In the second hour of today's edition of The Dan Caplis Show, Kristi Burton Brown continues to fill in for Dan. Here, she is joined by guests Senator Lisa Frizell and the Independent Institute's Kelly Caufield.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is Dan Caplis and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Welcome to the second hour the Dan Kaplis Show tonight.
I'm Christy Burton Brown with Dan in Trial. You are
stuck with me, glad to be here. We have a
great second hour coming up for you, a couple of
really good interviews. You're going to want to stay tuned
for one of them. About half an hour into this hour,
we will have Senator Lisa Frazell join us. She was
on the Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee last night that her
(00:38):
testimony until about one thirty am, or seven hundred people
from across the street setting across the state, setting a
record number of people going to testify against a bill.
HB twenty five, thirteen twelve. This is the one that
would have taken away custody from parents who didn't just
want to allow their child to transition and switch genders.
(00:58):
If you were a parent involved in a custody battle
and one parent was like, sure, I'll let.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
The kid transition.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
The other one was like, no, I actually want to
get them treatment, counseling, walk them through this and not
just make a set in decision. Under this bill, you
could lose custody of your child. It would be treated
exactly the same as physical abuse of your child. Last night,
with a seven hundred people who showed up to testify
against it, the bill is still there. It still exists,
It was still passed out a committee, and it's still
(01:25):
a bad bill.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
But here's the big win.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
That entire portion of the bill pages that talked about
parents' custody rights related to transitioning your child completely stripped
to out of the bill. That is a huge win
for parental rights activists across the state and really any
normal person who thinks that a parent shouldn't be punished
for not subscribing to the government's viewpoint on gender ideology.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
So that is a good thing to happen.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
In the final days of Colorado's legislative session, Senator Releaser
for Result was on that committee listened to a lot
of the testimony, so on a bring her on at
about five thirty six. If you are still listening, if
you for whatever reason can't go back and listen tomorrow.
Her testimony is going to be really important, just to
get a good overview of how people in this state
are seeing this issue and why so many people, again
(02:14):
setting record numbers, got activated to go testify against this bill.
We'll also bring on Kelly Cawfield. She is the executive
director of the Common Sense Institute here in Colorado. They
release a lot of studies that the news uses actually
in Colorado just to talk about the data behind the
issues that are in the news, whether they talk about
energy situation here in Colorado, whether we're talking about Tabor
(02:36):
protecting our taxpayer's Bill of Rights. The Common Sense Institute
dives into the data and the research and the statistics,
and she can offer you some key points as you
discuss these issues with your.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
Family and friends.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
But while we were waiting for these great interviews, I
would like to play a clip for you that I'm
sure you'll all enjoy. Kamala Harris back on the public
stage speaking and of course she just can't make I
manage to talk without rambling about Trump.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
We are not going to scatter. We are going to
stand together. Everyone a leader and emerge. If you have
a special role to play. Organizing is as important as ever,
(03:23):
mobilizing is as important as ever. Running for office is
as important as ever.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Okay, I have to stop it. Sorry, I can't keep listening.
So this is my own problem. But when people talk
that slow, Jay and I disagree, I just can't keep going.
But she is back because she apparently has put some
thoughts behind her thoughts, but not enough thought because it
takes very long time to get them out.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
But I will.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
Okay, sorry, this is rabbit trail Ryan. But on the
topic of speaking speeds. So my husband, on his way
to work, he will listen to audiobooks. He puts them
on the three times four time speed, and so I
asked him, like, how in the world can you understand
what anyone is saying at three or four time speed?
Speaker 3 (04:07):
He's like, I live with you.
Speaker 5 (04:09):
I was like, oh, Dave, wow, So yeah, I think
you speak up that quickly. However, you mentioned some thoughts
and thoughts behind the thoughts. Yeah, would you like some
deep thoughts? I would Kamala Harris. This is another topic altogether,
but vintage Oh Kamala Harris, Let's go.
Speaker 6 (04:32):
And now deep thoughts by Kamala Harris.
Speaker 4 (04:38):
In fact, please allow me, friends to digress for a moment. Okay,
it's kind of dark in here when I'm asked for
show of hands. Who saw that video from a couple
of weeks ago, the one of the elephants at the
San Diego Zoo during the earthquake.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
Google it if you've not seen it.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
It has been on my mind. Everybody's asking me what
you've been thinking about these days?
Speaker 2 (05:04):
Well, okay, thank you for those deep thoughts, ry deeply appreciated.
What about I don't know, Like I saw the video too,
but and hey, if we really want to dive deep
into that video, it was elephants, including mother elephants, protecting
(05:25):
baby elephants in the middle of an earthquake. So it's
a lesson for the Democrat party about how you know,
mothers should maybe protect their children.
Speaker 6 (05:31):
And what party is the elephant.
Speaker 3 (05:35):
To Wow? There we go, there we go.
Speaker 7 (05:39):
Hey, by the way, KBB, yeah, my husband does the
same thing with his audio books.
Speaker 3 (05:43):
Oh three times to speed say.
Speaker 6 (05:46):
The same thing about you speak.
Speaker 8 (05:48):
No, he did not.
Speaker 7 (05:49):
But it's just I don't know, because like sometimes I'll
be in the car and he'll have it on and
I'm just how do you comprehend anything they're saying drives
me crazy.
Speaker 6 (05:58):
There to be.
Speaker 5 (06:00):
Kelly's old enough KBB, probably not. There used to be
this guy that would do commercials and he literally was
like a speed reader Guinness book World Records guy, and
he would just talk. It was amazing how quickly he
could talk. I'll try to find one of those old
ads during the.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
Break you should, you should. And it's something I actually
had to get good at. When I was chairman of
the Republican Party. There were, as everyone knows, people who
like to digress at meetings, and I guess slow things down.
And so when are just slow things down, what they
ask you is they're like, okay, can you read the
rules at length? Well, what they didn't know is that
I literally can speed read, and so I would just
read the insanely fast and it would take, like, you know,
(06:36):
maybe two minutes instead of the twenty they were hoping for.
Speaker 6 (06:39):
Please tell me audio and or video of this success.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
I'm wondering it does it go on?
Speaker 4 (06:44):
It?
Speaker 8 (06:44):
Well?
Speaker 2 (06:44):
It's funny is I would have people come up to
me afterwards and one of them would be like, that
was awesome, Oh my goodness, you're such a blank blank
and they meant it good, but they're like, oh so oppressive.
I love it, and then I have other people to
get up there. You are so disrespectful to people's right
to free speech. They deserve to listen to that. You
can't railed over those, you know, lots of the virgin
opinions in the party. You know, welcome to politics. What
(07:06):
I think is interesting going back to Kabla Harris, is
that one of her advisors, after this speech where she
talked about elephants and her thoughts, behind her thoughts and
all those great things, her advisor said, there is a
clamoring for her voice right now among Americas. Well, but
the poll that we were talking about in the last
hour of the show, the Emerson poll that came out
(07:26):
because Trump has done his first one hundred days in office,
it did show his approval rating matches disapproval rating forty five,
forty five, much better than Joe Biden's negative seventeen when
he was exiting office.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
But here's the here's.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
The money question, would you vote for Donald Trump today
or Kamala Harris?
Speaker 3 (07:42):
And people said Donald Trump by a majority.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
So I do not believe there is a clamoring for
the voice of Fanil Harris.
Speaker 6 (07:48):
You said that was an Emerson poll. Okay, here's the
deal too.
Speaker 5 (07:51):
Rasmussen was the closest, and Rasmussen always gets slammed by
those on the outside. That's a right leaning and you
can discount it. Well, guess what they had Trump plus two.
Trump won by one point five. The other polls all
had Kamala Harris ahead in the popular vote. The betting
markets were like eighty percent or higher, I think, for
Harris winning the national popular vote, even though they still
(08:13):
forecast in her to lose the electoral college. But the
fact that this is Emerson and it's one point Christy,
go ahead and push it three.
Speaker 6 (08:21):
Maybe in the other direction too.
Speaker 5 (08:23):
So Trump may it very well according to the national
popular vote standard, be even further ahead than he was
in the twenty twenty four election.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
That's amazing and a very good point. I think he
is making a lot of people happy. He's not your
typical politician shaking things up. Another interesting poll that came out,
and I know we were about to take a break,
but another interesting poll. It came out of Georgia, which
has been a swing state for the last few elections.
Republicans have struggled there and had some victories as well,
but it showed that among voters in the state of Georgia,
(08:52):
Democrats have a thirty five percent approval rating. That is
terrible for them in a state where they're gonna have
to win Key US and its seats in twenty six
if they're going to push back on the Trump agenda.
And just it's showing that whatever spikes happened for a
while against Republicans are somewhat evening out in key areas
(09:12):
of the country. Well, we'll see how this all plays out,
but just some very interesting polls happening going on right
now not making Democrats happy. Part of the reason is
they don't really have a face of their party right now.
It is not Kamala Harris. They can't figure out who
the leader should be, no one who can adequately combat Trump.
Even after one hundred days to figure it out, and
they had four years to figure it out before, they
still haven't done it. I'm Christy Burton Brown. You're on
(09:32):
the Dan Kapla show call in over the break eight
five five four zero five eight two five five or
text Dan the five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 6 (09:46):
And now back to the Dan Kaplass Show podcast.
Speaker 9 (09:50):
This is the micro Machine Man present think the most
min miniature, modicative Michael mcin secho one hesdramatic details, tripture
and decison. Page outsus incredible micro machine pocket police that
says a police station, fire station, restaurant, service station, and
more perfect pocket portables to think any place and there
are many minuture places to play with. Each one comes
with its own special edition mic machine be a cole
on fun fantastic features that miraculously move. Raise the boltle,
fit the airport, marina man, the gun turret at the
I mean they's clean your car at the car wash,
raise the tulbridge. These place that's fit to against the
(10:10):
form of micro machine world, micro machine pocket place that's
tremendously tiny, so perfectly precise. So doesn't we detailed Joe
want to pocket the mall micro machines the micro machine
pocket place that's hold simply from gloog.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
The smaller they are, the better they are.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
Yes, I think he may possibly beat me in speed
of talking to get Is that the.
Speaker 6 (10:26):
Speed that your husband listens to the books, though.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
See I think it's even faster than that. I can't
even understand what he listens.
Speaker 5 (10:32):
That was a thirty second spot and I'm just imagining
if I type out the script, how long would take
me to read it?
Speaker 4 (10:38):
Right?
Speaker 2 (10:38):
Like allow, oh my goodness, right, yeah, And my husband's
super smart this he can actually retain it. Me.
Speaker 3 (10:42):
On the other hand, I'm like, ooh o for my head.
Speaker 6 (10:44):
That's incredible.
Speaker 9 (10:45):
I know, I know.
Speaker 3 (10:47):
Well, you're on the Dan Caplis Show. I'm Christy Verton Brown.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
We have a special guest to welcome on, Kelly Coffield,
the executive director of Common Sense Institute, who you are
probably familiar with because they're quoted by news outlets across
Colorado for the depth of their research stats data on
all the important issues facing Colorado.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
Kelly, Welcome to the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 8 (11:06):
Thank you so much, Christy, appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Absolutely love getting to do some work with you, me
at Advanced Colorado, you at Common Sense Institute. But would
just love for our listeners to hear about some of
your most recent reports. I guess let's tackle Tabor first,
to the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. Seventy percent of Colorado's
love Tabor. Can you fill us in on your most
recent report?
Speaker 10 (11:28):
Thanks so much, Christy.
Speaker 8 (11:30):
Yes, at the Common Sense Institute. We're doing about ninety
reports a year.
Speaker 10 (11:34):
So it feels like a lot. It is, and there
are so many issues.
Speaker 8 (11:37):
That need to be tackled here in Colorado. You know,
most recently are Mike gay Loprino Free Enterprise Fellow. This
year is Ross Kaminski that I'm sure many listeners are
familiar with. Ross just put out his first report with
the Common Sense Institute just today, actually, so this is
really timely. That's awesome, and we us really wanted to
(12:00):
talk about Tabor and his reports called the Legislative Assault
of Tabor, how Colorado lawmakers are rewriting the rules. And
as you know, Christy, Tabor is very unique. We're the
only state with TABOR. Other states have tried, they don't
have one. It's one of I think the best things
(12:21):
about the policy landscape here in our state. So in
this analysis, we wanted to do a few things, but
we wanted to show trends when it comes to Tabor
refunds and once that has meant more Colorados, but also
go through a scenario what was life what would life
be like without Tabor. There is legislation pending that would
(12:43):
potentially do away with it and you know, create a
legal situation where TABOR could go away. So I think,
you know, the bottom line of our report was if
TABOR had been repealed, and we looked at twenty twenty one,
so approximately for the last five years, if TABOR had
been repealed fake government spending in Colorado, they would have
(13:05):
spent an additional nine billion more over those last four years,
and Colorados would have paid two billion more in personal taxes.
So TABER is doing what it was supposed to do
and it would come at a real cost to Colorado's
if it did go away.
Speaker 4 (13:24):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
Wow, No, that's insane.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
And I think quantifying in that way is really really
important because people are so familiar with a part of
TABOR that allows voters to vote on tax increases, but
it really is also a restraining bill on the legislature,
restraining arm of our constitution that says you can only
spend so much. You can't just have an unlimited ability
to spend our money.
Speaker 3 (13:47):
That's right.
Speaker 8 (13:48):
And the other research question that Ross Kaminski our fellow,
was really interested in exploring was how much has the
legislature reduced our refunds that are eligible to Coloraden. So again,
did an analysis looking over the last five years and
something that's been happening. I know that you've been talking
(14:10):
about it. Common sense has two about fees, but there's
something else going on. You know, the legislature can move
significant money through tax credits, through other tax tools that
mean less money for the Coloraden to be refunded. So
when we looked at over five years, over thirty bills
(14:34):
that we've listed in this report, they've reduced taper refunds
by two billion dollars. So that's an average of seven
hundred and thirty six per filer. Now, this amount is
only going to grow after the sun has set on
the twenty twenty five legislative sessions, So I expect this
number to only go up.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
Oh absolutely, And and Keelly tell me if I'm understanding
this right.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
But that means that instead of giving it to every
single you know, citizen tax file and giving them a
table refund, instead, the government finds a different way to
credit or refund that perhaps to groups of voters that
they prefer to give money to, or a program going
to people that they would rather prop up.
Speaker 3 (15:13):
Is that correct?
Speaker 10 (15:14):
That's that's exactly right.
Speaker 8 (15:16):
There's a number of tax credits that move through legislature,
especially in twenty three and twenty four, you know, for
a laudable reasons. You know, we're looking at family Affordability
tax credit, earned income and child tax credits. But once again,
I do think your voter needs to understand that you're
(15:36):
receiving less for you to decide what to spend as
a part of your family budget, and the legislature is
the citing for you through expansion of tax credits.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
Exactly, And that's that's exactly what it's about. I think,
is the government picking for you instead of giving you
the freedom to choose what to do with your extra
money that they have to return to you. We're talking
with Kelly Cawfield, executive director of Common Sense Institute here
on the Dan Kaplish and Kelly, we have just about
two minutes left, which I know isn't quite enough to
cover all of energy, but you guys had a really
impactful energy report released too, So would you give us
(16:09):
an overview of what people can find and then where
they can find it if they want to read more?
Speaker 10 (16:14):
Thanks?
Speaker 8 (16:14):
Yes, we Energy is very important topic. Common Sense has
been doing right of energy work this year and the
work that we just released this week was an aggregation
of all of the cost tied to Colorado's greenhouse gas
emissions framework and environmental policies from the last fifteen years.
So this is a look back. We were not projecting
(16:37):
or guessing things.
Speaker 10 (16:37):
In the future.
Speaker 8 (16:38):
These are real costs that we have seen as a
state across all sectors impacted by this roadmap. So we're
talking about oil and gas, we're talking about coal, electricity, transportation,
and buildings. There's over one hundred legislative and regulatory laws
connected to Colorado's climate policy landscape. And the bottom line
(17:02):
is this costs us money.
Speaker 10 (17:03):
It's not free, and we were.
Speaker 8 (17:05):
Able to calculate in eighteen billion dollars with a b
billion dollar reduction in state GDP because of these one
hundred and twenty mandates.
Speaker 3 (17:16):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
No, that's insane, And I think it's really important the
work you do at Common Sense Institute breaking it down
for voters and saying this isn't just about some theoretical
policy that may sound good that gets past it's about
the everyday average cost that it is pushing on too voters.
So Kelly Cawfield, Executive director of Common Sense Institute, where
can people find your taper report, your energy report, and
anything else in your research they want to read.
Speaker 8 (17:38):
You can find us on common Sense Institute bo dot org.
All of our research is there and really encourage your
viewers to check it out.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
Excellent, Thanks so much, Kelly. Hope to have you back
on the Dan Kapla Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown. We
are about to take a break, but when we come back,
we're going to bring on Senator Lisa Frizell, who is
there at the hearing last night when thirteen twelve was
hugely amended to take out the custody provisions hurting parents
in Colorado. You won't want to miss her testimony here
on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 6 (18:15):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
We're going to hear from Senator Lisa Frazel pretty soon
about the hearing last night. They went until one thirty
where over seven hundred people came down to the capital,
mostly to oppose HB twenty five thirteen twelve, the bill
that would have taken custody rights away from parents who
do not want to transition their child. After we talked
to Senator Frazelle, I'm also going to talk about a
(18:39):
case relating to education the Supreme Court heard earlier this week.
They heard two hours of oral arguments. It would actually
relate to whether or our charter schools can be religious.
It could be a landmark case of the decade if it,
depending on how the Supreme Court comes down. But before
we get into all that, let's go to Senator Lisa Frazell.
(18:59):
Welcome senator to the dan Kapla show.
Speaker 10 (19:03):
Well, thank you so much, Christy.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
Thanks for having me on, of course, and I know
you were in the middle of a busy day, busy night,
with only a few days left in the session, so
I appreciate you coming on to talk with us. Can
you just give us your perspective as someone who was
on the Senate Judiciary Committee last night and heard all
the testimony on thirteen twelve.
Speaker 10 (19:21):
It was all It was emotional on both sides. We
had over a seven hundred witnesses signed up to testify
last night, and the chair had made the decision to
limit testimony as as the chairs prerogative, limited testimony to
a total of eight hours and also limited the length
(19:45):
of time that witnesses could provide a testimony to two
minutes each, so.
Speaker 1 (19:51):
It was a.
Speaker 10 (19:52):
Lot to get through and most certainly not everybody was
able to provide right their opinions and have their voice,
which was really unfortunate.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
Yeah, no, I mean my personal opinion. I know the
chair does have progative to your point, Senator, I think
if that when people show up, the Senators should listen
to them because it is constituents showing up. But I
know a lot of times the chairs of these committees
know that most of the people are coming in opposition,
so don't really want to hear it.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
Well, I don't know, I think.
Speaker 10 (20:22):
And absolutely the committee hearings are the only time that
public can the public can really provide their opinion. So
I completely agree with you. We didn't get out until
one am, as it was. Goodness knows how much later
it would have done. But I think that we have
to respect the citizens of the state of Colorado and
(20:44):
their opinions on these matters.
Speaker 3 (20:46):
Yeah, and I think that's right. Senator.
Speaker 2 (20:49):
Do you think there was any particularly impactful I mean,
I'm sure a lot of them were, but particularly impactful
testimony or points that people brought out about this bill.
I mean, I know there's been thousands of people engaged
on it across the state. But what would you say
came off as most impactful last night.
Speaker 10 (21:06):
So this is the thing that happened, is that the
bill has been sitting out there, went through the House
and kendidly in the House committee. I don't feel like
people who were in opposition were treated very well by
the bill sponsors. They were I believe called Nazis were
(21:29):
because they because they disagreed with the premise that uh,
custody should be lost if you don't support gender affirming
care for your child. And so I think so that
that was an extremely unfortunate thing, and I condemne that
(21:53):
because no citizens should ever be treated that way by
by a sitting representative. But so then it came to
the Senate and it had not really the bill had
not really been amended, and all of a sudden, the
bill of sponsors came in with I believe it was
(22:15):
five amendments. I have them here in front of me,
so I should be able to tell yes five and
stripping down the bill so significantly. So the entire Section two,
which was the portion of the bill that had to
do with family law, was completely taken out. So it
became a non issue.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Yeah, that's excellent.
Speaker 10 (22:38):
Not so good, which is excellent, But the majority of
folks who were there to testify an opposition had created
their testimony around that premise and the idea that print
rights should not be infringed upon right, So that was
(22:59):
a really incorreant thing. They also stripped out section five,
Section eight, and the portion of section three that was
cannibly the most egregious, although section three may still come out,
we'll have to see. This bill is a vastly para
damn version of its original self. But I feel and
(23:19):
I think this is a really important thing. It's just
the pushback from the parents all around the state of
Colorado was so significant that they had to amend it.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
Yeah, I mean, and I think a lot of people
in the State of Colorado feel like not a lot
changes even if you show up to the Capitol and
speak out, because so many people, you know, the party
that's in control over there, you know, sort of said
in stone, here's what we're going to do, no matter
what you say.
Speaker 3 (23:45):
But I think.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
Senator Lisa Frizelle, it is bills like this where you
see there were so much pressure on them from so
many people across party lines just average parents across the
state that they did actually have to take out that provision.
Speaker 10 (24:00):
Only think that the governor's office, I believe had a
great deal of pressure and the Democrats themselves to it
because they were hearing from their own constituents how egregious
the bill actually was. So I was heartened to see
that the system can work. It doesn't, It doesn't always,
(24:20):
but in this particular case, you know, they had really
overstept it, and especially when they treated folks who parents,
who came to the Capitol to have their voices heard,
when they were treated so poorly by the representative bill sponsors,
I'm again heartened to see that we were able to
(24:42):
make some changes here in the Senate.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
Absolutely, and I do think to your point center, that
was the video that I first saw that went all
around viral on social media of a state representative calling
parents testifying against the bill nazis and then that started
getting invitations from national news networks to different representative who
are posing the bill, and it just kind of blew
up into this national story, you know, and I think
(25:05):
that should probably be a lesson to those who want
to take their extreme bills in the legislature and condemn
people with a different viewpoint who are not in the
majority of the legislature, but when they dare to come
in and oppose it, they want to call them names,
they want to accuse them of all these horrible things
that it just it actually doesn't work because normal people
live with people like that and know that they're not Nazis,
(25:26):
they're not terrible. They actually care about their kids, and
sometimes we care about our kids in different ways. But
I do think that's set off the entire national storm
that surrounded this bill.
Speaker 10 (25:35):
I believe you're right, and I want to really give
a shout out to Lauri Gimmelstein who she and her
team worked really tirelessly to try to organize some cohesive
testimony on behalf of the opposition, and they did. They
(25:59):
didn't amazing John, They.
Speaker 2 (26:01):
Really did, And I think, yes, she is an amazing
person coordinating a lot for parents rights around the state.
I was talking earlier in the show just about there's
such a big list of people, including her, who poured
their hearts and souls into this and we're like, you
know what, we're going to go down swinging at the
very least, and they did in this in this case,
make it a real difference on the bill. So thank you,
senator for sharing your perspective and joining us here.
Speaker 3 (26:24):
On the show.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
Good luck as you finish off the legislative session.
Speaker 10 (26:28):
Well, thank you so much. It's a real pleasure to
talk to you. And you know we still have a
lot going on. Unfortunately, thirteen on nine just was passing
the Health and Human Services Committee, which was one of
the companion bills to thirteen twelve. So we're still fighting
the good fight and we'll continue to do so through
(26:48):
the eighth.
Speaker 3 (26:49):
Yes, thank you so much for doing that. All right, Thanks,
all right, we have a great night. God bless you too.
That was Senator Lisa frizzell A.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
Remember the Senate Judiciary Committee who heard the hundreds of
testimonies last night and in the hundred that didn't get
heard due to the choice of the chairman. I'm Christy
Burton Brown. You're here on the Dan Capla Show. When
we come back, we'll get into some responses from your
texts and also talk about a pivotal US Supreme Court
case involving charter schools, religion, education, the whole gamut. You
can call in over the break. Also eight five five
(27:18):
four zero five eight two five five.
Speaker 6 (27:27):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 3 (27:31):
You're back on the Dan Capla Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Thanks for joining us for our last segments Tonight. I
want to talk about this case that the US Supreme
Court heard earlier this week. There were about two hours
of oral arguments comes out of Oklahoma. Basically, there was
a charter school that wanted to be a religious charter school.
They thought they could qualify for state funding of charter
schools because it's a public school. They just so happened
(27:55):
to be a religious one. Oklahoma is actually on both
sides of this, and I'm not going to get all
the complications there, but basically, there is a state entity
that approves schools. There's also the Oklahoma Attorney General, and
they are on two different sides of this. But the
US Preme Court decided to hear it, and the questioning
by the judge is very very interesting. I think a
lot of news reports are indicating that it's likely the
(28:17):
US Supreme Court probably comes down on the side of
saying that yes, a charter school can actually be religious
and that's not its self state establishment of religion. Particularly
when it is open to all religions, not one particular religion.
The government is trying to push onto everyone who knows
for sure. I know Amy Comany Barrett had to actually
(28:38):
recuce herself from the case. She's friends with someone who's very,
very involved in it.
Speaker 3 (28:43):
So it's going to be.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
Eight justices deciding if they are tied, if it's a
four to four decision. Actually, the lower courts holding is upheld,
and I believe the lower court had decided that Oklahoma
could not have religious charter school. But when we get
to the questioning of the justices, super interesting. Gorsic asked
a particularly interesting question. He said, Okay, what are going
(29:06):
to be the implications across the nation for charter schools
in general? If we decide that charter schools can be religious,
what are you going to see happen in states where
you know they would never want to allow religious charter
school And if they must now allow it, are they
just going to get rid of all charters in general?
That I think is sort of what he was getting at.
(29:27):
You saw Justice Kavanaugh, on the other hand, saying, so
the only reason you are saying that you don't want
to fund the school is because it's religious. Relating it
a little bit to that case a few years ago
where the only reason a Catholic school was denied funding
for a playground is because they were a religious school.
And so this is sort of like the next step
in that line of cases, saying okay, can we go
(29:49):
so far as to say that a state may not
deny funding to a school solely because it is religious. Now,
of course, there have to be some constraints on in
order to actually be a public charter school, you actually
have to take all students. You couldn't only take religious
families and only religious students. You would actually have to
be open to the public. You would have to welcome
all children. But they could choose that kind of education
(30:12):
in the same way that charter schools today operate with.
You know, you may choose a science education, you may
choose a dual language immersion school. You may choose one
focus solely on the arts. I think that's what Kavanaugh
was trying to get at, is say, if you would
fund all of these other diverse charter schools, but say
that this one isn't okay solely because it's religious. That
sounds like discrimination against religion. To me, that's what he said,
(30:34):
and that's the question that he posts. Another interesting thing,
So the state of Oklahoma, the side that is against
funding a religious charter school, they made the argument and said, well,
if you do it for this, you would have to
do it for an Islamic school, You'd have to do
it for a Muslim school.
Speaker 3 (30:49):
And so one of the justices, I think it.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
Was Roberts or Alito, I actually can't remember which one,
basically said it sounds to be Counselor like you are
making an anti religion argument, and you are saying, because
the state doesn't want to allow any school that teaches Islam,
you won't allow any religion at all, and so therefore
you're picking out a religion and specifically discriminating against that
religion as the government.
Speaker 3 (31:10):
Maybe that's an argument they thought worked in.
Speaker 2 (31:11):
Oklahoma that is obviously largely Christian, and they thought maybe
trying to scare people away and say, oh no, now
you'd have to fund a Muslim charter school as well.
Maybe they thought that works in Oklahoma, but it definitely
didn't work with the current justices on the Supreme Court.
They're saying, you're signaling to us, they're specifically saying no
because of religious reasons. And while the government may not
establish religion, it may also not specifically discriminate because something
(31:33):
is religious.
Speaker 3 (31:34):
So I don't know that I.
Speaker 2 (31:35):
Really have a prediction as now the US Supreme Court
is going to come down. I think if you listen
to the two hours of oral arguments, I probably agree
with all the news reports that indicate the Court seems
to be leaning to the side of saying, you know,
these schools are going to have to be open to
everyone in the public. They're not gonna be able to
discriminate against who is admitted to the school.
Speaker 3 (31:53):
It's going to have to be open like any other
public school.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
But you can't decline to fund them solely because they
are religious.
Speaker 3 (31:59):
That can't be your reason.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
That would be my guess of where the court probably
goes is going to be an absolutely landmark Supreme Court
decision if that's where they come down. If they say no,
it's really not going to change anything from how it
is now.
Speaker 3 (32:11):
So we'll see. They actually have to issue their decision
before the end of June.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
That's when the Scotis term is up, so a number
of big cases people are watching. But I think that
is one of the biggest ones that could be very
pivotal for.
Speaker 3 (32:23):
Public education across the United States.
Speaker 2 (32:27):
Another interesting thing, and I'm always engaged in education issues
because I am on the state Board of Education right now,
but Stephen Miller giving a speech recently on behalf of
the White House talking about what cutting Department of Education
funding US Department of Education funding would look like in
the States, and basically, you know, setting down the law
(32:47):
zo to speak, although he can't pass law himself obviously,
but kind of saying, if the federal government is going
to continue to give money to schools and states, and
of course I believe they will. There's not really been
a discussion of them ending funding to the states, just
ending bureaucracy the level. But the states are going to
have to actually teach real civics. They're actually going to
have to prepare kids for real life. They're not going
(33:08):
to be able to push ideology that isn't consistent with
American values on children. And we have seen a lot
of public schools go wayward and just literally push whatever
ideology they want on kids and get federal funding, state funding,
local taxpayer funding to do it all. And so that
is something that federal government is being pretty open that
they're looking at and saying, you know, if you want
(33:29):
federal government money, you're actually gonna have to teach like
a real patriotic education. You're going to have to teach
real civics, You're going to have to actually prepare these
kids for real life. I am a fan of academic accountability.
Here in Colorado, we have about forty percent of kids
who can read and do math at grade level. Huge,
huge problem. Often liberal sink just dump more money at it,
and that's not what works. One of the most successful
(33:50):
states across the nation with academic accountability performance numbers also
funds education at one of the lowest levels. But they
found real solutions that work. I mean, like small class sizes,
actually spending your money on quality teachers instead of a
bloated administration. Things like that that Colorado could definitely stand
to learn from. So, you know, I think a lot
(34:11):
of people are a little afraid of like what does
it mean to, you know, to take away the Department
of Education?
Speaker 3 (34:16):
But I think the Trump.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Administration continues to make it more and more clear exactly
how it's going to look, like what.
Speaker 3 (34:21):
It's going to mean.
Speaker 2 (34:22):
But the point is not eliminating funding from kids education.
It's about making sure the funds are spent on something
that actually helps educate kids and doesn't waste money through
bureaucracy and ideology that are not helping our kids be
successful citizens with real opportunities as adults. That's the point here.
I'm Christy Burton Brown. You're on the Dan Kaplis Show.
Thanks for joining me while Dan was in trial. I
know you'll have him back very soon, and hope you
(34:45):
continue the conversation and get involved in your communities and
watch the legislature their last few days
This is Dan Caplis and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Welcome to the second hour the Dan Kaplis Show tonight.
I'm Christy Burton Brown with Dan in Trial. You are
stuck with me, glad to be here. We have a
great second hour coming up for you, a couple of
really good interviews. You're going to want to stay tuned
for one of them. About half an hour into this hour,
we will have Senator Lisa Frazell join us. She was
on the Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee last night that her
(00:38):
testimony until about one thirty am, or seven hundred people
from across the street setting across the state, setting a
record number of people going to testify against a bill.
HB twenty five, thirteen twelve. This is the one that
would have taken away custody from parents who didn't just
want to allow their child to transition and switch genders.
(00:58):
If you were a parent involved in a custody battle
and one parent was like, sure, I'll let.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
The kid transition.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
The other one was like, no, I actually want to
get them treatment, counseling, walk them through this and not
just make a set in decision. Under this bill, you
could lose custody of your child. It would be treated
exactly the same as physical abuse of your child. Last night,
with a seven hundred people who showed up to testify
against it, the bill is still there. It still exists,
It was still passed out a committee, and it's still
(01:25):
a bad bill.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
But here's the big win.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
That entire portion of the bill pages that talked about
parents' custody rights related to transitioning your child completely stripped
to out of the bill. That is a huge win
for parental rights activists across the state and really any
normal person who thinks that a parent shouldn't be punished
for not subscribing to the government's viewpoint on gender ideology.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
So that is a good thing to happen.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
In the final days of Colorado's legislative session, Senator Releaser
for Result was on that committee listened to a lot
of the testimony, so on a bring her on at
about five thirty six. If you are still listening, if
you for whatever reason can't go back and listen tomorrow.
Her testimony is going to be really important, just to
get a good overview of how people in this state
are seeing this issue and why so many people, again
(02:14):
setting record numbers, got activated to go testify against this bill.
We'll also bring on Kelly Cawfield. She is the executive
director of the Common Sense Institute here in Colorado. They
release a lot of studies that the news uses actually
in Colorado just to talk about the data behind the
issues that are in the news, whether they talk about
energy situation here in Colorado, whether we're talking about Tabor
(02:36):
protecting our taxpayer's Bill of Rights. The Common Sense Institute
dives into the data and the research and the statistics,
and she can offer you some key points as you
discuss these issues with your.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
Family and friends.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
But while we were waiting for these great interviews, I
would like to play a clip for you that I'm
sure you'll all enjoy. Kamala Harris back on the public
stage speaking and of course she just can't make I
manage to talk without rambling about Trump.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
We are not going to scatter. We are going to
stand together. Everyone a leader and emerge. If you have
a special role to play. Organizing is as important as ever,
(03:23):
mobilizing is as important as ever. Running for office is
as important as ever.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Okay, I have to stop it. Sorry, I can't keep listening.
So this is my own problem. But when people talk
that slow, Jay and I disagree, I just can't keep going.
But she is back because she apparently has put some
thoughts behind her thoughts, but not enough thought because it
takes very long time to get them out.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
But I will.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
Okay, sorry, this is rabbit trail Ryan. But on the
topic of speaking speeds. So my husband, on his way
to work, he will listen to audiobooks. He puts them
on the three times four time speed, and so I
asked him, like, how in the world can you understand
what anyone is saying at three or four time speed?
Speaker 3 (04:07):
He's like, I live with you.
Speaker 5 (04:09):
I was like, oh, Dave, wow, So yeah, I think
you speak up that quickly. However, you mentioned some thoughts
and thoughts behind the thoughts. Yeah, would you like some
deep thoughts? I would Kamala Harris. This is another topic altogether,
but vintage Oh Kamala Harris, Let's go.
Speaker 6 (04:32):
And now deep thoughts by Kamala Harris.
Speaker 4 (04:38):
In fact, please allow me, friends to digress for a moment. Okay,
it's kind of dark in here when I'm asked for
show of hands. Who saw that video from a couple
of weeks ago, the one of the elephants at the
San Diego Zoo during the earthquake.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
Google it if you've not seen it.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
It has been on my mind. Everybody's asking me what
you've been thinking about these days?
Speaker 2 (05:04):
Well, okay, thank you for those deep thoughts, ry deeply appreciated.
What about I don't know, Like I saw the video too,
but and hey, if we really want to dive deep
into that video, it was elephants, including mother elephants, protecting
(05:25):
baby elephants in the middle of an earthquake. So it's
a lesson for the Democrat party about how you know,
mothers should maybe protect their children.
Speaker 6 (05:31):
And what party is the elephant.
Speaker 3 (05:35):
To Wow? There we go, there we go.
Speaker 7 (05:39):
Hey, by the way, KBB, yeah, my husband does the
same thing with his audio books.
Speaker 3 (05:43):
Oh three times to speed say.
Speaker 6 (05:46):
The same thing about you speak.
Speaker 8 (05:48):
No, he did not.
Speaker 7 (05:49):
But it's just I don't know, because like sometimes I'll
be in the car and he'll have it on and
I'm just how do you comprehend anything they're saying drives
me crazy.
Speaker 6 (05:58):
There to be.
Speaker 5 (06:00):
Kelly's old enough KBB, probably not. There used to be
this guy that would do commercials and he literally was
like a speed reader Guinness book World Records guy, and
he would just talk. It was amazing how quickly he
could talk. I'll try to find one of those old
ads during the.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
Break you should, you should. And it's something I actually
had to get good at. When I was chairman of
the Republican Party. There were, as everyone knows, people who
like to digress at meetings, and I guess slow things down.
And so when are just slow things down, what they
ask you is they're like, okay, can you read the
rules at length? Well, what they didn't know is that
I literally can speed read, and so I would just
read the insanely fast and it would take, like, you know,
(06:36):
maybe two minutes instead of the twenty they were hoping for.
Speaker 6 (06:39):
Please tell me audio and or video of this success.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
I'm wondering it does it go on?
Speaker 4 (06:44):
It?
Speaker 8 (06:44):
Well?
Speaker 2 (06:44):
It's funny is I would have people come up to
me afterwards and one of them would be like, that
was awesome, Oh my goodness, you're such a blank blank
and they meant it good, but they're like, oh so oppressive.
I love it, and then I have other people to
get up there. You are so disrespectful to people's right
to free speech. They deserve to listen to that. You
can't railed over those, you know, lots of the virgin
opinions in the party. You know, welcome to politics. What
(07:06):
I think is interesting going back to Kabla Harris, is
that one of her advisors, after this speech where she
talked about elephants and her thoughts, behind her thoughts and
all those great things, her advisor said, there is a
clamoring for her voice right now among Americas. Well, but
the poll that we were talking about in the last
hour of the show, the Emerson poll that came out
(07:26):
because Trump has done his first one hundred days in office,
it did show his approval rating matches disapproval rating forty five,
forty five, much better than Joe Biden's negative seventeen when
he was exiting office.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
But here's the here's.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
The money question, would you vote for Donald Trump today
or Kamala Harris?
Speaker 3 (07:42):
And people said Donald Trump by a majority.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
So I do not believe there is a clamoring for
the voice of Fanil Harris.
Speaker 6 (07:48):
You said that was an Emerson poll. Okay, here's the
deal too.
Speaker 5 (07:51):
Rasmussen was the closest, and Rasmussen always gets slammed by
those on the outside. That's a right leaning and you
can discount it. Well, guess what they had Trump plus two.
Trump won by one point five. The other polls all
had Kamala Harris ahead in the popular vote. The betting
markets were like eighty percent or higher, I think, for
Harris winning the national popular vote, even though they still
(08:13):
forecast in her to lose the electoral college. But the
fact that this is Emerson and it's one point Christy,
go ahead and push it three.
Speaker 6 (08:21):
Maybe in the other direction too.
Speaker 5 (08:23):
So Trump may it very well according to the national
popular vote standard, be even further ahead than he was
in the twenty twenty four election.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
That's amazing and a very good point. I think he
is making a lot of people happy. He's not your
typical politician shaking things up. Another interesting poll that came out,
and I know we were about to take a break,
but another interesting poll. It came out of Georgia, which
has been a swing state for the last few elections.
Republicans have struggled there and had some victories as well,
but it showed that among voters in the state of Georgia,
(08:52):
Democrats have a thirty five percent approval rating. That is
terrible for them in a state where they're gonna have
to win Key US and its seats in twenty six
if they're going to push back on the Trump agenda.
And just it's showing that whatever spikes happened for a
while against Republicans are somewhat evening out in key areas
(09:12):
of the country. Well, we'll see how this all plays out,
but just some very interesting polls happening going on right
now not making Democrats happy. Part of the reason is
they don't really have a face of their party right now.
It is not Kamala Harris. They can't figure out who
the leader should be, no one who can adequately combat Trump.
Even after one hundred days to figure it out, and
they had four years to figure it out before, they
still haven't done it. I'm Christy Burton Brown. You're on
(09:32):
the Dan Kapla show call in over the break eight
five five four zero five eight two five five or
text Dan the five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 6 (09:46):
And now back to the Dan Kaplass Show podcast.
Speaker 9 (09:50):
This is the micro Machine Man present think the most
min miniature, modicative Michael mcin secho one hesdramatic details, tripture
and decison. Page outsus incredible micro machine pocket police that
says a police station, fire station, restaurant, service station, and
more perfect pocket portables to think any place and there
are many minuture places to play with. Each one comes
with its own special edition mic machine be a cole
on fun fantastic features that miraculously move. Raise the boltle,
fit the airport, marina man, the gun turret at the
I mean they's clean your car at the car wash,
raise the tulbridge. These place that's fit to against the
(10:10):
form of micro machine world, micro machine pocket place that's
tremendously tiny, so perfectly precise. So doesn't we detailed Joe
want to pocket the mall micro machines the micro machine
pocket place that's hold simply from gloog.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
The smaller they are, the better they are.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
Yes, I think he may possibly beat me in speed
of talking to get Is that the.
Speaker 6 (10:26):
Speed that your husband listens to the books, though.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
See I think it's even faster than that. I can't
even understand what he listens.
Speaker 5 (10:32):
That was a thirty second spot and I'm just imagining
if I type out the script, how long would take
me to read it?
Speaker 4 (10:38):
Right?
Speaker 2 (10:38):
Like allow, oh my goodness, right, yeah, And my husband's
super smart this he can actually retain it. Me.
Speaker 3 (10:42):
On the other hand, I'm like, ooh o for my head.
Speaker 6 (10:44):
That's incredible.
Speaker 9 (10:45):
I know, I know.
Speaker 3 (10:47):
Well, you're on the Dan Caplis Show. I'm Christy Verton Brown.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
We have a special guest to welcome on, Kelly Coffield,
the executive director of Common Sense Institute, who you are
probably familiar with because they're quoted by news outlets across
Colorado for the depth of their research stats data on
all the important issues facing Colorado.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
Kelly, Welcome to the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 8 (11:06):
Thank you so much, Christy, appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Absolutely love getting to do some work with you, me
at Advanced Colorado, you at Common Sense Institute. But would
just love for our listeners to hear about some of
your most recent reports. I guess let's tackle Tabor first,
to the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. Seventy percent of Colorado's
love Tabor. Can you fill us in on your most
recent report?
Speaker 10 (11:28):
Thanks so much, Christy.
Speaker 8 (11:30):
Yes, at the Common Sense Institute. We're doing about ninety
reports a year.
Speaker 10 (11:34):
So it feels like a lot. It is, and there
are so many issues.
Speaker 8 (11:37):
That need to be tackled here in Colorado. You know,
most recently are Mike gay Loprino Free Enterprise Fellow. This
year is Ross Kaminski that I'm sure many listeners are
familiar with. Ross just put out his first report with
the Common Sense Institute just today, actually, so this is
really timely. That's awesome, and we us really wanted to
(12:00):
talk about Tabor and his reports called the Legislative Assault
of Tabor, how Colorado lawmakers are rewriting the rules. And
as you know, Christy, Tabor is very unique. We're the
only state with TABOR. Other states have tried, they don't
have one. It's one of I think the best things
(12:21):
about the policy landscape here in our state. So in
this analysis, we wanted to do a few things, but
we wanted to show trends when it comes to Tabor
refunds and once that has meant more Colorados, but also
go through a scenario what was life what would life
be like without Tabor. There is legislation pending that would
(12:43):
potentially do away with it and you know, create a
legal situation where TABOR could go away. So I think,
you know, the bottom line of our report was if
TABOR had been repealed, and we looked at twenty twenty one,
so approximately for the last five years, if TABOR had
been repealed fake government spending in Colorado, they would have
(13:05):
spent an additional nine billion more over those last four years,
and Colorados would have paid two billion more in personal taxes.
So TABER is doing what it was supposed to do
and it would come at a real cost to Colorado's
if it did go away.
Speaker 4 (13:24):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
Wow, No, that's insane.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
And I think quantifying in that way is really really
important because people are so familiar with a part of
TABOR that allows voters to vote on tax increases, but
it really is also a restraining bill on the legislature,
restraining arm of our constitution that says you can only
spend so much. You can't just have an unlimited ability
to spend our money.
Speaker 3 (13:47):
That's right.
Speaker 8 (13:48):
And the other research question that Ross Kaminski our fellow,
was really interested in exploring was how much has the
legislature reduced our refunds that are eligible to Coloraden. So again,
did an analysis looking over the last five years and
something that's been happening. I know that you've been talking
(14:10):
about it. Common sense has two about fees, but there's
something else going on. You know, the legislature can move
significant money through tax credits, through other tax tools that
mean less money for the Coloraden to be refunded. So
when we looked at over five years, over thirty bills
(14:34):
that we've listed in this report, they've reduced taper refunds
by two billion dollars. So that's an average of seven
hundred and thirty six per filer. Now, this amount is
only going to grow after the sun has set on
the twenty twenty five legislative sessions, So I expect this
number to only go up.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
Oh absolutely, And and Keelly tell me if I'm understanding
this right.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
But that means that instead of giving it to every
single you know, citizen tax file and giving them a
table refund, instead, the government finds a different way to
credit or refund that perhaps to groups of voters that
they prefer to give money to, or a program going
to people that they would rather prop up.
Speaker 3 (15:13):
Is that correct?
Speaker 10 (15:14):
That's that's exactly right.
Speaker 8 (15:16):
There's a number of tax credits that move through legislature,
especially in twenty three and twenty four, you know, for
a laudable reasons. You know, we're looking at family Affordability
tax credit, earned income and child tax credits. But once again,
I do think your voter needs to understand that you're
(15:36):
receiving less for you to decide what to spend as
a part of your family budget, and the legislature is
the citing for you through expansion of tax credits.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
Exactly, And that's that's exactly what it's about. I think,
is the government picking for you instead of giving you
the freedom to choose what to do with your extra
money that they have to return to you. We're talking
with Kelly Cawfield, executive director of Common Sense Institute here
on the Dan Kaplish and Kelly, we have just about
two minutes left, which I know isn't quite enough to
cover all of energy, but you guys had a really
impactful energy report released too, So would you give us
(16:09):
an overview of what people can find and then where
they can find it if they want to read more?
Speaker 10 (16:14):
Thanks?
Speaker 8 (16:14):
Yes, we Energy is very important topic. Common Sense has
been doing right of energy work this year and the
work that we just released this week was an aggregation
of all of the cost tied to Colorado's greenhouse gas
emissions framework and environmental policies from the last fifteen years.
So this is a look back. We were not projecting
(16:37):
or guessing things.
Speaker 10 (16:37):
In the future.
Speaker 8 (16:38):
These are real costs that we have seen as a
state across all sectors impacted by this roadmap. So we're
talking about oil and gas, we're talking about coal, electricity, transportation,
and buildings. There's over one hundred legislative and regulatory laws
connected to Colorado's climate policy landscape. And the bottom line
(17:02):
is this costs us money.
Speaker 10 (17:03):
It's not free, and we were.
Speaker 8 (17:05):
Able to calculate in eighteen billion dollars with a b
billion dollar reduction in state GDP because of these one
hundred and twenty mandates.
Speaker 3 (17:16):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
No, that's insane, And I think it's really important the
work you do at Common Sense Institute breaking it down
for voters and saying this isn't just about some theoretical
policy that may sound good that gets past it's about
the everyday average cost that it is pushing on too voters.
So Kelly Cawfield, Executive director of Common Sense Institute, where
can people find your taper report, your energy report, and
anything else in your research they want to read.
Speaker 8 (17:38):
You can find us on common Sense Institute bo dot org.
All of our research is there and really encourage your
viewers to check it out.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
Excellent, Thanks so much, Kelly. Hope to have you back
on the Dan Kapla Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown. We
are about to take a break, but when we come back,
we're going to bring on Senator Lisa Frizell, who is
there at the hearing last night when thirteen twelve was
hugely amended to take out the custody provisions hurting parents
in Colorado. You won't want to miss her testimony here
on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 6 (18:15):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
We're going to hear from Senator Lisa Frazel pretty soon
about the hearing last night. They went until one thirty
where over seven hundred people came down to the capital,
mostly to oppose HB twenty five thirteen twelve, the bill
that would have taken custody rights away from parents who
do not want to transition their child. After we talked
to Senator Frazelle, I'm also going to talk about a
(18:39):
case relating to education the Supreme Court heard earlier this week.
They heard two hours of oral arguments. It would actually
relate to whether or our charter schools can be religious.
It could be a landmark case of the decade if it,
depending on how the Supreme Court comes down. But before
we get into all that, let's go to Senator Lisa Frazell.
(18:59):
Welcome senator to the dan Kapla show.
Speaker 10 (19:03):
Well, thank you so much, Christy.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
Thanks for having me on, of course, and I know
you were in the middle of a busy day, busy night,
with only a few days left in the session, so
I appreciate you coming on to talk with us. Can
you just give us your perspective as someone who was
on the Senate Judiciary Committee last night and heard all
the testimony on thirteen twelve.
Speaker 10 (19:21):
It was all It was emotional on both sides. We
had over a seven hundred witnesses signed up to testify
last night, and the chair had made the decision to
limit testimony as as the chairs prerogative, limited testimony to
a total of eight hours and also limited the length
(19:45):
of time that witnesses could provide a testimony to two
minutes each, so.
Speaker 1 (19:51):
It was a.
Speaker 10 (19:52):
Lot to get through and most certainly not everybody was
able to provide right their opinions and have their voice,
which was really unfortunate.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
Yeah, no, I mean my personal opinion. I know the
chair does have progative to your point, Senator, I think
if that when people show up, the Senators should listen
to them because it is constituents showing up. But I
know a lot of times the chairs of these committees
know that most of the people are coming in opposition,
so don't really want to hear it.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
Well, I don't know, I think.
Speaker 10 (20:22):
And absolutely the committee hearings are the only time that
public can the public can really provide their opinion. So
I completely agree with you. We didn't get out until
one am, as it was. Goodness knows how much later
it would have done. But I think that we have
to respect the citizens of the state of Colorado and
(20:44):
their opinions on these matters.
Speaker 3 (20:46):
Yeah, and I think that's right. Senator.
Speaker 2 (20:49):
Do you think there was any particularly impactful I mean,
I'm sure a lot of them were, but particularly impactful
testimony or points that people brought out about this bill.
I mean, I know there's been thousands of people engaged
on it across the state. But what would you say
came off as most impactful last night.
Speaker 10 (21:06):
So this is the thing that happened, is that the
bill has been sitting out there, went through the House
and kendidly in the House committee. I don't feel like
people who were in opposition were treated very well by
the bill sponsors. They were I believe called Nazis were
(21:29):
because they because they disagreed with the premise that uh,
custody should be lost if you don't support gender affirming
care for your child. And so I think so that
that was an extremely unfortunate thing, and I condemne that
(21:53):
because no citizens should ever be treated that way by
by a sitting representative. But so then it came to
the Senate and it had not really the bill had
not really been amended, and all of a sudden, the
bill of sponsors came in with I believe it was
(22:15):
five amendments. I have them here in front of me,
so I should be able to tell yes five and
stripping down the bill so significantly. So the entire Section two,
which was the portion of the bill that had to
do with family law, was completely taken out. So it
became a non issue.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Yeah, that's excellent.
Speaker 10 (22:38):
Not so good, which is excellent, But the majority of
folks who were there to testify an opposition had created
their testimony around that premise and the idea that print
rights should not be infringed upon right, So that was
(22:59):
a really incorreant thing. They also stripped out section five,
Section eight, and the portion of section three that was
cannibly the most egregious, although section three may still come out,
we'll have to see. This bill is a vastly para
damn version of its original self. But I feel and
(23:19):
I think this is a really important thing. It's just
the pushback from the parents all around the state of
Colorado was so significant that they had to amend it.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
Yeah, I mean, and I think a lot of people
in the State of Colorado feel like not a lot
changes even if you show up to the Capitol and
speak out, because so many people, you know, the party
that's in control over there, you know, sort of said
in stone, here's what we're going to do, no matter
what you say.
Speaker 3 (23:45):
But I think.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
Senator Lisa Frizelle, it is bills like this where you
see there were so much pressure on them from so
many people across party lines just average parents across the
state that they did actually have to take out that provision.
Speaker 10 (24:00):
Only think that the governor's office, I believe had a
great deal of pressure and the Democrats themselves to it
because they were hearing from their own constituents how egregious
the bill actually was. So I was heartened to see
that the system can work. It doesn't, It doesn't always,
(24:20):
but in this particular case, you know, they had really
overstept it, and especially when they treated folks who parents,
who came to the Capitol to have their voices heard,
when they were treated so poorly by the representative bill sponsors,
I'm again heartened to see that we were able to
(24:42):
make some changes here in the Senate.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
Absolutely, and I do think to your point center, that
was the video that I first saw that went all
around viral on social media of a state representative calling
parents testifying against the bill nazis and then that started
getting invitations from national news networks to different representative who
are posing the bill, and it just kind of blew
up into this national story, you know, and I think
(25:05):
that should probably be a lesson to those who want
to take their extreme bills in the legislature and condemn
people with a different viewpoint who are not in the
majority of the legislature, but when they dare to come
in and oppose it, they want to call them names,
they want to accuse them of all these horrible things
that it just it actually doesn't work because normal people
live with people like that and know that they're not Nazis,
(25:26):
they're not terrible. They actually care about their kids, and
sometimes we care about our kids in different ways. But
I do think that's set off the entire national storm
that surrounded this bill.
Speaker 10 (25:35):
I believe you're right, and I want to really give
a shout out to Lauri Gimmelstein who she and her
team worked really tirelessly to try to organize some cohesive
testimony on behalf of the opposition, and they did. They
(25:59):
didn't amazing John, They.
Speaker 2 (26:01):
Really did, And I think, yes, she is an amazing
person coordinating a lot for parents rights around the state.
I was talking earlier in the show just about there's
such a big list of people, including her, who poured
their hearts and souls into this and we're like, you
know what, we're going to go down swinging at the
very least, and they did in this in this case,
make it a real difference on the bill. So thank you,
senator for sharing your perspective and joining us here.
Speaker 3 (26:24):
On the show.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
Good luck as you finish off the legislative session.
Speaker 10 (26:28):
Well, thank you so much. It's a real pleasure to
talk to you. And you know we still have a
lot going on. Unfortunately, thirteen on nine just was passing
the Health and Human Services Committee, which was one of
the companion bills to thirteen twelve. So we're still fighting
the good fight and we'll continue to do so through
(26:48):
the eighth.
Speaker 3 (26:49):
Yes, thank you so much for doing that. All right, Thanks,
all right, we have a great night. God bless you too.
That was Senator Lisa frizzell A.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
Remember the Senate Judiciary Committee who heard the hundreds of
testimonies last night and in the hundred that didn't get
heard due to the choice of the chairman. I'm Christy
Burton Brown. You're here on the Dan Capla Show. When
we come back, we'll get into some responses from your
texts and also talk about a pivotal US Supreme Court
case involving charter schools, religion, education, the whole gamut. You
can call in over the break. Also eight five five
(27:18):
four zero five eight two five five.
Speaker 6 (27:27):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 3 (27:31):
You're back on the Dan Capla Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Thanks for joining us for our last segments Tonight. I
want to talk about this case that the US Supreme
Court heard earlier this week. There were about two hours
of oral arguments comes out of Oklahoma. Basically, there was
a charter school that wanted to be a religious charter school.
They thought they could qualify for state funding of charter
schools because it's a public school. They just so happened
(27:55):
to be a religious one. Oklahoma is actually on both
sides of this, and I'm not going to get all
the complications there, but basically, there is a state entity
that approves schools. There's also the Oklahoma Attorney General, and
they are on two different sides of this. But the
US Preme Court decided to hear it, and the questioning
by the judge is very very interesting. I think a
lot of news reports are indicating that it's likely the
(28:17):
US Supreme Court probably comes down on the side of
saying that yes, a charter school can actually be religious
and that's not its self state establishment of religion. Particularly
when it is open to all religions, not one particular religion.
The government is trying to push onto everyone who knows
for sure. I know Amy Comany Barrett had to actually
(28:38):
recuce herself from the case. She's friends with someone who's very,
very involved in it.
Speaker 3 (28:43):
So it's going to be.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
Eight justices deciding if they are tied, if it's a
four to four decision. Actually, the lower courts holding is upheld,
and I believe the lower court had decided that Oklahoma
could not have religious charter school. But when we get
to the questioning of the justices, super interesting. Gorsic asked
a particularly interesting question. He said, Okay, what are going
(29:06):
to be the implications across the nation for charter schools
in general? If we decide that charter schools can be religious,
what are you going to see happen in states where
you know they would never want to allow religious charter
school And if they must now allow it, are they
just going to get rid of all charters in general?
That I think is sort of what he was getting at.
(29:27):
You saw Justice Kavanaugh, on the other hand, saying, so
the only reason you are saying that you don't want
to fund the school is because it's religious. Relating it
a little bit to that case a few years ago
where the only reason a Catholic school was denied funding
for a playground is because they were a religious school.
And so this is sort of like the next step
in that line of cases, saying okay, can we go
(29:49):
so far as to say that a state may not
deny funding to a school solely because it is religious. Now,
of course, there have to be some constraints on in
order to actually be a public charter school, you actually
have to take all students. You couldn't only take religious
families and only religious students. You would actually have to
be open to the public. You would have to welcome
all children. But they could choose that kind of education
(30:12):
in the same way that charter schools today operate with.
You know, you may choose a science education, you may
choose a dual language immersion school. You may choose one
focus solely on the arts. I think that's what Kavanaugh
was trying to get at, is say, if you would
fund all of these other diverse charter schools, but say
that this one isn't okay solely because it's religious. That
sounds like discrimination against religion. To me, that's what he said,
(30:34):
and that's the question that he posts. Another interesting thing,
So the state of Oklahoma, the side that is against
funding a religious charter school, they made the argument and said, well,
if you do it for this, you would have to
do it for an Islamic school, You'd have to do
it for a Muslim school.
Speaker 3 (30:49):
And so one of the justices, I think it.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
Was Roberts or Alito, I actually can't remember which one,
basically said it sounds to be Counselor like you are
making an anti religion argument, and you are saying, because
the state doesn't want to allow any school that teaches Islam,
you won't allow any religion at all, and so therefore
you're picking out a religion and specifically discriminating against that
religion as the government.
Speaker 3 (31:10):
Maybe that's an argument they thought worked in.
Speaker 2 (31:11):
Oklahoma that is obviously largely Christian, and they thought maybe
trying to scare people away and say, oh no, now
you'd have to fund a Muslim charter school as well.
Maybe they thought that works in Oklahoma, but it definitely
didn't work with the current justices on the Supreme Court.
They're saying, you're signaling to us, they're specifically saying no
because of religious reasons. And while the government may not
establish religion, it may also not specifically discriminate because something
(31:33):
is religious.
Speaker 3 (31:34):
So I don't know that I.
Speaker 2 (31:35):
Really have a prediction as now the US Supreme Court
is going to come down. I think if you listen
to the two hours of oral arguments, I probably agree
with all the news reports that indicate the Court seems
to be leaning to the side of saying, you know,
these schools are going to have to be open to
everyone in the public. They're not gonna be able to
discriminate against who is admitted to the school.
Speaker 3 (31:53):
It's going to have to be open like any other
public school.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
But you can't decline to fund them solely because they
are religious.
Speaker 3 (31:59):
That can't be your reason.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
That would be my guess of where the court probably
goes is going to be an absolutely landmark Supreme Court
decision if that's where they come down. If they say no,
it's really not going to change anything from how it
is now.
Speaker 3 (32:11):
So we'll see. They actually have to issue their decision
before the end of June.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
That's when the Scotis term is up, so a number
of big cases people are watching. But I think that
is one of the biggest ones that could be very
pivotal for.
Speaker 3 (32:23):
Public education across the United States.
Speaker 2 (32:27):
Another interesting thing, and I'm always engaged in education issues
because I am on the state Board of Education right now,
but Stephen Miller giving a speech recently on behalf of
the White House talking about what cutting Department of Education
funding US Department of Education funding would look like in
the States, and basically, you know, setting down the law
(32:47):
zo to speak, although he can't pass law himself obviously,
but kind of saying, if the federal government is going
to continue to give money to schools and states, and
of course I believe they will. There's not really been
a discussion of them ending funding to the states, just
ending bureaucracy the level. But the states are going to
have to actually teach real civics. They're actually going to
have to prepare kids for real life. They're not going
(33:08):
to be able to push ideology that isn't consistent with
American values on children. And we have seen a lot
of public schools go wayward and just literally push whatever
ideology they want on kids and get federal funding, state funding,
local taxpayer funding to do it all. And so that
is something that federal government is being pretty open that
they're looking at and saying, you know, if you want
(33:29):
federal government money, you're actually gonna have to teach like
a real patriotic education. You're going to have to teach
real civics, You're going to have to actually prepare these
kids for real life. I am a fan of academic accountability.
Here in Colorado, we have about forty percent of kids
who can read and do math at grade level. Huge,
huge problem. Often liberal sink just dump more money at it,
and that's not what works. One of the most successful
(33:50):
states across the nation with academic accountability performance numbers also
funds education at one of the lowest levels. But they
found real solutions that work. I mean, like small class sizes,
actually spending your money on quality teachers instead of a
bloated administration. Things like that that Colorado could definitely stand
to learn from. So, you know, I think a lot
(34:11):
of people are a little afraid of like what does
it mean to, you know, to take away the Department
of Education?
Speaker 3 (34:16):
But I think the Trump.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Administration continues to make it more and more clear exactly
how it's going to look, like what.
Speaker 3 (34:21):
It's going to mean.
Speaker 2 (34:22):
But the point is not eliminating funding from kids education.
It's about making sure the funds are spent on something
that actually helps educate kids and doesn't waste money through
bureaucracy and ideology that are not helping our kids be
successful citizens with real opportunities as adults. That's the point here.
I'm Christy Burton Brown. You're on the Dan Kaplis Show.
Thanks for joining me while Dan was in trial. I
know you'll have him back very soon, and hope you
(34:45):
continue the conversation and get involved in your communities and
watch the legislature their last few days
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!