chainsaw, despite the blatant antagonism of allies, the voters believed drastic measures needed to be taken. Disaster-in-the-making or not, Americans cried out for action. Well, President Donald Trump has delivered.

If the Democrats in that locker room can’t figure this out, they might as well stay in there. Game over. Trump has said there won’t be a need to vote next time, and we need to take the man at his word. Barring an unmitigated disaster on the geopolitical playing field, Trump’s youthful cabinet will not be going away anytime soon even if Trump chooses to bow out next election. With a Republican thumb on the Supreme Court, their control of the House and Senate, and efforts to shut down various media outlets, the real loser will not be the Democrats; it will be democracy.

Bob Giusto, Lakewood

The messes left by the liberals

Re: “Readers react to shocking Oval Office meeting,” March 5 letters to the editor

This state is a mess! You can’t drive to the mountains unless you enjoy traffic jams, can’t enter a national park without a reservation, and can’t camp without a reservation. If you are young, you can’t buy a house; if you are old, you can’t afford to eat out at a restaurant.

If you go into Denver you see dirty streets and construction zones with no work going on, and yet, people continue to vote in liberals with their own agendas to spend money on pet projects. How about more warfare on guns or letting young men compete against girls? Liberal priorities and policies have failed this state.

Then, you publish these “outrage” letters about Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Fun to read. I guess these outraged writers enjoy a war continuing so more people die and we can spend billions more money we don’t have ($36 trillion in debt). The Dems hatred of President Donald Trump is a real danger to our country.

Jack Inderwish, Aurora

You, too, are on the federal payroll, Rep. Greene

Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene stated federal employees do not deserve their paychecks, in part because they do not produce federal revenue. This applies to the House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate and the president and his cabinet. Using this logic, all of these people should resign or, at a minimum, not be paid. Rep. Greene should be a leader, follow her own logic and relinquish her job ASAP.

Robert Duncan, Denver

Polis’s mandates are fighting climate change

Re: “Polis’ energy mandates will make heating and cooling costs skyrocket in Colorado,” Feb. 23 commentary

The commentary on energy costs due to Gov. Jared Polis’ mandates ignores the very reason for the mandates: climate change.

The majority of Americans believe that the climate is changing, humans are the primary cause, and many agree that fossil fuels are the primary cause. We are witnessing climate change, with worldwide increased temperatures, storm and fire occurrence and intensity, and drought. All of the sources cited in the commentary are connected to the oil and gas industry, such as PetroNerds (note that name) and the Common Sense Institute (if you look them up, they are hardly non-partisan).

Coal use is rapidly declining due to emissions. While natural gas (methane) will be in use for some time as a backup, it has significant emissions. An MIT study finds that fossil fuel facilities kill many more birds than wind per unit of energy generation.

Marc Alston, Denver

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

5
Mar 2025
5Mar 2025 Editoriqls
Editorial: Congresswoman’s accusation that Denver mayor violated federal law is “bull”

In a heartless show of cruelty, U.S. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Republican from Florida, said Wednesday she will push for a criminal investigation into the humanitarian aid four U.S. mayors provided to refugees and other immigrants who were bussed to their cities beginning in 2022.

Luna said during the congressional hearing on sanctuary cities that she wasn’t trying to “bully” the mayors, but her actions will give every person in this country pause before they offer charity and care for the downtrodden and poor with questionable legal immigration status.

The U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform called in the mayors of Denver, Boston, Chicago and New York to answer questions about sanctuary policies intended to prevent local law enforcement from participating in immigration enforcement.

The more than five-hour-long hearing highlighted all the absurdities of America’s broken immigration system from threatening to prosecute mayors who kept people from freezing to death to forcing ICE agents to chase someone just released from jail around a parking lot when local officers could have just handed the individual over.

Luna wants to criminalize the care Denver provided to refugees from Venezuela and immigrants from other parts of Central and South America by defining it as “harboring.”

The law – Title 8 Section 1324 – defines harboring as someone who knowingly “conceals harbors or shields from detection” someone who is in the U.S. in violation of immigration law.

The intent of that law is not to prevent people such as Denver Mayor Mike Johnston from opening cold-weather shelters for those who arrived in the city beginning in the winter of 2022. Furthermore, Johnston’s administration believed so strongly that the immigrants it assisted came here legally after making contact with border patrol, it helped thousands of them file for asylum and get legal work permits.

Did some of those who stayed in shelters cross the southern border with no intent of claiming asylum? Of course, and tragically, some of those individuals went on to commit crimes as members of the Tren de Aragua gang. But Denver did not knowingly shelter those individuals. The city merely offered life-saving space on the floors of recreation centers to anyone who was in need. Later, city officials helped people find apartments or other short-term housing solutions. The intent of finding people housing was never to shield them from deportation. The immigrant camps that were forming were unsafe and unsanitary and were harming our communities.

Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury, a Democrat from New Mexico, summed up Luna’s accusations well. “It’s total bull(expletive),” she said after thanking the mayors for their service.

Amid all the silly theater on display at Wednesday’s congressional hearing on sanctuary cities, U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio, brought substance and nuance to the conversation, which was supposed to focus on municipal policies around deportation and detention.

Jordan asked Denver Mayor Mike Johnston about an incident a few days ago when Denver Sheriff’s deputies released Abraham Gonzalez, who had been in jail for almost a year, to immigration officials waiting in the parking lot for him. Jordan wanted to know why Denver didn’t just hand the criminal – arrested in Denver for aggravated assault – directly over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, given that ICE had a lawful warrant.

According to a news release from city officials, Gonzalez ran from the ICE agents, forcing them to wrestle him to the ground. Jordan said one agent was assaulted, and one deployed a Taser.

Jordan wanted to know why ICE officers couldn’t have just entered the jail to get Gonzalez in a safe and secure transfer.

“That’s how stupid your policy is,” Jordan said.

He has a point.

Johnston said he has reached out to ICE to see if there is a better way to hand over people for whom ICE has a lawful detainer or deportation order.

This is the true debate about sanctuary cities. The question is to what degree city and state officials should assist federal officers in enforcing immigration laws.

Some of the answers to these questions are easy – police officers should not be asking residents if they are U.S. citizens as part of their work to keep Coloradans safe. Police officers have a hard enough job enforcing Colorado’s criminal statute without also having to be up-to-date with what immigrants from what countries who arrived on what dates have been granted Temporary Protected Status. Also, Denver should allow ICE agents into their facilities when handing over a person for deportation to avoid a wild chase through the parking lot where someone could get hurt.

But some sticky questions remain. Should Denver hold suspects past their release date based on an ICE request that isn’t backed by a warrant or lawful deportation order? Some judges have ruled that is unconstitutional.

Sanctuary cities – like Denver, Chicago, Boston and New York – have said they will not hold individuals for ICE beyond the court-ordered release date. The name “sanctuary” is a misnomer. Police and sheriffs aren’t offering illegal immigrants sanctuary from federal law enforcement, but they are refusing to violate the rights of individuals. Once ICE has a lawful order to deport or detain someone, then Johnston made it clear Denver officials will notify ICE of the date and time of release and have done so successfully more than 1,200 times since he was in office.

U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman, a Republican from Wisconsin, asked the mayors testifying whether they supported the U.S. having and enforcing immigration laws and whether everyone who violates those immigration laws should be deported.

Johnston didn’t answer the question, but he should have.

U.S. immigration law has been failing for so long as to have been rendered unenforceable. Deporting the more than 10 million individuals whose only crime is a misdemeanor immigration offense would tear apart families and upend peaceful communities.

Boston Mayor Michelle Wu gave a succinct answer: “I do not support mass deportations.”

Rep. James Comer, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight, quickly responded: “I don’t think anyone is calling for mass deportations.”

President Donald Trump promised Americans the night before the hearings that he is requesting funding from Congress to “complete the largest deportation operation in American history, larger even than current record holder President Dwight D. Eisenhower.”

That threat is why Colorado and Johnston are right to keep an arms-length distance between ICE operations and city and state law enforcement efforts. Trump may have the power to round up and deport people who have lived in America for decades and contributed to our communities with no legal problems other than their immigration violations, but Coloradans don’t have to support him.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

4
Mar 2025
4Mar 2025 Letters
Letters: Coloradans overwhelmingly express support for Zelenskyy after Oval Office flap with Trump

Readers react to shocking Oval Office meeting

Editor’s note: We received a large response in The Open Forum to the televised Oval Office meeting Friday between President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Here are a few of those letters, which overwhelmingly supported Zelenskyy and Ukraine.

***

Dear Mr. Zelenskyy,

Please accept our sincere apologies for the crass bullying you received at the White House on Friday, Feb. 28. Trump’s behavior only shows his complete ignorance of world affairs and his ever-increasing descent into Putin’s realm with its lies and misinformation.

The world can never again trust America’s word or its commitment. For this, we are extremely sorry.

Boyd and Barbara Norton, Evergreen

Every war has two sides. In some wars, the issues are so complex it becomes hard to tell the difference between the sides. But, in the case of Ukraine, it seems very clear that Russia is the aggressor and Ukraine is the defender. Russia invaded Ukraine, holds significant Ukrainian territory, has kidnapped hundreds of Ukrainian adults and children, and continues to aggressively bombard and kill Ukrainian citizens.

Ukraine is defending itself as best it can, but if left alone, it will be doomed to failure.

Into this debacle steps our “peacemaker” president who “wants to stop the bloodshed.” He wants a ceasefire and peace, and so he starts talks.

Does he talk to both sides? No! He is pushing (bullying) Ukraine to roll over, cede territory, and give up. What is he doing with Russia? Nothing.

Has he held open talks with Putin? No! Has he received any indication of any concessions from Putin? No! Has he pushed Russia at all? No!

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy faced down Soviet Union leader Nikita Khrushchev and made America great. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan faced down Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and made America great. And now, in 2025, President Donald Trump bends his knee to Russian President Vladimir Putin. What does that make America?

Kevin Rudolph, Littleton

The elephant in the room, so to speak, about the Russian/Ukrainian war is why Putin invaded. He wants the mineral wealth of Ukraine. From sage wisdom from a Chinese thousand years ago: don’t corner your enemy. That is Putin’s error.

The irony is that the United States’ investment in mining the minerals does two things: It robs Putin of his subversive intent and keeps the United States available to deter any further Putin incursions. Zelenskyy can’t get his head around it and would rather die on his pride.

Fred Stewart, Grand Junction

I am embarrassed, heartsick, horrified and terrified after viewing the disastrous meeting between our president, vice president and President Zelenskyy.  I saw no leadership, diplomacy, listening or compassion coming from our American leaders. They did nothing but shout and act like bullies, a new low in American diplomatic negotiations. None of Trump’s or Vance’s exhibited behavior makes America at all great; all it does is put us and our world more at risk.

Deborah Reshotko, Denver

I don’t know anyone from Russia. I do feel if I did, we’d be able to sit, discuss our differing perspectives, and come to an agreement that didn’t involve yelling, disrespecting each other, or loss of innocent lives.

David L Stevenson, Denver

And the award goes to …

President Trump and Vice President Vance for their politically motivated theatrical performance during the live telecast of their Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy.

I can hardly wait for the land grab sequels when they “host” Denmark’s Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, and Panama’s President, José Raúl Mulino.

Let’s call this what it is: a set-up, public bullying, picking on the “little guy,” and political theater. Trump and Vance had no intention of doing anything but trying to humiliate Zelenskyy. I believe they embarrassed themselves and many in our country instead.

Jamie Lofaro, Lone Tree

Trump and Vance not only berated Zelenskyy, they threatened him and tried to intimidate him with “We’re holding all the cards” and “You’re going to lose without us, so do what we want” without allowing Zelenskyy to respond with their constant haranguing.

It was astonishing to watch, anticipating a huge backlash on how it was handled by both Democrats and Republicans. Instead, Lindsay Graham said, “I have never been more proud of the president.” Other Republican lawmakers called Zelenskyy “disrespectful”  and praised Trump.

Trump clearly expects Zelenskyy to hand over access to Ukraine’s mineral resources with no guarantees. What is wrong with this picture? It’s a case of “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” a story about another vain leader whose followers go along with the pretense that the nude emperor is wearing lavish clothes until one brave participant blurts out the truth, and the people realize they’ve been fooled. The trouble is, the Republicans already know the truth but don’t have the courage to speak out. They need to put the country in front of keeping their positions. Shameful.

Marcia Murphy, Centennial

How shameful that President Zelenskyy arrives at the White House for a staged ambush, gets shouted at by President Trump and VP Vance, and then is accused of lacking diplomacy.

How shameful that Vance assails Zelenskyy for lacking gratitude (not at all true) when Vance has spoken out and voted against continuing aid to Ukraine.

How shameful that Sen. Lindsey Graham has reversed his comment in July 2024 that Vance’s lack of support for Ukraine is “garbage” to now calling for Zelenskyy’s resignation.

How shameful that the world looks at the United States now with a lack of trust and disbelief.

Andrea Clifford, Denver

I had been withholding submitting comments to The Post, in large part to contain our rising anger at the administration. But the ambush of President Zelenskyy in front of the entire world is intolerable. “Our” president refused to call out Putin and instead used his Vice President to start a dress down of a true hero trying tirelessly to save his country from an invading army.

We grew up in the Vietnam era, where the domino effect of Communism supposedly justified us sending our ill-equipped forces into the jungles and into ultimate defeat in a war where we never should have entered.

But now, where the clear goal of Russia is to take as much of the world as possible, our country is standing back and “our” president used the Oval Office debacle as a way to deflect blame on his inability to stop the war in Ukraine.

The America we cherished would never, ever support a dictator like Putin, and turn away from a clear need to support a country in desperate need. Actually, we are turning away from supporting the world and the allies we cherished for decades.

This is not our America anymore.

H. Rene Ramirez, Aurora

What a shameful performance by Trump and Vance. Perhaps it was just my imagination, but I thought I heard vodka being poured and glasses being clicked coming from Moscow.

Other world leaders had very different reactions to what occurred at the meeting as they now wonder: What does America really stand for these days?

Gene Reetz, Denver

President Zelenskyy has done what no GOP-elected politician has done in months: Disagree with Trump in front of the media. Thank you, President Zelenskyy.

Becky Roberts, Watkins

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

4
Mar 2025
4Mar 2025 Opinion
Opinion: Americans should be outraged by the opportunities for waste, fraud and abuse being uncovered

It is simply appalling that our government has failed to use fundamental financial control practices in the administration of its responsibilities to pay out the trillions of dollars that our Congress has authorized every year for specific programs.

It was recently uncovered that for $4.7 trillion in payments, an important accounting code was optional and “was often left blank.” The Treasury Access Symbol (TAS) is used to identify which account the payment should be charged to. This is definitely not a small bookkeeping issue. It is a fundamental financial control practice.

Without that code, there is no way to assign the payment to a particular spending authorization or to track how much has been spent versus the amount authorized for each program. Even a small business has a budget and tracks expenditures against that budget. Without those codes, particularly for this many transactions, that is impossible.

And, the people who have been on-site and reviewed the current practices firsthand have identified this as a significant problem – codes have not been required and in most cases are missing. The absence and non-requirement of the appropriate code before processing a payment is tantamount to losing control of spending. Any bank in the United States that allowed this type of sloppiness to persist would be summarily closed down by our regulators, and rightfully so.

If we require strong financial control practices for our banks, why do we not require them of our government which processes many multiples of payments? Whether fraud, waste or incompetence, it needs to be fixed! We should be outraged that this was allowed to occur.

These lax financial controls result in questionable transactions like the one recently uncovered and reported by the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lee Zeldin. Although Congress approved the $20 billion (yes, with a “b”) program, the $20 billion was quietly moved to an “outside financial institution” in order to avoid scrutiny or control.

This $20 billion was moved out of the Treasury into a slush fund where there was no oversight of the spending. Does that sound like it might have been an opportunity for corruption? Or waste? Or fraud?

That works out to a donation from each American resident of almost $59 apiece. Those are taxpayer dollars extracted from hardworking Americans. And that is just one transaction. How many others are there? For every 1% of that $4.7 trillion that is inappropriate, that’s $47 billion. Where’s the outrage?

The “good news” is that there is plenty of blame to go around for allowing this to persist.

Unfortunately, the bad news is that it has been ongoing so there is no way to determine how much of the $4.7 trillion spent is proper and how much is fraud or waste. Previous administrations and presidential hopefuls have campaigned on cleaning up our government and eliminating waste and fraud. Videos show Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden all promising to do just that. The even better news is that someone finally has the courage to actually do it. While a small step, the inclusion of the TAS code on all payments is no longer optional but is now required.

Our government has no money of its own – all of its money comes from taxpayers, including individuals. While the current approach to rooting out waste, inefficiency, and fraud throughout our government may not be very elegant, the objective is simply to reduce the cost of government for America and Americans.

Our deficits have ballooned, adding trillions to our national debt. With the recent increases in interest rates, the amount of money required to pay the interest on that debt continues to grow, now exceeds the amount spent on defense ($1.124 on debt service, $1.107 on defense last year), and will only continue to grow further until we decrease the debt. Those increases require even more government expenditures to cover the interest on the debt, and those additional funds have to come from taxpayers. It is an unsustainable spiral. Continuing to do the same things we’ve been doing will not give us a better outcome. Where’s the outrage that this was allowed to occur?

At the end of the day, the beneficiary of all these actions is America and Americans. A leaner, more efficient government is less expensive to operate and should result in improved processes and better service to our government’s customers – us. If my own personal experience of waiting over 16 months for a federal income tax refund – and still waiting, despite countless follow-ups – is any indication, we have a lot of upside opportunities.

Let’s get the facts on the table where we can see them. Where are our taxpayer dollars being spent? Are we getting what we’re paying for? Is there a better, faster, cheaper way to provide the services that our government should provide?

Armed with the facts, we can make informed decisions about how we want our taxpayer dollars spent, and how they are actually spent. Let’s get outraged at the current state of affairs and pursue a better future for America, and Americans.

John Griggs lives in Evergreen and has spent his entire career in financial services. He holds a B.S. in Accounting and an MBA and has been the Chief Financial Officer of subsidiaries of two international financial institutions. He has led large-scale business transformation and process redesign initiatives in multi-national financial services organizations resulting in a 56% reduction in unit costs while simultaneously improving customer service. He is currently a consultant to the industry, an executive coach, and has been retained as an expert witness in financial services litigation.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

4
Mar 2025
4Mar 2025 Opinion
Opinion: Elon Musk’s threats to NOAA are a threat to Colorado’s future

For those of us living in a land-locked state like Colorado, it might be easy to assume that an agency called the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, wouldn’t have a lot to do with our everyday lives. But that misconception couldn’t be further from the truth. It has provided good-paying jobs – NOAA employs roughly 12,000 people nationwide, including more than 900 in Colorado – and built a safer, healthier future for our state.

Beyond the agency’s state-of-the-art ocean research, NOAA’s vital work on climate science, weather forecasting, and environmental monitoring is indispensable to Colorado, where we face the challenges of catastrophic wildfires and other extreme weather on a regular basis. Without NOAA’s emergency alert systems, Coloradans wouldn’t be able to prepare for and respond to these disasters — putting our homes, schools, local businesses, and lives at risk. As the effects of climate change continue to worsen each year, NOAA’s work to keep our communities safe is more important than ever.

But right now, NOAA’s very existence is in jeopardy. Under the direction of Elon Musk, the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has set its sights on dismantling NOAA or even eliminating it altogether. Concerning reports that DOGE staffers recently infiltrated NOAA’s headquarters and gained access to confidential information heighten concerns that major cuts or changes are imminent. The Associated Press reported that about 10% of the staff, or about 1,200 people, was laid off. Some NOAA employees have been told to expect staff to be cut by half and the agency’s budget to be cut by nearly a third.

If Elon Musk succeeds in his assault on NOAA, it will have especially devastating consequences for Colorado’s future. As Coloradans across the state and across our major industries — from agricultural and manufacturing to recreation — grapple with the impacts of climate change and how to adapt for the years ahead, NOAA’s climate monitoring and research is giving us the information we need about water availability and other major environmental changes. NOAA is invaluable to Colorado’s ability to plan and prepare for a changing reality.

NOAA is also critical to shaping Colorado’s next generation of leaders in research. As the first person in my family to go to college and pursue a career in research, I know firsthand that federal grants and funding are a lifeline for budding scholars who don’t have access to the same resources that others do. Thanks to federal investments in science, like NOAA’s research grants and programs, I have been fortunate to pour my passion into work that helps us all better understand our marine environments and how ocean conservation is driving a “blue economy” to deliver clean energy and sustainable food production across the globe.

NOAA grants and funding are particularly important for Colorado’s young scholars. Across all 50 states, Colorado lies at nearly rock bottom — number 49 — when it comes to state funding for colleges and universities. That means our students and professors rely on NOAA-funded research and other grant programs to provide the top-tier education and workforce training that Coloradans are proud to call our own.

Beyond its critical contribution to science and research funding, NOAA is also a major employer in Colorado; many of our top scientists work in research and service centers across the state, including weather forecasting offices in Denver, fire technology testing hubs in Boulder, and meteorology data centers in Fort Collins.

Coloradans are resilient — we don’t shy away from adversity or buckle under the weight of challenge. Our communities are standing on the frontlines of some of climate change’s most threatening impacts and we are prepared to face them with determination and strength. But as we face these challenges, Colorado must be able to count on NOAA as the trusted partner it has been for more than 50 years. Reliable climate monitoring data, scientifically sound research, and accurate weather forecasting will be absolutely essential to the decisions we make about our shared future.

Now is the time to invest in and strengthen NOAA — not diminish it or sacrifice it to this reckless agenda. Local Coloradans and our elected representatives, including Senators Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper and every Coloradan in the House of Representatives, regardless of party, must stand up to protect NOAA, protect our safety and livelihoods, and protect our communities for many generations to come.

Karen Barton is a professor in the Department of Geography, GIS, & Sustainability at the University of Northern Colorado, a first-generation scholar, and a sustainability advocate based in Northern Colorado.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

4
Mar 2025
4Mar 2025 Opinion
Opinion: Don’t tip the scales in Colorado to big unions or to big business in this labor fight

Newton’s third law of motion — for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction — applies as much to politics as it does physics. After the Colorado Senate voted to strip workers’ choice protections from the 82-year-old Labor Peace Act, the Independence Institute launched an initiative to bring them back.

Up until now, Colorado has straddled the fence between the right-to-bargain seaboard and factory belt states and the right-to-work states of the south, Midwest, and Rocky Mountains. In right-to-bargain states, once a majority vote to have union representation, all employees must pay union collective bargaining fees as a condition of employment whether or not they are union members. In right-to-work states, employees are free to join a union and pay collective bargaining fees, but they cannot be compelled to do so.

Colorado’s unique law allows employees to unionize after a simple majority vote. In order to collect collective bargaining fees from non-union members, there must be a second vote with 75% of employees agreeing. This two-vote system gives non-union members a voice. If a large minority of workers does not believe that collective bargaining is in their best interest, they can vote to prevent the union from extracting fees for that purpose.

Colorado’s law as written has protected both the majority’s choice to form a union and the minority’s choice to not pay the fees. The onus is on the union to make a strong case that its collective bargaining efforts will truly benefit employees and be worth the fees. Unions aren’t always persuasive. Analysis by the Colorado Sun of second votes taken in recent decades found the second vote fails nearly half of the time. In the past five years, 16 of the 25 union security votes have passed.

Senate Bill 5, which recently passed the Senate, would remove the second vote and the minority protection it provides. If it becomes law, a bare majority of employees who want union representation could force the remainder to contribute against their will. The bill is sure to pass in the more left-leaning House but could face the governor’s veto. Governor Polis has been skeptical of the bill, preferring the status quo.

In 2007, Governor Ritter vetoed similar legislation. A year later, business advocates placed a right-to-work initiative on the ballot but pulled it when union groups teed up two of their own initiatives.

The Independence Institute is less likely to back down. Initiative 12, which will make Colorado a right-to-work state, goes to their core value of freedom. They believe no one should be forced to pay a fee to an organization to which they do not belong to provide a service they don’t want as a condition of keeping of job.

The think tank has the resources to undertake the signature gathering necessary for a constitutional amendment. They will emphasize the fact that right-to-work states tend to have lower unemployment and higher economic growth. Companies are also keen to relocate to states where unions are less influential.

These benefits are not without costs. Right-to-work laws correlate with lower unionization rates. Fewer people opt to contribute to collective bargaining efforts. With diminished union power, wages and benefits tend to be lower than those in right-to-bargain states.

The debate comes down to two competing and compelling values: the right of individuals to choose not to contribute to an organization with which they disagree and the right of individuals to effectively bargain together for higher wages and benefits. It’s not an easy choice.

The Labor Peace Act was aptly named. It struck the right balance, a balance Senate Bill 5 and Initiative 12 threaten to tip.

Krista L. Kafer is a weekly Denver Post columnist. Follow her on Twitter: @kristakafer.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

4
Mar 2025
4Mar 2025 Letters
Letters: York Street reconfiguration is a disaster. What were Denver planners thinking?

Stuck and perplexed on York Street

What were the city planners thinking with the York Street reconfiguration? What once was a four-lane thoroughfare with traffic flowing is now a two-lane road with endless backups. If you live in City Park West, forget about even turning right, let alone thinking about turning left.

The traffic is backed up for blocks in both directions, trying to squeeze two full lanes of traffic into one. Just can’t imagine the thought process that went into this disastrous planning. Going north on Josephine Street, where it merges into one lane in York, is so much more dangerous than it was, as it is just a major accident waiting to happen.

Why in the world would someone think this is better? There is absolutely nothing better or safer or quicker or easier with this new design.

Same thing with the myriad roundabouts going up where there were no traffic issues before. And what is the point of all the standing poles everywhere?  Bikes are blocked, as well as cars, and cars are swinging out further into oncoming lanes when making a turn. Horrible!

It makes you wonder what the incredible amount of funds that these truly stupid changes must have cost could have done to help the homeless situation.

Hoping for better use of our tax money.

David Anderson, Denver

Lakewood victim assistance to the rescue

I want to give a big thanks to the volunteers and staff at the Lakewood Police Department’s Victim Assistance Unit. A wonderful friend of mine who is 80 years old had her front license plate stolen sometime late in January. When she discovered it, she reported it immediately to the Lakewood police.

A short time later, she got a bill in the mail for $300 worth of express lane violations, and if she didn’t pay it on time, the amount of the fine would double! This was a shock and very upsetting.

However, when my friend telephoned the Victim Assistance Unit in the Lakewood Police Department, she found the help she needed in a timely manner. They not only secured the police report she needed, but they also followed up with a phone call asking if all was going well in her effort to show she was not responsible for the violations. They offered to support her should she need to appeal.

Thank you to the Victim Assistance Unit for changing what was a nightmarish situation for my dear friend into a manageable situation in which she got the support she so desperately needed.

Carol Ayars, Littleton

Move elections to even years to improve turnout

In 2020, Denver County boasted an impressive 85.90% voter turnout. Yet our municipal elections struggle to achieve half that participation. This glaring disparity isn’t just disappointing — it’s a deliberate affront to democracy.

Why do we persist with off-year city elections when we know it depresses turnout? The answer is clear: Our city council clings to an outdated system that suppresses voter engagement.

It’s time Denver joined cities like Los Angeles and Portland, Ore., and move municipal elections to even years. Off-cycle elections disproportionately silence young voters, workers, and marginalized communities. By contrast, even-year elections, especially those coinciding with presidential races, significantly boost participation among these groups.

Let’s call this what it is: voter suppression by scheduling. We wouldn’t tolerate poll taxes, so why accept a system that achieves similar results through timing?

Arguments against change are weak. Concerns about local issues being overshadowed or logistical complications pale in comparison to the benefits of increased voter participation.

To the Denver City Council: You can no longer hide behind tradition or logistics. Either align our elections with state or national votes and embrace true democratic participation or admit you fear an engaged electorate.

The choice is clear. Move to even-year elections or be remembered as the council that chose self-interest over democracy. The voters are watching — all 85% of us.

Carlos VS Anderson, Denver

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

3
Mar 2025
3Mar 2025 Letters
Letters: Downtown Denver is struggling and restaurants need a little help

Downtown Denver isn’t doing as well as city auditor claims

Re: “Gutting Denver’s minimum wage is bad for workers, business, and city,” Feb. 16 commentary

With all due respect to Timothy M. O’Brien, Denver’s city auditor, perspective is everything. Thriving? I don’t think so. O’Brien cites statistics outside of downtown Denver, where property and sales taxes have seen a 35% decline, costing the city over $45 million since 2020, according to a 9News report. Yet as property taxes, labor costs, and food costs steadily increase, the city of Denver offers little relief. Crime, homelessness, and declining traffic downtown continue in a downward spiral.

A once-thriving and welcoming city has become a ghost town for most of the last five years. Sure, there are spikes, but too few to matter. No one will come downtown and pay for parking and a $25 hamburger if they can find something similar in their local neighborhoods. Convention traffic has also declined.

Perspective: Your capital city is in disrepair and could use a little help. As a third-generation small family business, it’s not that we forgot how to operate, but we can’t operate on a level playing field. Please don’t tell me I can’t keep people and treat them unfairly. We have dishwashers that have been with us for over 15 years. We treat people well, which is why when you visit one of our shops, you see familiar faces and know their names. This city has some work to do and House Bill 1208 is a good place to start.

Sam Armatas, Denver

Editor’s note: Armatas is vice president and operator of Sam’s No.3 Downtown.

Calling out commentary’s false equivalencies

Re: “Like it or not, Washington needs creative destruction,” Feb. 23 commentary

I’m writing to call you out on allowing a sloppy editorial in your Sunday paper. David Mastio’s op-ed was filled with implied false equivalencies. Because Trump correctly stopped minting pennies, it’s OK to have massive firings of government employees. Because the Pentagon wastes money (and it does), it’s OK to have an incompetent Secretary of Defense.

No one who follows our government believes that it doesn’t need reform, but to imply that stopping the minting of pennies is a great reason for the “creative destruction” of the federal government is dangerous and misguided thinking, and you should use better judgment when you select editorials for publication sources other than your own editorial board. Just saying.

George Burson, Louisville

 The concerns about Senate Bill 3 are “rubbish”

Re: “If Colorado bans some semiautomatic weapons, women will be less safe,” Feb. 23 commentary

The state director of Women for Gun Rights writes with the usual gun lobby hyperbole that Senate Bill 3 will undermine the right of self-defense, especially for women and minorities. Rubbish.

If one actually goes to the Colorado General Assembly website, one will find that the firearms covered by the legislation are quite limited. “The bill defines a “specified semiautomatic firearm” as a semiautomatic rifle or semiautomatic shotgun with a detachable magazine or a gas-operated semiautomatic handgun with a detachable magazine.” Please note that women and minorities can still purchase revolvers, semiautomatic pistols that use the “blowback” method of operation, pump action shotguns, bolt action and lever action rifles, and every other type of firearm not listed above.

One would have thought that an NRA-certified instructor would not have a problem with a training requirement for weapons listed in the bill. Instead, by using classic anti-regulatory language, these are “onerous requirements” that are “burdensome and exclusionary.”  Apparently, the only good gun law is no gun law. Please contact your legislator and ask them to support Senate Bill 3.

Guy Wroble, Denver

Same old tired fear-mongering from the NRA. Now, it’s crime waves involving Venezuelan gangs that are targeting our communities and women specifically, and only the NRA and semiautomatic weapons that increase the rate of fire, essentially assault-style weapons, will keep us safe. If Barbara Miller is dedicated to education and safety, I suggest she take the carveout to Senate Bill 3 for individuals who complete a state-regulated training course. Apparently, essential safety training is too “burdensome and exclusionary” for the NRA.

According to Brady United, during the 10-year period the federal assault weapons ban was in effect, mass shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur. After Congress let the ban expire, the organization reported that mass shootings in which six or more people were killed increased by 347%.

Having a gun in the home is risk escalation. Studies have shown that having a gun in the home was linked with nearly three times higher odds that someone would be killed at home by a family member or intimate acquaintance. Post the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, any and all gun safety laws are too burdensome for the NRA. This dangerous and deadly expansive view of gun rights is giving people the tools to injure and kill each other. Maybe a better recourse for women and domestic abuse would be for the NRA to spend time, energy, and resources advocating to strengthening penalties for violent offenders, enhancing mental health support and providing resources for domestic violence survivors instead of promoting gun violence.

Leonard Juliano, Arvada

Car chains are not very helpful when you’re blocked by semis

Re: “Stuck behind spinouts, crashes in I-70 ski traffic? There is a better way for Colorado,” Feb. 21 editorial

Allowing vendors to sell and enable vendors to install snow chains for Colorado drivers by passing Senate Bill 69 makes sense. Sort of.

But what the editorial board doesn’t seem to know, but every driver on the Western Slope trying to get back and forth across Vail Pass and through the Eisenhower tunnel does know, is that selling chains will accomplish only one thing — Colorado cars and trucks will be able to move a few inches forward per hour much easier while stuck between chained up semi-trucks that are not able to negotiate snowy conditions due to weight distribution and size. Period. No matter how skillful their drivers are.

Until CDOT works with federal officials to close mountain passes during snowfall to semi traffic or initiates right lane pilot car guided convoys during snowfalls for semis back and forth across our passes, chains for four, front, and all-wheel drive passenger cars will be useless — because, due to nonstop semi wrecks, there will be no way to move to take advantage of increased traction.

Problems can’t be corrected without actually identifying them.

Leslie Wilson, Collbran

Making the case for Belmar Park open space

Re: “Belmar Park: Going back to the drawing board isn’t always feasible,” Feb. 23 letter to the editor

The answer to the standoff over Lakewood’s Belmar Park property is for the city to use its power of eminent domain and acquire this land before the five-story development is built. The failure of our planning department to do so at the get-go is a major mistake in governance. Eminent domain is usually exercised for a public purpose, and I can think of no more appropriate instance than this, where the majority of Lakewood residents want that area abutting the park to become a part of it. Then, the controversy over fee-for-green space can proceed.

Susan Williams, Lakewood

The citizens of Lakewood should vehemently disagree with the letter. We must all agree that housing affordability is not “a bigger issue than open space.”

Open space is irreplaceable; houses are not.

June Jones Paulding, Lakewood

An example of non-biased reporting

Re: “Neighbors nix plans for homeless facility,” Feb. 23 news story

How lucky are we to have John Aguilar writing for The Post? His article is a great example of what good journalism should be, and at one time was, compared to the biased reporting we get on so many topics — both from the left and the right — these days.

Kudos to John for his ongoing, thorough writing!

Mark Buckner, Firestone

Polis’s mandates are fighting climate change

Re: “Polis’ energy mandates will make heating and cooling costs skyrocket in Colorado,” Feb. 23 commentary

The commentary on energy costs due to Gov. Jared Polis’ mandates ignores the very reason for the mandates: climate change.

The majority of Americans believe that the climate is changing, humans are the primary cause, and many agree that fossil fuels are the primary cause. We are witnessing climate change, with worldwide increased temperatures, storm and fire occurrence and intensity, and drought. All of the sources cited in the commentary are connected to the oil and gas industry, such as PetroNerds (note that name) and the Common Sense Institute (if you look them up, they are hardly non-partisan).

Coal use is rapidly declining due to emissions. While natural gas (methane) will be in use for some time as a backup, it has significant emissions. An MIT study finds that fossil fuel facilities kill many more birds than wind per unit of energy generation.

Marc Alston, Denver

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.