SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
michael bennet
Colorado Voters Aren't Foolish: Reading Between the Lines of the Dem Gov Debate
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser stood firm on his answers and invited more collaboration. I believe he will make a fine governor for Colorado—for all of us.
Jun 09, 2026
On Thursday evening last week, I attended the Colorado Democratic gubernatorial debate at the invitation of Colorado’s attorney general, Phil Weiser. Weiser and US Sen. Michael Bennet are facing off in the upcoming June 30th primary.
Colorado’s next governor needs to be aware that not having enough money to retire comfortably is not a moral failing and that we deserve the same protections as those who are more financially set in life. We support AG Weiser to be our next governor in large part due to his fight back, intelligence, and decency. Yet what solidified that support following the debate was knowing what wasn’t said and why it wasn’t said—and knowing Weiser didn’t play those games with those partaking in the debate.
We do not like being played for fools, and Weiser never seems to do that—though he is aware we are not wealthy donors or wealthy at all. Listening closely to what was said and not said is a skill I’ve honed after raising six children and after working in and around political folks in Washington, DC and closer to home. Even as a child, being able to read a room or figure out if I’m in danger has been a necessary survival skill. As a senior struggling with my share of health issues and as primary caregiver for my husband when he needs care, I know that aging in Colorado in Trump’s America requires me to be more vigilant than ever—and we are in danger, friends.
While Weiser and Bennet are not miles apart in their positions on some key policies, and voters might argue the fine points of policy differences, two sections of the debate spoke volumes to me about credibility and being seen as a voter smart enough to see through a ruse.
Phil Weiser seems to want people like me to be part of his political work—his public service—and he believes I am intelligent enough to know when the BS factor is out of control.
Michael Bennet is a fine orator. His years in the Senate have allowed him great practice for that skill. I’ve never found that his diatribes on the Senate floor in DC (as covered by his campaign and sometimes local media outlets) helped me or even slowed down the relentless American-dream-crushing march of the current federal government’s behavior. I’m afraid to lose my Medicare or my Social Security mostly because I don’t want to burden my children or grandchildren. Those programs are federal, not state.
Bennet chastised Weiser for not fighting the first Trump administration enough from his state position even though Bennet has supported many Trump nominees and even some policies. He said he did so because of the existential threats Colorado faces in areas those Trump nominees control and areas in which we need federal funds. Really? So, as Bennet proclaimed, the easiest vote in America is one against Trump, I thought to myself—what the hell exactly does that mean? It tells me that I cannot trust Bennet to do his job right now as the people of this state depend on him to do, and if I cannot trust he will protect this democracy or my earned benefits of Social Security and Medicare—and that he will do everything in his power to oppose blackmailing bullies—I cannot trust him to be Colorado’s governor.
In contrast, Weiser said he would never bow to that sort of Trump-style political gamesmanship with someone threatening our rights and our economic safety as a state. Perhaps that is Weiser’s personal history as the son of Holocaust survivors, and yet, it must also be the stance of those of us who believe in the Constitution of this nation and this state. Cooperating with an administration that devalues my life and lives of anyone in our human family is unacceptable, and it is not leadership. Appeasing a despot who finds joy and power in his cruelty has never worked and never will. Trump must be opposed at every turn.
No, Sen. Bennet, it isn’t so hard. Do all you can from where you are now—fight in your current position for which you are paid by us. If young people are angry about the Dems, it’s because they do not see the fight back or even the direct challenges to almost everything we fought to secure on the federal level. Stopping the forward march of Project 2025 comes before building new ways to confront our shared futures. Where were you, Sen. Bennet? Yelling and smooth orating doesn’t save anything or prove your worthiness to lead on the state level. Our erudite rants make for great sound bites, though.
My second point of recognizing deception was in Michael Bennet’s assertion that he hasn’t even thought about who he’s going to appoint (if he is elected our next governor) to fill the rest of his Senate term. It’s silly to expect anyone to believe that. While he said it would be someone under 50 years old, he wants you and me to believe he really hasn’t thought about it at all. Come on. He went on to say he hasn’t had any conversations at all here in Colorado about his favored appointee. Did you read that carefully? I’m sure the conversations he has had haven’t actually been in Colorado. He hasn’t spent that much time here, I don’t think. Access to him is very tightly controlled, and letters from Coloradans are answered with form responses. His life centers on DC, and his “conversations” about his Senate replacement likely were there with US House reps from Colorado or in New York with Michael Bloomberg (one of his most generous donors).
So, bottom line for me is that Phil Weiser seems to want people like me to be part of his political work—his public service—and he believes I am intelligent enough to know when the BS factor is out of control. I don’t want my governor to appease Trump or anyone else who harms us all in the manner of a mob boss or dictator, and I want to know who Bennet favors appointing to his Senate seat, if it’s vacated. Those things matter as we face the future together.
Phil Weiser stood firm on his answers and invited more collaboration. I believe he will make a fine governor for Colorado—for all of us. And a vote for Phil Weiser doesn’t have any mystery attached. Strong and unwilling to honey up to bullies, clear about policy, and ready to fight back and move forward—that’s our AG Phil Weiser. This time in our history demands that and more from us all, not just the people we elect. When politicians play us for fools, we can all rise to this moment and make sure history records our courage, our decency, and our sacred honor shown to one another.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Is Biden’s Medicaid Office Holding Out on Voter Registration?
Several states have attempted to implement automatic voter registration based on Medicare enrollment—but the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is still stalling.
Jul 16, 2023
Recent efforts to expand access to automatic voter registration are again calling attention to old promises by the Biden administration to enhance the accessibility of civic engagement and continued failures by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to actualize them. Even this week,
a piece in the magazine Bolts highlighted how a holdout by Biden officials continues to stall efforts to support low-income residents in registering to vote, despite recent Oregon legislation to automatically register Medicaid enrollees.
A 2021 Executive Order by President Joe Biden sought to promote access to voting, particularly by “expanding access to voter registration and election information,” in a directive to agencies to provide additional access to voter registration with services that directly engage with the public. Automatic voter registration through Medicaid enrollment offices is a common-sense way to expand opportunity for civic engagement among those most likely to be excluded by current voter registration infrastructure and enables the National Voter Registration Act to move towards achieving its full potential.
Automatic voter registration (AVR) has proven effective in increasing voter registrations across a myriad of states—and not just by the number of voters registered, but in ensuring that the registered voter population is more diverse. And states like Oregon, Massachusetts, and Colorado have worked to take this even further, through AVR for Medicaid recipients.
The holdout by Brooks-LaSure, and CMS more broadly, stands in stark contrast with explicit steps set out by President Biden to improve accessibility to voter engagement.
And despite what the wishy-washy response from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on the issue might indicate, AVR based on Medicaid enrollment has tremendous potential:
- Medicaid already verifies the core information used in voter registration records, such as name, date of birth, address, and citizenship status, and can therefore easily process existing information for registering voters, without introducing additional questions, paperwork, or tricky-to-navigate processes.
- AVR through Medicaid enrollment also maximizes potential for all eligible voters in a household to be registered. Compare this to singular voter registrations processed at the Departments of Motor Vehicle (DMV) which might exclude eligible voters within a household as the DMV only interfaces with the individual there, rather than a whole household’s information like with Medicaid enrollment.
- Historically, Medicaid enrollment has been negatively correlated with voter registration and voting; here’s an easy way to address that disparity to increase civic engagement access for low-income Americans.
- Using Medicaid enrollment for AVR has the potential to make voter registration significantly more diverse, as Medicaid beneficiaries are more likely to be people of color, female, and low-income than the rest of the eligible voter population. While AVR at DMVs has been successful in the past, it still misses many eligible voters who don’t interact with the DMV, particularly low-income folks and people of color.
- In many states, Medicaid does annual enrollment updates, which results in voter information being more regularly updated and a registered voter population that is more accurate, compared to data from the DMV that is updated much less frequently.
Despite the overwhelming positive evidence of improvements to voter registration infrastructure, CMS has taken no action to enable states that have passed legislation to actually use Medicaid for automatic voter registration. In a response to a letter from Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) in support of Colorado’s Medicaid efforts, CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure expressed aversion to the use of Medicaid for voter registration, citing conflict with Medicaid privacy concerns. CMS rules currently prevent Medicaid agencies from using enrollment data for non-Medicaid purposes, but CMS can waive these provisions to implement certain proposals at the state level. Even prior CMS officials have indicated support for state-based health insurance exchanges facilitating voter registration.
The holdout by Brooks-LaSure, and CMS more broadly, stands in stark contrast with explicit steps set out by President Biden to improve accessibility to voter engagement. And CMS has resisted fully stepping into its authority in a number of other Executive Orders and actions called for by President Biden—notably, but not limited to the Executive Order on Competition in its calls for coverage for generic drugs and biosimilars. The far-reaching authorities and impacts of CMS, and its role in healthcare for all Americans, deserve additional scrutiny and oversight from the Department of Health and Human Services.
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Taking Budget Advice From Trump Official Who Wants to Cut $2 Trillion From Medicaid
"The Republican playbook is always to drive more people deeper into poverty, while giving kickbacks and tax breaks to their super-rich friends."
Feb 20, 2023
The right-wing official who served as budget director for the Trump administration is reportedly playing a significant advisory role for House Republicans as they seek to leverage a fast-approaching debt ceiling crisis to enact spending cuts that would disproportionately impact low-income households.
According to The Washington Post, former Office of Management and Budget chief Russ Vought "has emerged as one of the central voices shaping the looming showdown over federal spending and the national debt."
"As Republicans struggle to craft a strategy for confronting the Biden administration over the debt ceiling, which limits how much the government can borrow to pay for spending Congress has already approved, Vought has supplied them with a seemingly inexhaustible stream of advice: suggestions for negotiating with the White House, briefings about dealing with the media, a 104-page memo that proposes specific spending levels for every federal agency," the Post reported Sunday.
More specifically, Vought has suggested that the GOP sideline efforts to cut Social Security and Medicare and instead focus on a "push to obliterate almost all other major forms of federal spending, especially programs that benefit lower-income Americans, and dare Biden to stand in the way."
Vought's agenda, the Post noted, proposes $9 trillion in federal spending cuts over the next 10 years, targeting thousands of domestic programs including Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
If adopted, Vought's proposal would inflict $2 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, potentially compromising coverage for millions across the United States—and compounding the impact of lapsing pandemic protections.
Vought's proposed cuts to SNAP—a food aid program long attacked by Republicans—would amount to $400 billion. A recent survey found that 64% of respondents said affording food is one of the biggest challenges they're facing amid elevated inflation.
Tens of millions across the U.S. are currently facing what advocates have dubbed a "hunger cliff" as pandemic-related emergency boosts to SNAP funding expire.
SNAP accounts for a tiny fraction of the federal government's overall spending.
"At a moment when food distribution centers are seeing increases in demand as American families struggle to feed their children, Republican lawmakers are putting families in their political crossfire by threatening to dramatically decrease spending on essential programs like SNAP. The timing of this could not be worse," said Ailen Arreaza, executive director of ParentsTogether. “Further cuts to essential policies helping families to keep food on the table would be unconscionable—and those politicians responsible will pay a political price."
"The only thing more odious than pushing for $3 trillion of unpaid-for tax cuts is pushing for $3 trillion of tax cuts and $3 trillion in cuts to healthcare and nutrition for low- and middle-income families."
Vought, who is also urging Republicans to cut Labor Department funding in half and slash the Affordable Care Act, presents such austerity as needed to rein in an out-of-control federal bureaucracy. But as the Post notes, Vought "oversaw enormous increases in the national debt as Trump's director of the Office of Management and Budget," making clear to critics that his priority is gutting programs that low-income people rely on to meet basic needs.
"The Republican playbook is always to drive more people deeper into poverty, while giving kickbacks and tax breaks to their super-rich friends," said progressive organizer and former congressional candidate Melanie D'Arrigo.
Last week, more than 70 House Republicans introduced legislation that would make 2017 Trump tax cuts for individuals permanent, a major giveaway to the rich that would cost the federal government around $2.2 trillion in revenue through 2032.
The Biden White House and congressional Democrats have indicated that they would oppose federal spending cuts as part of any deal to raise the debt ceiling and prevent a catastrophic default, which could come as soon as this summer if lawmakers don't act.
"The only thing more odious than pushing for $3 trillion of unpaid-for tax cuts is pushing for $3 trillion of tax cuts and $3 trillion in cuts to healthcare and nutrition for low- and middle-income families," tweeted Brendan Duke, a senior adviser to Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.).
Keep ReadingShow Less
Coalition Representing 24 Million Workers Demands Senate Vote on PRO Act Before Midterms
"Passing the Protecting the Right to Organize Act would level the playing field for these workers, and show people which side the Senate Democrats are on," said one advocate.
Oct 05, 2022
A broad coalition of progressive advocacy groups and unions representing 24 million workers on Wednesday doubled down on its demand for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to hold a vote on landmark labor reform legislation before next month's pivotal midterm elections.
"Workers across the country can't afford to keep waiting for the Senate to take action."
At issue is the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, a popular bill that aims to push U.S. labor law in a more worker-friendly direction. If passed, the legislation would ban anti-union "right-to-work" laws and nullify those enacted by GOP officials in 27 states, strengthen penalties against employers who engage in unlawful union-busting, and make it easier for newly unionized workers to finalize their first collective bargaining agreement, among other reforms.
"As potentially illegal harassment, retaliation, and union-busting by Amazon, Starbucks, and Apple continues to make headlines," the Worker Power Coalition said in a statement, "workers across the country can't afford to keep waiting for the Senate to take action."
The coalition--made up of a few dozen unions, environmental justice groups, and left-leaning research and advocacy organizations--spent the past seven weeks mobilizing in key battleground states.
Members met with Senate Democrats in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Virginia--the first five are states where the outcomes of hotly contested races will help determine control of the upper chamber. They also participated in direct actions in Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin, three states in which Democratic Senate candidates are vying to unseat or replace Republicans.
"We must do everything possible to support the growing number of workers who are joining together to improve their workplaces," said Communications Workers of America secretary-treasurer Sara Steffens.
"Our labor laws are outdated and broken. Employers flagrantly violate workers' rights, hold mandatory anti-union meetings, and intimidate and even fire workers for organizing," Steffens noted. "Workers need for the Senate to pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act now so they can organize for safer jobs, better working conditions, and higher pay."
Although the House approved the PRO Act earlier this year, the bill has yet to make it to the desk of President Joe Biden due to a combination of Republican obstructionism and Democratic acquiescence. In keeping with his pledge to be the "most pro-union president" in U.S. history, Biden has endorsed the measure and urged lawmakers to pass it.
The biggest barrier is the Senate's 60-vote filibuster, an anti-democratic rule giving the GOP minority veto power over most legislation--something that conservative Senate Democrats, including Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.), have refused to eliminate.
But even if Democrats managed to repeal the filibuster, the question remains whether corporate-friendly senators in the party would support the PRO Act. Sinema, her Arizona colleague Mark Kelly, and Mark Warner of Virginia--three of the Democratic lawmakers visited recently by the Worker Power Coalition--have not yet co-sponsored the pro-worker legislation.
According to the coalition, Kelly and other vulnerable Senate Democrats--including Michael Bennet in Colorado, Raphael Warnock in Georgia, Catherine Cortez Masto in Nevada, and Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire--ought to welcome a chance to vote for the PRO Act, since doing so could help them differentiate themselves from their GOP opponents.
A fresh poll commissioned by the coalition found that more than 80% of voters under 40 say that one of the key issues motivating them to vote is a desire for improved workers' rights. Data from the survey shows that this demographic is driving Democrats' better-than-expected performance in polls with just 35 days to go until November 8.
"In the face of right-wing extremism seeking to undermine our democracy, it gives me hope that people across the country are fighting back--including workers standing up against big corporations, exercising democracy in the workplace," said Indivisible Project co-founder and co-executive director Leah Greenberg.
"People are desperate for Democratic senators to stand side-by-side with them in this struggle and take action," Greenberg added. "Passing the Protecting the Right to Organize Act would level the playing field for these workers, and show people which side the Senate Democrats are on."
In a letter sent to Schumer last month, the coalition implored the powerful New York Democrat to "bring the PRO Act to a vote as soon as possible."
"The Covid-19 pandemic exposed the need for workers to have a voice on their safety and working conditions," the groups wrote. "Now, inflation is causing economic hardship for working people around the nation."
"The time is now for Congress to enact commonsense reforms to our labor laws and give workers a real voice at their jobs," they added. "The PRO Act is the best chance in decades to shift power away from corporate interests and to everyday Americans who work to provide for their families."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy