sleepystork.com

Will the next “giant leap for mankind” be made by the United States — or by our rivals? The answer may come as Congress debates the federal budget.

The White House has proposed a massive 25% cut to the NASA budget, a move congressional appropriators have rejected in their recent funding proposals, but which still has the potential to dampen the U.S. economy and workforce, undermine national security, health and safety, and curtail American ambitions to shape the final frontier.

In Colorado, America’s second-largest aerospace economy, we know that losing global leadership in space is a gamble the United States cannot afford to take. As federal budget negotiations continue, I’m asking the public to contact their Congressional representatives and remind them of everything America stands to gain through robust investment in NASA.

NASA remains popular among Americans of all stripes. It served as a source of unity and pride as we won the first Space Race, enabled a massive aerospace-based economy that employs 2.2 million people across the nation, and undergirds much of our national defense and everyday well-being.

The administration’s proposal would cut NASA from about $24.9 billion to $18.8 billion — the agency’s lowest funding level in 60 years, when adjusted for inflation, and the largest single-year cut in its history. Despite proposed increases for human spaceflight to the moon and Mars, the proposal includes a 47% cut to the Science Mission Directorate, which oversees the agency’s scientific research. This research underpins the spectacular missions that inspire and delight us all.

At the University of Colorado Boulder, Purdue, Georgia Tech and many other universities across the nation that lead in aerospace and related fields, NASA research grants provide a dual benefit; they advance America’s space science and innovation, and they develop the skilled workforce ready to address the nation’s needs.

At CU Boulder’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, the world’s only academic research institute to send instruments to all eight planets and Pluto, NASA funding helps employ more than 250 undergraduate students and nearly 100 graduate students annually, integrating them into mission teams and training them to operate multimillion-dollar satellites. These students become the engineers and scientists who will drive continued American dominance in space for the next 40 years.

NASA-supported, hands-on training ensures graduates are well-prepared for jobs at BAE, Lockheed Martin, Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada, the U.S. military, scientific labs, and the impactful startup companies of tomorrow. They are the backbone of American greatness.

America will continue to have the world’s greatest rockets and space stations only if we continue to have the human resources provided by an adequately funded NASA.

You don’t have to be an aspiring astronaut or scientist to reap the benefits of publicly funded space research.
Research and development on space domain awareness, hypersonic systems, radio frequency communications are critical to safeguarding the public from threats foreign and domestic, natural and man-made. Prior wars were won based on dominance on land and by air; future conflicts may be decided by the countries that control space.

Researchers here have successfully used NASA funding to develop, build and operate weather satellites to improve forecasts. They are using it to observe space weather that can cripple our power grids, threaten GPS service, and ruin Midwest planting seasons. CU Boulder’s BioServe Space Technologies conducts biological research in space that aids in development of anti-cancer drugs and osteoporosis treatments.

Furthermore, the proposed budget cut would force the termination of missions far along in development or already operating, throwing away billions in taxpayer investments on projects that are on-budget and producing results for the American public.

Taxpayers have already invested $85 million toward the CLARREO Pathfinder, which will provide the world’s best measurements of reflected sunlight, improving the accuracy of government and commercial satellite sensors. This instrument is sitting in a laboratory in Colorado, ready to launch to its permanent destination, the International Space Station. Why would we throw that away?

Since Neil Armstrong’s first steps on the moon, American curiosity and ambition have led us to wonder what’s next. Perhaps space tourism, mining the moon for precious resources, or human habitats on Mars.

Those aspirations are catalyzed in projects like MAVEN, designed to measure radiation and solar storms in space at Mars — a critical element for human exploration — that is also at risk in the current NASA budget. If MAVEN is cancelled, the United States will cede leadership in Mars exploration to China and rely on Europe and Russia for all future telecoms at Mars. Do we want a future based on independence or reliance on other countries?

NASA’s successes are some of the best examples of American ingenuity, persistence and imagination — part of our national identity as pioneering explorers. It’s up to all of us to ensure these values continue to drive federal policy and our collective future.

Justin Schwartz is the chancellor of the University of Colorado Boulder.

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.

The Denver Police Department is quietly rolling out a significant change in how officer misconduct is handled, and the public has never seen the policy or had a chance to weigh in. Under this new approach, called education-based development (formerly discipline), officers accused of wrongdoing could be diverted into coaching or retraining instead of facing formal consequences. While this may seem reasonable at first, a closer look reveals concerning flaws.

This policy wasn’t developed with the necessary transparency, nor was it shaped through meaningful community input.  Initially, the Office of the Independent Monitor wasn’t even given an opportunity to review the draft policy, as is required by city ordinance. Even now, the community has yet to see any actual policy language. That’s a problem.

More than two decades ago, Denver voters created a clear, community-driven oversight structure with the city’s police discipline ordinance. The system centers on the Office of the Independent Monitor, community input, and a formal disciplinary matrix. But education-based development could bypass all of that. The current proposal estimates that up to 85% of misconduct cases could be diverted outside this structure, circumventing the independent oversight that voters demanded in 2004.

Let’s be clear: This isn’t a minor adjustment to the disciplinary matrix; it’s a fundamental change in how police accountability works in Denver. What’s more, it’s being pushed through without a public vote, hearings, or any formal opportunity for the community to weigh in.

In a recent public meeting, Chief Ron Thomas claimed there is “overwhelming support” for this change. However, this “support” is based on an incomplete understanding of the policy, as the chief has yet to release the full details to the community. During select meetings with public safety organizations, concerns have been raised about shifting the focus from accountability to training.

What’s more troubling is the lack of evidence supporting this approach. There’s no clear research showing that education-based discipline improves outcomes for cities or communities. The model is loosely based on a program in Los Angeles County, known for poor police conduct, and smaller communities like Pasadena, California, which use education-based development but do not replace traditional discipline. In Denver’s case, however, the plan is to shift the majority of disciplinary cases into this alternative track.

The city deserves better than a rushed, loosely copied model implemented behind closed doors. Police discipline reform is a serious issue that requires careful planning, evidence, and, most importantly, community trust. That trust is already fragile, and the process by which this change is being pushed forward only weakens it further.

We’ve seen this before: changes made in the name of efficiency, without regard for long-term consequences. In the context of public safety and civil rights, the consequences can be profound. Decisions about police conduct need to reflect community values, not just internal departmental preferences. Meaningful community involvement in significant changes provides legitimacy and community buy-in, and should not be bypassed just because it’s inconvenient.

While there is always an opportunity to offer officers additional training or learning opportunities, these should complement, not replace, a fair and transparent disciplinary process. Any significant deviation from the current disciplinary system must be done with full public transparency, clear evidence of effectiveness, and strong community involvement.

Right now, we have none of that.

We urge Mayor Mike Johnston, Chief Thomas, and the Department of Public Safety to pause the policy’s implementation and allow it to be brought into the open for a genuine community discussion. Let’s involve the Independent Monitor, the Citizen Oversight Board, the City Council, and — most importantly — the public. If we are going to change how police are held accountable, we must do it the right way.

Denver has led the way on police oversight before. We can do it again — but only if we follow the charter, the evidence, and the people.

Julia Richman is chair of the Denver Citizen Oversight Board. She wrote this op-ed on behalf of seven other members of the board: Vice Chair Tymesha Watkins, Karen Collier, Rufina Hernandez, Dawn Holden, David Martinez, Larry Martinez, and Alfredo Reyes. One seat on the nine-member board is currently vacant.

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.

While congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump enacted tax relief for overtime workers nationwide as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), Colorado Democrats are using it as an excuse to squeeze those workers for higher state taxes.

Now that OBBBA has been signed and is the law of the land, over the course of the next year, governors and lawmakers in many states will be seeking to pass legislation that complements some of the changes that OBBBA made to the federal tax code.

In statehouses across the country, lawmakers will take action to provide the same year-one deductibility at the state level for business capital expenditures, along with research and development costs, that OBBBA restored federally. While state lawmakers will seek to conform with some of the changes made by OBBBA, they’ll also work to decouple from other parts, particularly the international provisions.

In addition to full business expensing, expect some state lawmakers to propose emulating OBBBA’s $25,000 tax deduction for tips and overtime pay by providing a similar state deduction. In fact, over the past year, lawmakers in more than a dozen states have introduced legislation that provides some form of state tax exemption for tip income. That trend will likely continue following federal enactment of the tips and overtime exemptions.

Coming state legislation that complements or conforms with OBBBA will typically be done in a way that reduces state tax burdens, but that’s not the case everywhere.

Take Colorado, where Democrats who control state government have gone in the opposite direction, clawing back some of the federal tax relief that OBBBA provided to workers. Voters, however, may soon have an opportunity to undo that maneuver, which was designed to counteract some of the tax relief provided by OBBBA.

“In April, legislators added into House Bill 1296 — a bill that made several changes to state tax exemptions — a requirement for residents to add the amount of overtime pay excluded from their federal income tax revenue to their Colorado taxable income,” Ed Sealover wrote in a July 17 article for The Sum and Substance, a news site published by the Colorado Chamber of Commerce. “This was a defensive move anticipating that Congress could exempt overtime compensation from federal tax income, as state officials said that mirroring federal law would cost Colorado $400 million to $600 million in annual revenue.”

A July 10 Colorado Springs Gazette editorial noted that “Colorado’s Legislature and Gov. Jared Polis decided to gut-punch Colorado workers,” by voting this spring to raise state taxes on overtime pay, “essentially taxing their hard-earned overtime wages.” That state tax hike, the Gazette editorial went on to add, “was buried in an obscure, wide-ranging bill innocuously titled, ‘Tax Expenditure Adjustment,’ which lawmakers passed this spring.”

Advance Colorado, an organization that has a record of running successful ballot measure campaigns, filed paperwork with the Colorado Secretary of State on July 8 to begin collecting the signatures needed to place a measure on the 2026 ballot. That measure, Initiative 119, would undo the provision in the Expenditure Adjustment Act that decoupled from the new federal exemption for overtime pay. What’s more, Initiative 119 would also prevent state taxation of tip income. In order to qualify for the 2026 ballot, Initiative 119 supporters must collect 124,238 valid signatures.

“If they would have done nothing,” Michael Fields, president of Advance Colorado, said about Colorado legislators, “people would have seen this reduction.” Fields added that when people find out about what the legislature did to ensure that enactment of OBBBA would not also result in a new state tax break for workers, “they are going to be upset that the state took a direct action to ensure higher taxes.”

It remains to be seen whether lawmakers in other states will follow Colorado’s lead, changing state tax law as a way to not provide state tax relief that is the same as what their constituents received from OBBBA. Even if Illinois, New York, Oregon, and other blue states follow suit, however, there is a good chance Colorado voters will end up undoing the state tax hike that served as a model for such proposals.

Patrick Gleason is vice president of state affairs at Americans for Tax Reform, a taxpayer group founded in 1985 at the request of President Ronald Reagan. 

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.

Congress recently voted to rescind $1.1 billion of previously approved funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides funds for National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting Service and their local affiliates. I’m not just a regular listener of Colorado Public Radio, NPR, and PBS12 and an occasional guest and donor; I’m a big fan of all three stations.

Yet I support the elimination of their public funding for one reason: it’s inequitable. Federal subsidies are unfair to taxpayers and station competitors.

Taxpayers, roughly half of whom lean right, should not have to subsidize left-leaning news coverage and analysis. I love public radio, but find the bias impossible to ignore. Sometimes hosts can barely keep the disdain they feel for President Trump, his supporters, and conservative policies from tinging their sonorous voices. Usually, though, the liberal bias is a little more subtle.

For example, a recent story on NPR about “Trump Accounts” for children in the budget reconciliation bill included listener comments. Not one was in support of the measure. I could have been one of those commenters since I oppose the accounts, the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and for that matter, much of what Trump says and does. However, the segment should have included comments from supporters. I learned that in high school journalism class.

Mischaracterization of conservative and libertarian views and motivations is another problem. This may be less from intention and more from hosts and producers not actually knowing any conservatives. For example, another recent NPR segment featuring two liberal hosts described prolifers as “wanting to control women.”

As someone involved in the movement for four decades, I’ve never met anyone who wanted to control women. The prolifers I know, most of whom are strong, independent women, want simply to protect vulnerable human beings from a painful death. It’s fine to disagree, but not to misrepresent our motivation as misogyny. Of course, it’s easier to argue with a strawman than to find an actual person and ask her about her motivation.

Hosts also show a preference for liberal-preferred terms and phrases such as “undocumented,” “sex assigned at birth,” “white privilege,” “reproductive rights,” “unhoused,” and “living wage.” Hosts are not trying to gall conservative listeners. These words reflect hosts’ views or are what they think their listeners want to hear. The preference, however, can be alienating to those who hold other views especially when they are forced to subsidize broadcasts through their tax dollars.

And yes, it is true that hosts of rightwing radio and television regularly feature only conservative viewpoints, mischaracterize liberal opinions, and use conservative buzzwords. But here’s the difference: those programs are not subsidized by taxpayers. Stations have to earn their funding through advertisers and subscribers. Left-leaning Americans need not give a dime.

As a listener, I am not worried that public radio and television stations will collapse from the elimination of public funds. These funds represent only a portion of their budgets. Stations will simply have to raise more money through advertising and donations.

True, it’s a tough environment. Journalism has changed. Growing up, new news and analysis could be found in newspapers, magazines, and on broadcasts, and old news in books and on microfiche archives. Thanks to the internet, these sources now compete with websites, blogs, social media, podcasts, and online video. The operative word here is “compete.” These news and opinion sources, like their traditional counterparts — public broadcasting excepted — are 100% dependent on subscribers and advertisers without any handout from taxpayers. It’s only fair that public radio and television stations compete on equal footing.

Krista L. Kafer is a Sunday 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.

As a small business owner in Colorado’s construction industry, I’ve spent decades working alongside contractors and subcontractors who build the roads we drive on, the schools we send our kids to, and the businesses that fuel our economy. At Delta Drywall, we know firsthand how public infrastructure projects keep local companies busy, create good-paying jobs, and strengthen communities across our state.

That’s why I’m proud to support the One Big Beautiful Bill. This legislation isn’t just a tax package — it’s a lifeline for Colorado’s subcontractors and a major investment in the future of our local infrastructure.

One of the most important pieces of this bill is how it strengthens the Highway Trust Fund, the critical federal funding source for road and bridge projects nationwide. For too long, the trust fund has faced uncertainty, leaving states like Colorado waiting on unreliable federal dollars to repair highways, widen rural roads, and modernize infrastructure. This bill provides new resources and stability for the fund ensuring that infrastructure projects can move forward without delay, and that subcontractors like drywall crews, electricians, and concrete companies have steady work.

For years, the Highway Trust Fund has teetered on the edge of insolvency, made worse by outdated funding mechanisms that haven’t kept pace with the demands on our roads. The One Big Beautiful addresses that problem head-on by redirecting revenues from unused COVID-era funds and creating new federal fees on electric vehicles to provide a fresh infusion of dollars into the trust fund.

It also modernizes the funding formula to ensure states like Colorado — with growing populations and aging infrastructure — get a fairer share of the pot. That means more dollars for projects like Interstate 70 improvements through Glenwood Canyon, the long-needed expansion of US-85 in Weld County, and safety upgrades to rural roads that support our state’s agriculture and energy economies.

Just as important, it opens up the door to new projects across Colorado — such as bridge replacements in Pueblo County, resurfacing and widening Highway 50 in Otero County, and long-overdue maintenance on key mountain corridors like US-285.

In the Denver metro area, it could help accelerate long-discussed expansions of Interstate 270 and Interstate 225 to ease congestion and improve freight movement. These are the kinds of projects that not only modernize our transportation systems but keep Colorado subcontractors like drywall crews, concrete teams, electricians, and framers employed year-round.

When federal infrastructure dollars flow reliably, it benefits more than just highway contractors. It supports the small, local subcontractors who take on everything from bridge railings and retaining walls to electrical systems and interior work on public projects. In my business, those projects help keep our crews on job sites and paychecks in the hands of local workers.

The bill also delivers tax relief for small businesses like mine. By lowering federal tax rates for pass-through businesses and expanding deductions for equipment, vehicles, and operational costs, it allows companies to invest in their teams, upgrade equipment, and weather tough times like inflation and labor shortages.

On top of that, the One Big Beautiful Bill cuts red tape, simplifying the permitting process for infrastructure projects. Too often, subcontractors are forced to sit idle while bureaucratic delays stall projects. Streamlining these approvals means faster job starts, steadier work, and less wasted time and money for businesses like ours.

This legislation represents the kind of practical, pro-growth policy our industry and our state need. It’s not about partisan politics — it’s about keeping Coloradans working and making sure our infrastructure is safe, modern, and built to last. Subcontractors, suppliers, and tradesmen across Colorado are ready to get to work — and this bill clears the path for us to do just that.

Rusty Plowman is the owner of Delta Drywall, a commercial subcontractor based in Colorado, as well as the Past President of ASA Colorado and Past President of ASA National.

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.