OPINION: ‘Up-Is-Down’ Perspective on Colorado Budget Crisis

This op-ed by Quentin Young appeared on Colorado Newsline on August 21, 2025.

Rarely is the path from point A to point B so clear as with the journey the Colorado state budget took from ‘balanced’ to ‘unbalanced’.

Here’s how it went. Colorado lawmakers, as they’re required to do by the state constitution, passed a balanced budget in April during their regular session. In the following weeks, President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress pushed through H.R. 1, known by the MAGA faithful as the “big, beautiful bill.”

Because of Colorado’s unusual reliance on the federal tax code for its own tax rates, H.R. 1 stripped an estimated $1.2 billion in revenue from the state and left an $800 million hole in the budget. That’s why Governor Jared Polis called the Legislature into a special session that begins Thursday.

Pretty straightforward — unless you’re trying to follow Republicans.

According to Republican state lawmakers, the congressional megabill had nothing to do with the state’s budget hole. Rather, it was caused by Democratic ‘mismanagement’.

At least this up-is-down perspective aligns with GOP denialism around other aspects of H.R. 1. For example, the measure guts Medicaid, yet Republicans like U.S. Rep. Gabe Evans of Fort Lupton insist it’s “protecting Medicaid.” Evans has denied the new law favors the rich, calling any claim it does “patently false,” even though economists say it resulted in the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in U.S. history.

On the surface it might appear that state Republicans are conflating one issue (the state budget hole) with another (state budget priorities). After all, they do consistently object to spending decisions by the Democratic majority at the Colorado Capitol.

Let’s assume, then, that their charge of mismanagement is misplaced but made in good faith. Would different budget decisions have better shielded the state from a hit like H.R. 1?

Yes. Tax revenue collection and spending is capped by the state Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. The cap represents a maximum, but lawmakers do not have to spend every dollar they’re statutorily permitted to. They could choose not to establish new services. They could refrain from expanding programs. They could cease spending on certain existing items. They could instead write surpluses into annual budgets and develop structural buffers beyond the required reserve fund so that unforeseen emergencies, such as a recession or Trumpist recklessness, are blips rather than bombs.

Nothing in principle is wrong with this approach. But if lawmakers advocate it, they must specify which government services should go. This is where the Republican position gets murky.

Much of what state Republicans publicly say they want to eliminate from the state budget involves access to health care, particularly for residents who lack permanent legal status.

The top Republican in the state House, Minority Leader Rose Pugliese, during a radio appearance last month said the expansion of Medicaid in Colorado should be “rolled back.” Medicaid ensures basic health care coverage for many of the state’s most vulnerable residents. Pugliese also advocated the elimination of OmniSalud, a state program that helps tens of thousands of people regardless of immigration status obtain and pay for health coverage.

Among the special session bills Republicans have filed so far, one would require the state to prioritize “documented residents” in state-subsidized health care coverage, and another would simply disqualify anyone without lawful immigration status from receiving state money for health care coverage.

The irony is that government subsidies for health care for residents without legal status are calculated to save money for everyone in the long run. When residents, whatever their status, forgo preventive care or early treatment, they typically end up seeking expensive emergency care when their condition becomes grave. This can raise costs throughout the health care system.

Beyond stripping health care from people, state Republicans are cagey about what else they’d strike from the state budget. They could offer more details and try to win a legislative majority on the strength of their proposals.

But, so far, their position on budget cuts is no more straightforward than their message on why the state has been forced into a special session.