News

Will the National Guard be a Strong Enough “Wall” to Secure our Borders?

April 9, 2018

Have you been eagerly waiting for a wall to secure our borders? Congress did not include funding for the wall in the omnibus spending bill. So, instead of sending construction workers and engineers to build the border wall, President Trump is sending soldiers from the National Guard to the border.

The president proclaimed that “until we can have a wall and proper security, we’re going to be guarding our border with the military.” He hoped to send 2000-4000 soldiers. Defense Secretary James N. Mattis is on board, authorizing up to 4000 National Guard troops to be deployed to the Southern U.S. border.

That’s a higher number of soldiers than former President Barack Obama sent (1,200 soldiers), and a lower number than former President George W. Bush sent (6,000 soldiers).

President Trump is eager to secure our borders, but he’ll need the continued help of state governors. If the National Guard acts under the control of the president, by law it must have a more limited role in domestic affairs (See Title 10 of the U.S. Code and the Posse Comitatus Act). However, the National Guard is under less restrictions if it is under the command and control of state governors (see Title 32 of the U.S. Code). Here’s the kicker, though: governors can refuse the help of the National Guard on their borders.

Fortunately for the nation, the Republican governors of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas welcome the support of the National Guard in securing their borders. Arizona and Texas got the ball rolling immediately this past weekend, already deploying troops to their borders!

Unfortunately for the nation, the democrat governor of Oregon tweeted: “If @realDonaldTrump asks me to deploy Oregon Guard troops to the Mexico border, I’ll say no. As Commander of Oregon’s Guard, I’m deeply troubled by Trump’s plan to militarize our border.”

This goes to show how important it is to have Republicans in authority at the state and local level. Their decisions to cooperate or not cooperate with the president to secure our borders will affect the nation as a whole.

What are your thoughts? Is sending soldiers a good makeshift plan until the wall can be built? Are you holding out hope for a wall as the long-term solution, or do you think there’s a better long-term strategy for securing our borders? Feel free to reply to let us know what you think! We’d love to hear from you.

In Service for God, you, your family, and Colorado,

Gary Gates
President and Founder
Colorado Citizens Coalition

Gary Gates started the non-profit Colorado Citizens Coalition because he has a passion for individual liberty and preserving the Constitution, and it’s a fight he’s engaged in with every facet of his life. He believes a coalition is needed because it takes all of us being actively involved to move our state and country forward. We as citizens must stay informed because We the People are in charge and must hold government accountable. Gary desires to provide Colorado citizens a free resource to get useful information about state government from a conservative perspective.

Did the Russians Help President Trump Win?

February 25, 2018

If you voted for Trump, I’m guessing you did not do so merely because you saw an ad calling Hillary a Satan! If we do not just blindly believe every advertisement, then it’s safe to say that based on Robert Mueller’s investigation thus far, the Russians did not impact the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

It’s true, however, that according to Mueller’s indictment, at least 13 Russians did meddle with the election. Working under an organization called the Internet Research Agency, they engaged in information warfare against the U.S. They spread derogatory information about Hillary Clinton and spread positive information about then-candidate Donald Trump. They were against other candidates like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and they supported Bernie Sanders.

The fact that the Russians meddled with the election and fought an information warfare against us may sound quite alarming, but before you start running through the streets shouting “The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming,” let’s break down what type of meddling they did and see if it’s threatening. 

They stole American identities (including social security numbers) so they could pose as Americans to set up social media accounts and stage rallies.

On social media, they created groups like “Tennessee GOP,” “Secured Borders,” and “Heart of Texas” and put out ads such as “Trump is our only hope for a better future!” and “Hillary is a Satan, and her crimes and lies had proved just how evil she is.” (You can see page 20 of the indictment for more ads.) They spread hashtags like “#Hillary4Prison” and “Clinton FRAUDation.”

They also created groups like “Blacktivist” and “United Muslims of America” to encourage minorities to boycott the election or vote for a third party. One ad said, “Choose peace and vote for Jill Stein. Trust me, it’s not a wasted vote.”

They staged rallies such as “Down with Hillary” and “March for Trump” by sending emails to Americans, convincing them to coordinate the rallies. The Americans assumed the messages were coming from an American grassroots organization—they didn’t mean to be in cahoots with the Russians. For one rally, the Russians paid an American to build a cage and another American to dress up in a prison uniform to depict Clinton in the cage.

So, does that type of meddling mean President Trump won because of the Russians? Their goal was not centered around getting President Trump elected. By around 2014—before Donald Trump had announced his presidency—they already had decided their strategy would be to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. Their stated goal was to spread “distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general.”

That goal is clear by what they did after the election: using their false U.S. personas again, the Russians coordinated a rally to “show your support for President-Elect Donald Trump,” but at the same time, they coordinated a rally called “Trump is NOT my president!” Obviously then, their real interest was creating political disruption.

And here’s the bottom line. This indictment does not show the Russians influenced the election results. It just shows they came up with some clever hashtags against Hillary. But if you voted for Trump, you didn’t do so just because you saw a hashtag against Hillary, or saw an actress impersonating her in a prison costume. You voted for Trump because you wanted him to end the killing of unborn babies, secure our borders, provide tax relief, replace Obamacare, appoint constitutional conservatives to the Judiciary, etc.

Although the Russians’ information warfare does not appear to have altered the election outcome, this whole ordeal is still an important wake-up call for us. It means we must stay on our guard. It’s a reminder not to accept social media propaganda and rhetoric at face value—we must look deeper and see if hashtags are backed by facts and reasoning. You never know—your favorite new hashtag could be coming from the Russians!

The Russians are not a threat to our democracy though, unless we’re only getting our information from social media and obeying rhetoric and propaganda. If we are an educated citizenry, however, the Russians’ information warfare will be harmless on American soil.

Do the Russians really think we’re gullible enough to fall for their ploy? None of us has to listen to rhetoric instead of reason. If some random activist organization on Facebook says jump, we don’t just jump! If they say Hillary should be in prison, we don’t just have to take their word for it. We can investigate the facts ourselves. If they say, “trust me; you should vote this way,” we do not just have to trust them!

The charge in 2 Corinthians 10:5 can help us with information warfare: “…take every thought captive to obey Christ.” Our POWs from information warfare should be thoughts and ideas—take ideas captive and examine them. The way to defend yourself is to load your arsenal with truth and sharpen your reasoning powers. Let’s stand together on the battle line.

In Service,

Colorado Citizens Coalition

Gary Gates started the non-profit Colorado Citizens Coalition because he has a passion for individual liberty and preserving the Constitution, and it’s a fight he’s engaged in with every facet of his life. He believes a coalition is needed because it takes all of us being actively involved to move our state and country forward. We as citizens must stay informed because We the People are in charge and must hold government accountable. Gary desires to provide Colorado citizens a free resource to get useful information about state government from a conservative perspective.

President Trump Stands Up for the Unborn

January 25, 2018

Wanting to give a voice to the voiceless in the womb, pro-lifers gather together in D.C. every year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade (the 1973 case that legalized abortion in all 50 states) to protest, grieve, and celebrate life during the March for Life. In the past 45 years of the March for Life, presidents have not given an address to the marchers, except by phone or recorded message a few times. Last Friday, however, President Trump made history by becoming the first sitting president to address the marchers via live video satellite from the White House!

The “big 3” television networks (ABC, NBC, and CBS) did not think the March for Life was worth reporting on for long. CBS ignored it, and ABC and NBC only reported on it for 2 minutes, 6 seconds combined, according to the Media Research Center. Apparently, when tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of people march on SCOTUS to rally against one of the worst human rights atrocities of our time, it’s not “news-worthy” enough.

Fortunately, the President thought it was worthy of his time. Did you get a chance to hear his speech yet? One of our favorite parts was when he boldly stated, “Under my administration, we will always defend the very first right in the Declaration of Independence, and that is the right to life.”

The theme of the march this year was “Love Saves Lives,” and the President expanded on that theme in his speech: “The March for Life is a movement born out of love. You love your families, you love your neighbors, you love our nation and you love every child — born and unborn — because you believe every life is sacred, that every child is a precious gift from God.”

That’s exactly right, Mr. President! Pro-lifers are not against abortion because we’re haters of women, but because we’re lovers of life. We want to love women, but we don’t want to limit our love to the women already born—we also want to expand our love to girls and boys in the womb.

The March for Life page exclaims, “Choosing life is not always easy, but it is the loving, empowering, and self-sacrificial option.” Indeed. The loving and empowering option is not to tell a woman, “You can’t handle this; you should take the easy way out and have your baby killed”! Rather, the loving option is to come alongside women, supporting them and reminding them how strong they are: they are strong enough to do the right thing. They are brave enough to choose love.

The most loving thing we can do for others is to lay down our life for them. Sound familiar? I’m just quoting Jesus (John 15:13). He laid down his life for us, and his Love saves the lives of all who call on him.

What are ways that you can love in order to save lives? Here’s a few ideas: we can lay down our lives, giving up time, energy, and money, to support pregnant women. Abortion providers can sacrifice their fat paycheck and quit doing abortions. Women can lay down their lives to carry their babies to term. We can make sacrifices to adopt. What would you add to the list?

As the President said in his speech, it’s time we all come together for “one beautiful cause: to build a society where life is celebrated, protected, and cherished.”

In Service,

Gary Gates
President and Founder
Colorado Citizens Coalition

Gary Gates started the non-profit Colorado Citizens Coalition because he has a passion for individual liberty and preserving the Constitution, and it’s a fight he’s engaged in with every facet of his life. He believes a coalition is needed because it takes all of us being actively involved to move our state and country forward. We as citizens must stay informed because We the People are in charge and must hold government accountable. Gary desires to provide Colorado citizens a free resource to get useful information about state government from a conservative perspective.

Tax Bill: Will It Define a Fetus as a Person?

November 21, 2017

Last week in the President’s Corner, we covered how the tax reform bill could potentially eradicate the individual mandate of Obamacare. The bill has an even more surprising twist: it defines the unborn as human beings.

If you were falling asleep while reading the bill, page 93 likely jolted you awake as if you just drank three shots of espresso. You probably didn’t believe your eyes at first. I sure didn’t. Is that pro-life language…in a tax bill, of all things?

Indeed, it is. It reads: “The term ‘unborn child’ means a child in utero…‘child in utero’ means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

There you have it. A fetus defined as a “child” and “member of the species homo sapiens”—a human being. Apparently, the bill authors have taken a biology class and know that a fetus is not a mere “clump of cells.” It’s about time our bills reflect the facts of human biology by acknowledging the fetus as a human!

How did Republicans fit pro-life language in among taxes? The tax reform bill allows parents to open a 529 college-savings account (which offers tax breaks) not only for their born children, but for their unborn children as well. Since unborn children can be beneficiaries of the account, the bill also had to define “unborn child,” and that’s how Republicans arrived at putting pro-life language in the bill.

Finally, a tax code can apply to unborn children: “A child in the womb is just as human as you or I yet, until now, the U.S. tax code has failed to acknowledge the unborn child – all while granting tax breaks for those seeking an abortion under the pretense of ‘healthcare,’” said Jeanne Mancini of March for Life.

Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America are not happy, so we must be doing something right! Planned Parenthood tweeted their disapproval that the bill includes an attempt to restrict abortion, and NARAL tweeted, “Leave it to the GOP to figure out how to stick language that would help them pass an abortion ban into a tax bill.” You know what, NARAL? I’ll take that as compliment to the GOP. Leave it to us to figure out a way to promote life and truth in all bills, even a tax bill!

NARAL continued their tweet rant: “The GOP’s relentless obsession with advancing its dangerous anti-choice ideology knows no boundaries and no common sense.” No, NARAL. We don’t have a relentless obsession with advancing an ideology, but we are obsessed with valuing human life, inside and outside the womb.

I’m proud that conservatives have a relentless obsession with defending and protecting human life.

In Service,

Gary Gates
President and Founder
Colorado Citizens Coalition

Gary Gates started the non-profit Colorado Citizens Coalition because he has a passion for individual liberty and preserving the Constitution, and it’s a fight he’s engaged in with every facet of his life. He believes a coalition is needed because it takes all of us being actively involved to move our state and country forward. We as citizens must stay informed because We the People are in charge and must hold government accountable. Gary desires to provide Colorado citizens a free resource to get useful information about state government from a conservative perspective.

Tax Reform Bill: Will It Repeal Obamacare’s Penalties?

November 10, 2017

It’s that time of year again. As you add pumpkin pies and turkey to your shopping list, it’s also the time when government financially twists your arm into buying something whether you want it or not, and I’m not referring to pies. I’m referring to Obamacare (or, the deceptively named ACA: “Affordable” Care Act). The 2018 Open Enrollment Period for Obamacare (ACA) began a few days ago.

“Trump is President, but ACA is still the law of the land until further notice,” warns the Obamacare Facts website. Which means to avoid being penalized for not having health insurance, Americans are forced into getting coverage during Open Enrollment, or else they must fork over the penalty fee.

Imagine if your grocery store did that to you, saying: “You don’t want to buy Thanksgiving stuffing? Well, we’ve determined it’s good for you, so we’re charging you a fine for not buying our product.” I wouldn’t want my grocery store to do that to me, and I’m sick and tired of government doing that to me when it comes to health insurance. Will government ever stop meddling in my personal affairs?

Relief might be coming from an unlikely source—not from an Obamacare repeal bill, but from the recent GOP tax reform bill. A day before the draft bill came out on November 2nd, President Trump tweeted, “Wouldn’t it be great to Repeal the very unfair and unpopular Individual Mandate in ObamaCare and use those savings for further Tax Cuts for the Middle Class…”

Indeed, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that getting rid of the Obamacare Individual Mandate would save $416 billion over the next eight years!

Despite Trump’s requests, the $416 billion might not end up back in taxpayers’ pockets. When the House Republicans released the draft tax reform bill last Thursday, it did not include tax cuts from repealing the Individual Mandate.

There’s still cause for hope, though. The repeal could be added later in the Senate, ​pushed​ by Sen. Tom Cotton and Sen. Ted Cruz, or the House can still revise the draft, led by Rep. Mark Meadows and Rep. Mark Walker.​​

We’ll be keeping an eye on this tax bill, so keep your eye on your inbox for updates. In the next issue of President’s Corner, I’ll discuss a surprising twist to the tax reform bill: the draft of the bill has bravely included pro-life reform. I’m looking forward to telling you about it.

In Service,

Gary Gates
President and Founder
Colorado Citizens Coalition

Ending a Strange Discriminatory Practice on our Lakes and Waterways

March 21, 2017

By Rep. Kim Ransom

An unlikely issue is taking flight this year at the Colorado State Capitol – access for seaplanes to state-controlled waters.

For Colorado – a land-locked state – this may seem a rather odd issue. But Colorado is home to a substantial number of large, beautiful lakes in state parks, which could be attractive to the nation’s seaplane pilots and help bring tourism and other aviation related dollars into the state – were it not for state law.

What makes this legal prohibition particularly startling is that Colorado is the only state that does not allow these aircraft to land in their waters. You read that right. All 49 other states grant seaplanes the freedom to access public waters like other motorized users. Colorado is discriminating against an entire class of water users, limiting the right of seaplane owners to fully enjoy their property in the state, and infringing on their right to access public waters.

Initially, the prohibition was justified on the grounds of safety and security; following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, virtually all forms of air travel in the nation were severely restricted, and seaplanes were no exception. However, most every state reevaluated its laws and realized there were better ways to combat terrorism than by grounding American citizens. Safety concerns have also been addressed, as experience demonstrates that the training, regulations, and industry procedures that pilots were subject to have resulted in an exceptional safety record, with a major safety study recording only three seaplane-on- boat incidents over a 13-year period (1983-1995). By comparison, in a single year 960 boat-on-boat accidents were recorded.

With safety and security concerns addressed, the State of Colorado’s prohibition against seaplanes now rests on the threat of aquatic invasive species – in particular the Quagga and Zebra Mussels. The threat of these nuisance species to waters and water infrastructure is, to be fair, a real one. Introduced to the United States in the late 1980’s by water carried in container ships headed to the Great Lakes from Northern Europe, these pernicious mussels quickly spread throughout the States, mainly via boats. From the Great Lakes they crossed to the eastern U.S., clogging pipes and wreaking havoc on waterworks. Since that time, extensive efforts have focused on limiting and preventing the spread of these species in the west. This included an education campaign directed toward boat owners and inspection protocols.

Colorado regulators have used the quagga- and- zebra mussel threat as their reason to prohibit seaplane access. However, seaplanes have never been identified as a principal avenue for the transfer of these species. There has not been a single documented case of a seaplane introducing an invasive mussel to any water, and in fact, some of the states in which seaplanes are most active and least restricted – Alaska, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming – remain free of the aquatic scourge. A real study has never been conducted, but some scientific data suggest that part of the reason may be that these mussels cannot survive in-flight conditions where they become dehydrated (the mussels die if desiccated beyond 30%) – something likely to happen when hanging onto outboard pontoons at 100 mph. Despite the reduced risk that seaplanes represent, the seaplane community, as a responsible user of waterways, has been deeply involved and proactive in nationwide Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) prevention programs, including an intensive partnership with the “100th Meridian” initiative, a program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The community has developed an extremely successful inspection and decontamination protocol, including educating and certifying seaplane pilots to recognize the hazard.

And yet, Colorado maintains its ban. Efforts by the state’s seaplane community to simply sit down with state officials to work out an acceptable protocol for ANS mitigation have been met with deaf ears and stubborn resistance. At issue seems to be the state government’s refusal to relinquish any control over the inspection process by giving pilots a portion of the responsibility to inspect their own planes, and by trusting them to follow through on the flight plans they have filed after inspection at an airport.

Because attempts to work out any remaining differences with the bureaucracy in pursuit of the restoration of their rights have proven futile, the seaplane community in Colorado is now pursuing the legislative route. A bill is expected to be introduced, as it was in 2016, to relax Colorado’s ban on seaplanes and to restore to seaplane owners the same treatment afforded other motorized water users. What seems like a common sense, good government fix could prove to be a heavy lift owing to the bureaucracy’s reluctance to bend or share power, and instead restrict the liberty of law-abiding citizens under the auspice of ‘protecting the environment’. Nevertheless, the state’s seaplane community remains hopeful that its own proactive and successful effort to protect the water will be recognized, and that the State of Colorado will join the rest of the nation in treating them fairly.

Rep. Kim Ransom is from Douglas County and represents House District 44.

Colorado’s hidden $33 billion business tax government will not talk about

March 13, 2017

By Sen. Jack Tate

Does Colorado have an invisible $33 billion tax on employers that is holding back economic expansion and job creation? According to a recent report, that amount is the estimated annual cost of compliance imposed on Colorado employers by federal regulations.

To get an idea of the magnitude of this compliance cost, consider that it is fifty times the size of all corporate income taxes paid by Colorado employers.

Two decades ago, the U.S. Small Business Administration began sponsoring a periodic study by an independent team of economists to come up with an estimate of the annual costs imposed on American businesses by the thousands of federal regulatory mandates. By 2013, those costs added up to an estimated $2.02 trillion according to the team’s 2015 report. The non-profit Competitive Enterprise Institute arrived at the similar cost estimate of $1.86 trillion. That translates to at least a $33 billion compliance cost for Colorado’s business sector — an amount over fifty times the state government’s annual corporate income tax bite. This ever-growing cost functions just like a destructive tax policy: it discourages capital investment and job creation.

The ground breaking SBA study of compliance costs confirmed that small business is impacted disproportionately by regulatory mandates on employers. For example, the per-employee cost of new environmental regulations is $3,574 for companies of less than 50 employees compared to $1,014 per employee in companies with 100 or more employees. For manufacturing firms, that difference between large and small firms is over $14,000 per employee.

That estimated $33 billion compliance burden on Colorado employers is a hidden tax no one in government wants to talk about. Advocates for government regulation want to talk only about the promised benefits of new standards, new goals and new targets, not the costs of those regulatory mandates.

Efforts in the state Legislature to acknowledge those compliance costs are resisted. A case in point is what happened to the 2003 legislation aimed to curtail mushrooming regulatory costs in Colorado. Senate Bill 03-121 established a process for requesting and conducting a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) for new rules which impact small firms or damage Colorado’s competitiveness to a substantial degree.

What happened to that 2003 mandate? The numbers tell the story. Since 2004, state agencies have published 5,616 new and amended rules, described in an average of 15,000 pages each year. Now, what percentage of those 5,616 rules promulgated since 2004 have been subjected to a Cost-Benefit Analysis? The answer, sadly, is less than 2 percent.

No one is suggesting that the benefits of a new government regulation never outweigh the costs. The point here is more fundamental: When imposing new regulations on the business sector, state lawmakers and regulatory advocates always crow about assumed benefits, but they hardly ever even acknowledge compliance costs, much less try to quantify them.

In truth, this hidden tax is the unacknowledged “elephant in the room” obstructing Colorado’s economic growth. Because those cumulative costs have never been measured or examined adequately, no one — not even professional economists — knows the real impact of cumulative compliance costs on job growth and business expansion. Furthermore, who is evaluating the regulations of the past?

Obviously, one of the main reasons there is so little organized resistance to regulatory mandates is that corporations have been bullied to look upon regulatory compliance as simply a “cost of doing business.” The cost of compliance with any one particular rule is simply factored into the cost of the product or service sold to consumers, suppliers or the government. To left-wing politicians and some government bureaucrats, the idea that entrepreneurs will be discouraged from starting new firms and some small firms forgo expansion or even be driven out of business by compliance costs is simply dismissed as “collateral damage.”

Every signal coming out of Washington, D.C. is telling us to expect a major push for business deregulation as a major pillar of a new business expansion strategy. Colorado should be an active partner in this effort. We should welcome the new opportunities for regulatory reform and for a more skeptical attitude toward the regulatory “collateral damage” inflicted on small business, which is the primary engine of job growth, economic expansion and distributed wealth creation.

Sen. Jack Tate serves District 27 in the Colorado Senate and chairs the Senate Business Committee.

This article originally ran in the Colorado Statesman.

Important issues face 71st General Assembly

March 9, 2017

By Senate President Kevin Grantham

As the first session of the 71st General Assembly gets underway, I find myself turning to our state’s constitution for guidance, the preamble of which laid the groundwork for our continued growth and priorities. Justice, tranquility, and liberty are values all Coloradans hold dear, values that Senate Republicans will continue to fight for this legislative session. Our state is growing at an unprecedented rate, and every day new folks are choosing to call Colorado home. With this surge in population, we cannot afford inaction on some of our state’s most pressing issues any longer, and Senate Republicans will make certain that the needs of every Coloradan are our top priority. To that end, Republicans in the legislature will continue to prioritize adequate funding to ensure the safe and secure condition of our bridges and roadways, we will reach across the aisle to spearhead creative solutions to solve the housing crisis in our state, and as part of our ongoing endeavors to create a better economic climate for all Coloradans, we will work tirelessly to repeal burdensome regulations and hidden taxes on job creators in our state. This session, Coloradans can rest assured that Senate Republicans will be steadfast champions for those values that unite us.

Our state’s bridges and roadways are in shambles, and endless gridlock and congestion not only affect every Coloradan, but also impose upon commerce and cost our state and taxpayers. We can no longer wring our hands waiting, it is time to address adequate transportation funding in Colorado. Our current infrastructure needs exceed nine billion dollars, including three and half billion in shovel ready projects on the priority list awaiting funding. With more and more people moving to our state every day, our roads will only continue to deteriorate at an alarming rate and our time in traffic will rise. It is time to develop real solutions to improve Colorado’s infrastructure and ensure the safety of every family, every time they travel our state roads and bridges. Those solutions must and will respect the needs and priorities of Coloradans. Senate Republicans will not write a blank check at the taxpayer’s expense. This session, we will address our transportation needs, while ensuring the protection of the will of Colorado taxpayers.

With over 100,000 new residents last year alone, but only about 25,000 new houses built, Colorado is in the midst of a housing crisis. Home ownership is a crucial component to achieving the American Dream, and Senate Republicans want to remove barriers and help every Coloradan start on a pathway to accessible, affordable housing. In that vein, we will fight to mitigate back end costs and encourage builders to build. Currently, demand for new condos and homes far outweigh the supply, we will seek to end that discrepancy. Every young person, every new family, every transplant and native deserves the opportunity to own a home and Senate Republicans want to provide that opportunity.

Though a perpetual objective, regulatory reform and the promotion of a healthy economy and strong business climate is no less important this session than any other. Senate Republicans are committed to reducing regulatory and bureaucratic hurdles that inhibit business startups, stifle job creation, and limit growth in Colorado. Our state averages 15,000 pages of new rules and regulations every year. These hidden taxes are job killers and we would be remiss as public servants to allow such fatal detriment to our economy to occur on our watch. We will work with small businesses—the engine of our economy—to repeal these redundancies and ensure that job creation in Colorado is a top priority for this body.

‘We the people,’ it is the phrase that will guide your Senate Republican leadership team this session. ‘We the people,’ it reminds us for whom we work, it reminds us that we are stronger together, it reminds us of the guiding principles on which our state was founded and of the values—justice, tranquility, and liberty—which we all hold so dear. This session, we will fight for Colorado roads and bridges, for accessible housing, for more jobs and less regulation. We will fight for our future. This session, Senate Republicans will work for the people, that is our guarantee.

Sen. Kevin Grantham serves District 2 and is President of the Colorado State Senate.

Connect With Us