Trump's tax bill blows $1.2B hole in Colorado budget
Why it matters: The financial hit is unprecedented and forces lawmakers to consider raising taxes or cutting key services.
"We don't have the money to pay our bills, so we need to do something," Mark Ferrandino, the governor's budget director, told top lawmakers in a presentation Wednesday.
State of play: Unlike most states, Colorado's tax policies are intricately linked to federal law, making the state more susceptible to changes made by Congress compared to peers.
By the numbers: The federal spending bill, also known as H.R. 1, will lower the state's individual income tax collections by $376 million and reduce corporate taxes by $825 million in the current fiscal year, the governor's office estimated.
Other federal tax changes, such as no tax on tips and interest on car loans, will cost millions more in lost revenue, legislative analysts noted.
What's next: To address the deficit in the $44 billion budget, Colorado lawmakers are preparing to return to the state Capitol for a special legislative session as early as mid-August.
The options to address the budget hole include tapping into the state's reserve fund, cutting back on safety net programs such as Medicaid and raising taxes and fees.
What they're saying:"We have difficult decisions ahead and will do everything we can to minimize the harm, but there's no avoiding the fact that these cuts will hurt Colorado families," Senate President James Coleman (D-Denver) said in a statement.
The other side: Republicans called the legislative hearing "political theatrics" and blamed the Democratic majority's overspending in prior years for the current budget crisis.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
25 minutes ago
- Newsweek
America Needs a Digital Dollar
As China accelerates deployment of its digital yuan, and the European Central Bank advances toward a digital euro, the Republican Party is seeking to prevent the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) in the United States. Their insistence on clinging to an increasingly obsolete financial infrastructure means that Americans will continue to be saddled with billions in unnecessary fees every year and that corporations will be empowered to erode our privacy in Orwellian fashion. What's more, handicapping ourselves in this way will only make it more likely that the dollar's dominance in global finance will come to a premature end. America needs a digital dollar, and we need it now. The Trump administration's recent digital assets report explicitly prohibits federal agencies from establishing or promoting CBDCs, arguing they "threaten the stability of the financial system, individual privacy, and the sovereignty of the United States." This position reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how digital currencies actually work—and ignores the privacy advantages they could provide over our current system. Consider this analogy: when you send a package through the United States Postal Service, the Fourth Amendment protects its contents from unreasonable government search. That same package sent via FedEx or UPS enjoys no such constitutional protection. Similarly, a government-issued digital currency would operate under constitutional constraints and democratic oversight that private payment systems simply don't face. As such, a government run service inherently offers more privacy protection than its privately run counterpart. A visual representation of digital cryptocurrency coins sit on display in front of a European flag in Paris, France. A visual representation of digital cryptocurrency coins sit on display in front of a European flag in Paris, France. Chesnot/Getty Images Today, every swipe of your credit card, every electronic transfer, and every digital payment flows through private corporations that collect, analyze, and monetize your financial data. Banks routinely share transaction information with third parties, build detailed consumer profiles, and sell insights about your spending habits. In contrast, a properly designed CBDC could implement strong privacy protections by design, limiting data collection to only what's necessary for monetary policy and financial crime prevention. The economic benefits of a digital dollar are even more compelling. Americans currently pay $5-10 billion annually in overdraft fees alone—money that could stay in families' pockets with a CBDC system that allows direct government-to-citizen transfers and eliminates many banking intermediaries. The millions of Americans who remain unbanked or underbanked would finally have access to basic financial services without requiring a traditional bank account. Even for those in the baking system, the benefits of a CBDC are potentially enormous. Wire transfers, which cost $13-$44 each on average and take days to settle, could become nearly instantaneous and free. That speed in payment settlement would also make a huge difference to Americans when they need emergency aid quickly, as a CBDC could allow the government to deliver relief payments in minutes rather than weeks. The urgency in America to adopt a CBDC extends beyond domestic concerns. In an era of growing geopolitical competition, monetary policy has become a tool of statecraft. The country that controls the dominant digital payment infrastructure will wield enormous influence over global commerce. China understands this, which is why it has invested heavily in digital yuan infrastructure and is actively promoting its use. China is creating first-mover advantages that will be difficult or even impossibly to overcome if we continue to stall. The Federal Reserve has spent years studying CBDC technology. We should be encouraging and guiding them on this task rather than holding them back. In doing so, critics should keep in mind that CBDC implementation need not be revolutionary. A digital dollar should complement rather than replace physical currency, giving Americans choice while maintaining familiar monetary arrangements. So too could retailers freely choose whether to accept digital payments, just as they currently decide whether to accept credit cards. Additional privacy protections for all users can also be built into the system's architecture, not added as an afterthought. The real threat to American privacy and financial sovereignty isn't a democratically governed CBDC—it's ceding monetary leadership to authoritarian competitors and unaccountable private corporations that enrich themselves off our data while impoverishing the worst off among us. The question isn't whether digital currencies will reshape global finance, it's whether America will lead this transformation or watch from the sidelines as others determine the future of money. For the sake of American competitiveness, financial inclusion, and yes, even privacy, it's time for a digital dollar. Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law at Georgia College & State University. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Politico
26 minutes ago
- Politico
Cooper leads first public poll since jumping in North Carolina Senate race
Cooper, who finished his second term in 2024, starts the open race to replace Tillis with stronger name recognition and favorability than Whatley, a first-time candidate. Most voters view Cooper positively, one-third perceive him negatively and just 13 percent are unsure, the poll found. By contrast, nearly two-thirds of voters do not know or are unsure of Whatley and another 17 percent view him favorably — capturing his challenge to quickly define himself with an electorate that isn't familiar with him. Cooper also holds a 19-point edge among independent voters, a significant bloc that supported him during his gubernatorial campaigns. For now, these voters prefer Cooper to Whatley 47 percent to 28 percent. But in a preview of what will be a tight Senate race in a hyper-partisan environment, voters in purple North Carolina are evenly divided on whom they prefer on the generic congressional ballot: 41.5 percent support would back the Democrat and 41.3 percent would back the Republican. In the 2028 presidential primary, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg leads among Democratic voters in North Carolina with 17 percent support. Former Vice President Kamala Harris, who opted against a gubernatorial run this week, receives 12 percent, followed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom with 10 percent and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders with 7 percent. Nearly a quarter of the Democratic voters are undecided. Among Republicans, Vice President JD Vance dominates the GOP primary with 53 percent backing him, compared to 7 percent for Florida Gov. and failed 2024 presidential candidate Ron DeSantis and 5 percent for Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Emerson College conducted the poll from July 28 through July 30, interviewing 1,000 registered North Carolina voters. It has a 3-point margin of error.
Politico
26 minutes ago
- Politico
Sarah McBride has a blunt diagnosis for her party's problems
'I do think that a voter asks two questions when they're considering who to vote for. The first question is, does this candidate, does this party like me? And by extension, do they respect me?' 'If you can't answer that first question to a voter's satisfaction, they won't even get to the second question, which is, what does this party think? What does this candidate think? And I think we lost that first question,' she said. Democrats around the country have been trying to figure out how to regain support from voters after Republicans won control of the White House and both chambers of Congress last year. Democratic leaders have conceded the party has a brand problem, but intraparty debates on party strategy have yet to produce a clear path forward. A Wall Street Journal poll released last week found that 63 percent of voters view the Democratic Party unfavorably — the highest level of unfavorability for the party in a Journal poll since 1990. McBride said she believes the party's brand going forward should focus on working-class people and protecting democracy and stressed again that a core tenant of the party's brand should be 'we're not going to be assholes to voters.' 'I do think that we have to basically create a tent that is united on three fundamental principles,' she said in the interview, which was taped Wednesday. 'One is working people need more support and help. Two, democracy and freedom are good. And three, we're not going to be assholes to voters.' McBride suggested that voters may be forming negative opinions of the party based on online discourse, rather than from party leaders, and that 'the loudest voices online' may be pushing voters away who might otherwise vote for Democrats. 'The reality in today's environment is that your party ecosystem is defined not just by politicians or the party, but also some of the loudest voices online that in voters' minds reflect and represent that broader coalition,' she said. 'When we have an environment where we've got some very loud people who are shaming and calling people who disagree with them — even in rhetoric — bigots, when we have those folks saying that to a wide swath of voters, including voters we could win, and we aren't explicitly stating something to the contrary, then a voter will then just paint us all with one broad brush,' she added. The full interview with McBride is available on Sunday's episode of 'The Conversation.'
