We caused St. Mary’s Glacier to melt away
Re: “Glacier melts away,” Sept. 19 news story
It’s beyond sad that St. Mary’s Glacier is completely gone and may never return. We’ve made many day trips up there. It was a magnificent area. The current administration’s views on climate change won’t help the situation.
Since the self-proclaimed “greatest president in the history of the United States” loves his name on everything, I propose we rename the area The Donald J. Trump Memorial Non-Glacier.
Robert Johnson, Denver
Where have all the candidates gone?
The League of Women Voters of Jefferson County has a long history of supporting the democratic process in Colorado by registering voters, hosting candidate forums, informing voters about ballot issues and advocating for voters’ rights. Historically, we’ve had great support from parties and candidates in those endeavors.
This year? Not so much.
As a member of the Board of the Jeffco League, I want to communicate our profound disappointment in members of both major parties who’ve refused to participate in campaign forums and/or canceled out at the last minute.
When candidates dismiss genuine opportunities to help their future constituents learn more about them, itap an egregious loss for voters. In this age of social media, disinformation and election interference, itap increasingly important for voters to be able to interact with candidates directly. When candidates turn their backs on our forums, itap a slap in the face of voters, the League and our democracy.
We hope this year is just an anomaly and not the beginning of a trend. We need to be able to count on all parties to value the role of transparency and participation in our elections.
Now, more than ever, our democracy depends on it.
Cindy Anderson, Wheat Ridge
The media can help us break the two party system
Why is some media coverage woefully locked into a stale binary narrative?
On Sept. 16, CPR’s Colorado Matters interviewed only two of the candidates running for Colorado Secretary of State. Half the voters in Colorado are independent or unaffiliated or registered for one of eight recognized minor political parties in this state, including Celeste Landry, who is running for the Colorado Forward Party. But for some reason, Landry was not included.
Lifelong Democrat Landry actually changed her allegiance this year in order to offer a better choice than what Democrats or Republicans bring to the table. The Republican candidate’s 5-point plan (one day of voting, in person, with ID, on a paper ballot and then counted by hand) is extreme. The Democratic candidate, an attorney, is silent about Colorado’s new unconstitutional special elections to fill vacant seats — the ones that ban voters from participating in the election unless they are a member of the party in power for that seat.
Does the average Colorado voter know about this? Landry has made it her business to inform the public while other candidates choose to turn a blind eye to the loss of Coloradan’s constitutional right to vote.
The Secretary of State must be objective and dedicated to voting integrity, and ignoring highly qualified candidates like Landry does great disservice to all Colorado voters. Media must fulfill its responsibility to the public by providing fair, comprehensive coverage of all qualified candidates, not just the two main parties.
Leslie Ratica, Boulder
Looking at the ads for Gabe Evans
Gabe Evans’ television ads are quite interesting. He makes it sound like everything is going great in Congressional District 8, but says that if you elect Manny Rutinel, that will no longer be the case.
The ads say Manny likes money and he will likely, apparently all by himself, raise your taxes. Gabe ignores how great things are going for us because the war he and other republicans vote to continue, has given us higher food prices, higher energy prices, especially diesel that is needed but almost out of reach for farmers and ranchers in all districts. It is needed to keep the farms and ranches going.
One wonders if Gabe has been in a grocery store lately. Yes, Gabe has voted on legislation that lowered taxes. If you all are rich, he voted for tax reductions of up to $5 trillion dollars. Why? The only reason I can think of is that the rich can then reward him and others with donations.
We are also hurting from tariffs, which he apparently also supports. He doesn’t speak up about the millions of dollars that Trump asks for. His answer on the budget is to add $1.8 trillion to the national debt for the first 10 months of the fiscal year while supporting huge cuts for lower- and middle-income folks like this 85-year-old on food stamps and Medicaid. One figure is $1 trillion in cuts for these lifesaving areas.
Gabe and Trump’s Iran war has thus far cost taxpayers $43.6 billion. Gabe might be smooth, but he is not right for District 8 or Colorado.
Wayne Wathen, Centennial
Don’t overtax the rich
Re: “How tax overhaul would affect Coloradans,” September 20 news story.
While the concept of a progressive state income tax seems appropriate, one should look at the details of the current referendum.
The proposed brackets are not adjusted for inflation. This will result in engulfing more and more people into higher tax brackets over the years. While bracket creep may not affect you, think about your children and grandchildren. Since Colorado state government carefully indexes its numerous fees for inflation, shouldn’t they also index tax brackets like the federal government does?
The referendum only references “Federal Taxable Income” but current law has many subtractions and additions that result in “Colorado Taxable Income”. The most significant subtractions are interest on federal bonds and $24,000 pension deduction. Does the Referendum eliminate all these adjustments?
The Referendum doesn’t address people filing jointly versus individually. If the brackets are determined by the joint income. it could put joint filers in a higher tax bracket. The federal government has different tax brackets joint filers.
Applying the same brackets on corporations result in most large corporations, each representing thousands of stockholders, being in the highest bracket. Only a few states impose such high tax rates on corporations, putting Colorado at a commerce disadvantage.
Since Colorado imposes its full tax rate on dividends and capital gains, the corporate tax represents a double tax.
Rich Griffin, Aurora
Amendment 87, the tax-the-rich amendment, is bad for many reasons:
First, it has a built-in stealth tax increase every year, year after year. Thatap because, unlike federal tax brackets, Amendment 87’s tax brackets are not indexed to inflation. So, every year, more and more Coloradans will be stung by higher tax rates.
Second, not just rich people are taxed — larger businesses will also be hit with higher income tax rates. The businesses that are hit with higher tax rates will either pass the cost on to consumers, with higher prices, or they’ll move out-of-state and take jobs with them.
Third, other states have discovered that tax-the-rich tax increases do not generate the expected revenue. Thatap because the wealthy have a great deal of discretion over the timing and composition of their income. The wealthy can simply defer income to the future to avoid taxation. Or they can move to a lower- or no-income tax state. Under 87, a Coloradan who earns $20 million in taxable income per year could save $1,655,925 every year by moving to Florida, Texas, Tennessee, or Nevada. Thatap a lot of motivation to move.
Fourth, wealthy people don’t put all their earnings into bank accounts. Most of what they earn is invested in the businesses they own. If the state takes a bigger chunk of their earnings, they’ll have less to invest in their businesses, which means fewer jobs, lower productivity, and lower wages for Coloradans.
Finally, who do you think will do a better job of investing the money, the people who earn it or politicians?
Vote NO on 87!
Chuck Wright, Westminster
Jews face intense pressure not to criticize Israel
Re: “Hateful words targeting Denver Jews wrongfully demonizes Zionism,” September 28 guest commentary.
Scott Levin and Joseph Black are entitled to their views about Zionism; however, their statement that “targeting Denver Jews wrongfully demonizes Zionism” overlooks the reality that the leadership of the local (and national) Jewish community has clearly communicated the message that all Jews support the positions and actions of the Israeli government.
Although Levin and Black write that “criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic,” major Jewish organizations have neither expressed this nor tolerated Jews and Jewish institutions criticizing Israeli action.
In fact, there are local, national, and even Israeli Jewish organizations that do reject the behavior of the current Israeli government, often in very strong terms. However, expressing such positions both in Israel and the United States has put Jews in jeopardy. As a result, many do not feel safe communicating their views either in general or, more specifically, in Jewish settings.
Journalists, scholars, and organizations both in Israel and the United States have reported extreme and egregious physical, political, and psychological behavior against those who find the governmentap positions and actions outrageous. Sadly, as Levin and Black fail to point out, such views are rarely stated and, when they are, find themselves at political, emotional, financial, and physical risk.
Rabbi Frederick Greenspahn, 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.
