Selective reporting skews the Sun’s take on Colorado’s budget reality

By Cory Gaines | Commentary, Colorado Accountability Project

Paul’s and Eason’s disingenuous reporting on the special session

The Colorado Sun article linked at bottom has the title “Frequently asked questions — and misunderstandings — about Colorado’s special session to close a nearly $1B budget hole”, but the article itself fails to deliver on that claim. The article in reality devolves more into “what do conservatives and Republicans have wrong” editorializing than an informative piece.

Don’t misunderstand me, the article makes plenty of valid points. I would, in fact, include it on a list of required reading to get a partial understanding of Colorado’s budget situation and also of the upcoming special session.

But, it is that “partial” in there that is the operative word. What the Sun’s Paul and Eason prepare here is a look from their mostly progressive viewpoint. It is an article informed by progressive talking points on TABOR and has several glaring omissions.

Among one of the main points I want you to take away from this post is that you should be reading widely and sourcing information on your own. To that end, I offer the second link below. It is an approachable resource on the Colorado State Budget and is from a reliable source. It’s one I’ve used in the past.

Let me take a couple of quotes from the Sun article to flesh out what I mean.

A frequently cited issue by those wanting to lay the budget woes at the feet of Colorado Democrats is the sheer size of the state’s budget. This is mentioned in the article, of course, with the logic behind the claim being that the problem here is that the state is simply spending more unnecessarily, causing our budget woes.

Paul and Eason allude to same in their article by way of attempting to blunt such claims (quoted with links intact):

“Yes, the budget has grown a lot in recent years. It was $30.5 billion in 2019 and is about $44 billion now. But once you factor in inflation and population growth since 2019, as well as rising federal payments to the state, the numbers start to make more sense.”

I am not quite sure what they mean by “make more sense” here, perhaps they mean that the increasing budget is not a sign of mismanagement, but rather population growth (this being, by the way, the common counterclaim made by Dems and progressives).

I point you to screenshot 1 which is a graph taken from the Budget Explorer. Note that it is a graph of the general fund expenditures adjusted for population and inflation.

The first local maximum in the graph is in fiscal year 07-08 and shows the general fund at $2274.5 million dollars. The next local maximum in FY 19-20 at $2383 million and, after a little COVID dip, hits the global maximum of $2425.8 million in FY 24-25.

Yes Messers Paul and Eason, the numbers do make more sense. When you adjust for inflation and population, we have had two of our biggest budget years under recent Democrat control. We are, simply put, spending more.

Additionally, reading the article you will note that almost entirely missing is any mention of fees as a revenue source in our state. This is curious given the increasingly large role they’ve played in financing and operating our state. The only reference I could find is the oblique one here (again, quoting):

“The rest of the budget is a split about 50/50 between federal funds that Colorado receives for services like Medicaid, food stamps and veterans affairs; and user fees that fund an array of public services, like hospitals, state parks and higher education.”

Screenshot 2 is another graph from the Budget Explorer breaking down the various shares of our state’s revenue. NOTE: this was almost certainly done prior to the Big Beautiful Bill. I would expect the percents to shift some were it included, but not the percents involving the fee revenue.

It is startling to me that in an article that bills itself as answering questions, as battling misunderstandings, that Paul and Eason would almost completely sidestep the issue of fees. This is particularly the case given that fees are not subject to TABOR limits, thus their favor among politicians of all parties.

Without the ability to see it for yourself, merely reading the article above could easily leave one with the impression that fees are an important, but secondary to the interaction between general fund revenue and federal revenue (also that these fees only put costs on “users”–but that’s a whole other topic). They, along with their exemption from TABOR are really not a big deal budget-wise.

Lastly, I want to turn to the bias in the reporting because it too gives readers an incorrect impression.

One of the first and easiest to point out to you is the continuing (the Sun’s been doing this a while now) disparity in how they handle bill names. The bill does officially contain the phrase “Big Beautiful Bill” in its name, yet the Sun (see screenshot 3) continues to tag that with “so-called” in an obvious editorial manner.

I haven’t read every single Sun article, but I’ll be damned if I remember “so-called” in front of, say, Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. Given what that bill actually did, that name is also aching for a “so-called”.

Before looking more closely at words, I want to give you a sense of the sheer bulk of space given over to what Republicans/conservatives claim vs. what Democrats claim in Paul’s and Eason’s work.

Screenshots 4 and 5 are collages made by taking pictures of the parts where Republican claims are stated (along with Paul/Eaton’s commentary) vs. where Democrat claims are stated (with a few fitful attempts at commentary on the Dem’s side).

Why tag some material as “Mixed” vs. “Democrats only” in screenshot 5? Simply put, because there was space. There was so much extra room in Microsoft Paint when I gathered up Democrat material in the Sun’s article that I thought I’d save a screenshot and toss in the material pertaining to claims by both parties.

As with “so-called” above, there is a clear disparity.

Turning to the text in the pictures, expand both 4 and 5 to read the text. Do you see a pattern beyond the disparity in quantity of the material? Look at how Republican claims are handled. Now look at how, say, Jeff Bridges’ claims are handled.

Evans’ claims “don’t add up”, Burton Brown needs context, and Michael Fields’ claims don’t make sense.

Conversely, Bridge’s comments go without any of Paul’s or Eason’s editorializing. They’re simply plopped down on the table.

This is especially odd treatment when I bring the earlier quote back down here: “…user fees that fund an array of public services, like hospitals, state parks and higher education.” Among those public services that fees fund, is transportation. Yet no caveats for Bridges. He’s allowed space to say his piece unimpeded.

As I said at the top, reading the Sun article is a good idea. It will get you a good start on being informed on Colorado’s budget. The Sun’s coverage here is, however, necessary but not sufficient. It is tilted and leaves out too much to come anywhere near what the headline promises.

It is a disingenuous effort at informing the public.

There is much missing in what Paul and Eason cover. There is a pronounced tilt toward associating incorrect claims with what conservatives and Republicans say. Were Paul and Eason not able to find false claims made by Democrats to address? I assure that a quick 5 minute look at progressive Colorado legislators’ social media would provide ample material.

Including that material is necessary if one is to apply the lofty title the Sun here did. Including it is important because it informs readers of a variety of perspectives and how they all contain pieces of truth and shortcuts that mislead.

Make sure that you are reading widely about politics. It is your responsibility to inform yourself because, no matter the outlet, you won’t get a full picture otherwise.

I would also highly recommend familiarizing yourself with things like the Budget Explorer so you can double check what you’re told and/or look up things entirely on your own.

Frequently asked questions — and misunderstandings — about Colorado’s special session to close a nearly $1B budget hole

https://leg.colorado.gov/explorebudget

READ THE FULL COMMENTARY AT THE COLORADO ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.