Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Good morning, Happy Monday. I am so pleased to have
still in studio with me. Governor Jared Poulis usually sits
on my right, but he's on my left today, which
seems a little bit appropriate.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
And Jared, before we start with.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Legislative session and bill signing and all this, I wanted
to tell you and get your reaction to the fact
that KOA is one.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Hundred this year. Happy one hundredth birthday, KOA.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
I cannot believe that KOA has been on the air
the voice of the Rockies one hundred years. You know,
Colorado is going to be celebrating our one hundred and
fiftieth anniversary next year. Are Cessqua Centennial in twenty twenty six,
the centennial state. So a lot of big anniversaries this year.
Happy Birthday, KOA. Did you grow up listening to KOA?
Do you remember it from your I mean childhood or
(00:45):
young adulthood. Let's say, well, absolutely, I'm pretty sure it
was even Well, of course, the Rockies didn't come until
the early nineties, but it had the Rockies the whole time,
didn't Yeah, so I absolutely listened to Rockies games in
the nineties on it. But before that, you know, I
can't say I'm a huge radio guy. I don't know
if too many people have my generation are there's probably
some that are out there listening to radio today, but absolutely,
I mean AM radio. You could get it anywhere in Colorado.
(01:08):
Strong signals always fun. I used to listen to some
of your predecessors on talk radio as well.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Yeah, I'm I'm very proud to be on a three
letter radio station that's one hundred years old. I sometimes
I sort of pinch myself, like I can't believe I'm here.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
I don't know if you do that about being governor.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
Actually, before we talk politics, let me ask you one
sort of personal question, sort of personal when did you
become interested in politics? I met you before you were
in Congress. I think I met you during your first
run for Congress. But were you someone who, as a
young person was maybe interested or did that show up.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Later for you? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (01:44):
You know, I always knew, in some abstract sense for
us that I wanted to give back and make a difference.
It didn't necessarily mean full time. I mean I was
focused on business, love starting and growing businesses. I knew
I wanted to be cypically involved. I mean it wasn't
in my mind that I had to, for instance, you know,
run for office. Maybe it was a point of positions,
maybe was serving on public boards. But you know, I
(02:04):
was sold. As you know, I sold the company two
thousand and seven. Was upset with a lot going on nationally,
like the Iraq War at that time, and that was
coupled with the fact that my Congressman Mark Dahl was
running for Senate. So the seat was open, was available,
and I made the decision to go into it full
time at that point.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
I will note to folks, if you have a question
for the governor, you can text it to me at
five six six nine zero. I will also note I
never promised to ask every question, and usually when the
governor is here, I get a lot of questions, So
you know, I'll ask what I can. I already have
listener questions on a bill that on a bill that
(02:41):
I want to ask about. Anyway, the ride share thing,
I don't know that you've I think you've stated publicly
you have concerns. I don't know that you've stated anything
more publicly. Do you want to, you know, tell us
anything more here today?
Speaker 2 (02:54):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (02:54):
I mean, you know, usually you could look to the
position we take while a bill is in the process.
I mean, our Colorado Department Transportation testified against this bill
during the process.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
This is the bill for your listeners by the way,
that it.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Has to do with safety in ride shares, but effectively
it has you know, video taping of passengers and a
number of protocols which are so difficult that, for instance,
Lift and Uber both said that they would likely have
to leave the state if this were to become lost.
So it's one that again our Department Transportation was opposed
to during the process. There were things that we said, hey,
(03:29):
this could make it workable Lift to do. We're agreed
a few of those things might have been included, most
of them weren't.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Like anything. We're analyzing the bill.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
I'm not about to give you a big scoop today
about announcing any vetos or signings. I did veto a
few bills last week, but obviously there's a few more
ahead and then the remaining.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
Two weeks that I have.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
Yeah, so just reading between the lines there, I'm going
to say you're a little better than fifty to fifty,
or maybe a lot better to veto it.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
We'll see. I'm not asking you to respond to that.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
You know, on every bill that passes, and I think
there's something like three hundred more that I haven't taken
action on.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Ye, we do.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
I do a full analysis, so we get the legal analysis,
the policy analysis, make a decision, sign or veto. And
so we've done that on about two hundred bills. Roughly,
there's about five hundred that came to me.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
About three hundred more to go.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
Wow, and I have until I think, what is it
June and six that get all those done.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
Wow. And you read all those analyses yourself. Absolutely. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
By the way, as you know, some bills are just
clerical and very minor and it's very simple, and they
pass unanimously. But you know, of those five hundred bills,
let's say there's probably one hundred and fifty two hundred
that are you know, interesting intellectually and had some opposition
and might be worth really looking at and examining. I
don't pay attention to every single bill, but I did
see one that struck me because it's not very often
(04:44):
that I see votes that are unanimous in both chambers,
and it was this wacky bill about very small Japanese cars.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
Do you remember this bill? I love it. We legalized
K cars I pronounced K.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
They're great little minni any trucks basically band probably they
were not considered street legal in Colorado, and I think
thirty two states they were. And thanks to William Linstad
are represented from Broomfield. This is his second year trying.
He got it done and it was It's a great bill.
We helped them crafted and supported it and I was
thrilled to sign it. So Colorado's can now drive their
(05:18):
key cars K cars on surface roads. They're not for
highway use. They go up to you know, fifty sixty
miles an hour.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
That was a fun bill.
Speaker 1 (05:26):
I do want to go back in a few minutes
to some stuff that you vetoed, including Senate Bill five.
But before we do that, just tell us a little
bit about what you think are a couple of the
most interesting and important bills that you have already signed.
And first of all, I want to give a quick
shout out with the tornadoes in eastern to rap On
alex County and destroyed over a dozen homes and are uh,
(05:47):
we're watching that closely. I was on the phone over
the weekend and we're working closely with those counties. So
I just want to highlight that's that's going on right
now as we speak.
Speaker 3 (05:56):
Look a big focus for me Ross and for our state.
And you know the fact that it's a pain point
for the state is what drives me is housing costs.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
And Colorado is a great place.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
To live, but that artificial constraints on supply have driven
housing costs up, up, up and up.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
And so we have really been.
Speaker 3 (06:13):
Looking at this over the last three years and trying
how can we prevent government from stopping housing, reduce paperwork,
speed up approval. Just in the last couple of weeks,
I signed two significant bills. One is for modular and
prefab housing. So this is housing that's made in factories.
It's very much the new way we are doing housing.
It can cost twenty thirty percent last and a great
quality year round construction.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
You don't have to close for winter.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
But what we said is, you know, rather than have
hundreds of different codes across our state, we're going to
have one, you know, statewide building code, so that you
can benefit, we can benefit from those economies of scale.
They don't have to turn out a different version in
Parker that Colorado Springs and Boulder. So We're very excited
about that. The second one that we did is called
smart stare Reform. This basically gives a lot more flexibility,
(06:56):
and this one primarily affects cities Colorado Springs, Denver, load
Boulder for Collins, where you have a lot more flexibility
about how and where you design the fire escape staircase,
for example, to maximize safety, but also free up more
room for actual usable space. So those are two examples
of things we did here just in the last couple
of weeks.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
You know, it's funny. I actually talked about the stair
thing on the show.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
Okay, it's a fun one, is really exciting. Yeah, And
I used.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
It as an example of a concept that I tell
listeners from time to time. You know, the federal government,
especially with Trump in office, sucks up a lot of
the oxygen as far as news coverage, but really state
and local governments are more likely to have important day
to day effects on your life.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
And I use that as an example.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
Certainly a lot more nimble, a lot more quick, even
on something like housing. I mean, the big thing the
federal government does is their policies affect interest rates, right
like so, and I'm worried about just interest rates and
crew in going up with Trump's crazy spending plans and
his tariffs and all that stuff.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Big deficits, but we don't control that.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
So we focus on what we control here, which is
basically the process of allowing things to be built and
the regulatory structure around things being built, and if we
can save time and money and get more approval. For instance,
we did multifamily zoning near transit. We got rid of
this is last session art of parking requirements. We had
municipal governments imposing state for every two thousand square feet
(08:21):
you have to have two parkings, you know, squats. Let
the market determine that, right, Who's to say, maybe somebody
only once won, maybe they want three. But you shouldn't
have these minimums in law about parking. You should let
the market determine that because nothing's worse than an unused
parking spot. It adds about forty thousand dollars to the
cost of a condo or a home. And if nobody's
using it, why did we use that space for that?
Speaker 2 (08:43):
Tell me a little.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Bit, because I probably didn't pay as much attention to
details as I should have. But about the construction defect,
reform that passed.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
That's a huge one to us.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
So basically in our state, people have been building things
over the last decade, lots of new inventory coming, housing
inventory coming on board, but with regards to multifamily, it's
mostly been apartments for rent rather than condos for sale.
And you look at you know, usually for many people,
that first home they're going to buy needs to be
in that two hundred and fifty three hundred thousand dollars
price point right, and very few people can afford a
(09:14):
six hundred thousand dollars five hundred thousand, seven undred thousand
dollars home right off the bat, and those are often condos.
Because of construction defects liability, nobody has really been building
condos and slow to a near halt in our state.
People are building apartments for rent instead, which are great,
we need them, but we want people to be able
to build equity and wealth. This reforms the condo liability
(09:35):
in several ways. You can get into the details. With
higher consent for lawsuits, the money actually actually be used
to correct the defect. There's a limited kind of right
to repay ability to repair it. So there's a number
of different things that basically, we hope will kickstart condo
construction in our state and bring more homes online than
people can buy two hundred three hundred thousands.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
So I actually have a bunch of listeners texting in
with a similar question to something I wanted to ask
you as well, And I'll just read a headline.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
This is from CBS Colorado.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Colorado governor threatens to withhold grants from cities that don't
comply with housing laws.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
What's going on here? So these are some of the
laws we just talked about. Parking requirements is an example.
So if a city tries to impose now it's illegal
for them to do this. If they try to impose
parking requirements, we then for one of our enforcement mechanisms,
will not provide some of our discretionary granta is funding
to a city that's in violation of the law.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
There are other ways to address it.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
Right, somebody could sue, example saying, you know, an individual
could say you are forcing me to build parking. I
don't want I am suing you, but as we know,
that puts a large burden on the individual, it takes
a long time, it's very costly. We are directly trying
to get make sure that people are following the pro
housing laws, to get government out of the way by
tying our state discretionary grants, to making sure that our
(10:51):
cities and counties are partners in building more housing.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
Now.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
So, one thing that comes up a lot from in
Colorado in particular, more than other places I've been is
local control. And you talk a lot about local control
on certain issues. This seems to be the opposite of
local control.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
So how do we.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
Square that circle? So there's absolutely a local control piece
to how we build. I give several examples. One is
height limits. You know, some cities want to have three
stories four stories tops. Some don't want to, you know,
someone higher. Another thing that's sometimes even more local, sometimes
in an HLA, but it could be in a city, is,
for instance, we want all the homes in this neighborhood
to be in this color palette. Right, you have to
be one of these five colors, because we don't want
(11:32):
a hot, pink one. It hurts the value of the
neighboring properties. The state is no business, We don't get
involved with that stuff. But for instance, something like accessory
dwelling units by right, that's another law we pass. You
can now build in Colorado. You know, yes, it got
water done a little. So it's not everywhere, but in
most of our cities, most of our medium sized towns,
you can build. And that's a mother in law flat,
like a separate detached unit on your property.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
You can build. They can't turn you down again.
Speaker 3 (11:58):
It can be of the city and ha in terms
of it doesn't have to be a certain color, it
doesn't have to have a certain look, all those things.
But they no longer can say no to preventing you
from building. So we have a statewide interest in housing
costs and providing more housing. We found out that one
of the barriers, there's others we talked about the course
through the liability for condos, but one of the barriers
(12:18):
where local governments has said we're not letting you build.
And we have been trying to reduce the ability of
them to do that, while of course maintaining of course
their land use authority. In terms of determining the things
that really affect the shape and color of the community,
like building size and height and all of those important
things we don't get into device like commercial versus residential.
(12:39):
No one's telling them, you know, where each of those
are they have commercial zones, they have residential zones. But
if you have a residential zone, we want to make
sure that multifamily is allowed, and at least some of that.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
You mentioned in passing the federal budget. I want to
talk about state budget a little bit. There was some
significant effort that had to be made this year to
get government to a size where well, we have to
have about budget here, right, and there is a talk
of something like a one point two billion dollar quote
unquote shortfall, even though the budget was six hundred and
fifty million dollars bigger than last year, or whatever, whatever
(13:09):
the number is. So what actually I want to ask
you about now? I hear a lot of chatter about
how next year may be more difficult than this year,
and that maybe there was some stuff this year that
they found a way not to touch, like perhaps medicaid
or some other things like that that the budget writers
might not be able to avoid touching next year. So
(13:32):
what are your thoughts about next year's state budget? At
this point, we absolutely in our budget we submitted.
Speaker 3 (13:38):
The governor submits a budget, it's never passed as is,
of course, it's up to the Joint Budget Committee.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Legislature.
Speaker 3 (13:43):
We included several cuts to Medicaid, which the legislature rejected.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
They did not make those cuts. But you know, I
think you your framing is right.
Speaker 3 (13:50):
I get frustrated because there were years where people said
a Pulse is a big spender. Now this is the
year they say Polus is cutting all this. We just
follow the formula of inflation plus growth. Every year i've
been governor, the budget go up by the amount of
inflation plus growth. That's the Tabor formula, right. So the
reason the budget went up less this year is because
inflation was a lot lower and it came down significantly. Now, yes,
there were also healthcare costs. Some of that was because
(14:10):
of the roll off of the pandemic era Medicaid expansion
that added to the state piece. But fundamentally, in my
time as governor, the state budget has grown every year
at the rate of inflation plus population growth, which is
something like one point five percent population growth. That will continue.
It's hard to predictab what to happen next year. Will
inflation further come down, We'll go up. Now, obviously, if
(14:31):
there's a recession, we could be below that Tabor limit.
That would those would be real cuts. That means you
are actually cutting the budget, not just the rate of increase.
That is not a Colorado thing. That's more of a
national thing. I worry about headwinds with the tariffs, as
we talked about. I'm very concerned about that. On the upside, obviously,
you know, if there's a positive tax or regulatory form
it could help growth.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
But your guess is a good of mine about that.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
But as long as we're above the Tabor level and
we have refunds going out to people, basically the state
budget will grow according to that formula.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
You've always been very clear in public and in private
with me that you like TABOR, but you hate the
refund mechanism. And then it just feels sort of cluegey
and maybe it just means we're taxing too much and
let's lower tax rates. But the legislature has in recent
years done a bunch of stuff to basically reduce the
(15:22):
TABOR refund by just spending the money.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
And you signed that stuff. So how do you feel
about TABOR.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
Now, Well, they can't spend the money, to be clear,
it has to be a tax refund mechanism.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
But that leaves it up to so so a couple
things on that.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
First of all, there's part of taber that says voters
should get to approve any tax increase. I totally agree with,
you know, full stop. So I don't think the legislature
should have that authority. I think you go to the voters,
you ask that's muniicible, it's county at state. I totally
agree with that. Do you get into kind of what
happens with this surplus? Right And for decades Republican and
Democratic administrations have selected different tax refunds that they consider worthy.
(16:03):
And I'll give you one, and yes I've supported it,
but it started long before me. It's a political third rail.
The senior homestead tax exemption. Right now, we made that portable,
which is great, so now senior can down size without
losing that because if you're going to have that distortion
in the marketplace in the first place, the last thing
you want to do is say, if somebody's downsizing from
a seven hundred thousand dollars home to a six hundred
thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
Home, they're going to pay more in property taxes. That
makes no sense.
Speaker 3 (16:25):
That was what was the case before we now have
it portable. Did that reduce the tabor surplus. Sure it
was a tax refund mechanism. The one I'm most proud
of is we cut the income tax so twice at
the ballot box, once through the legislature, depending on the surplus.
When I came in, the income tax was four point
sixty three percent, reduced permanently to four point five percent,
reduced permanently to four point four and now depending on
(16:46):
the level of the surplus. And for this current year
that people are paying taxes on file to April or October,
it was four point twenty five percent. Now it could
we might not get that full reduction next year because
the surplus will probably be lower, depending on whether there's
a recession or not.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
So one very quick thing, and then I want to
ask you about some vetos. Is the family leave, the
paid family and Medical leaf program. Do you know anything
right now? And I wasn't even thinking of asking this question.
And if you don't know the answer, just say I
don't know the answer right now. But how's that doing
as far as the cash flows there? Because I've been
(17:19):
I've been worried that lots of people would come for
that benefit and that the whoever's running at is going
to have to raise the tax rate it has, so
this is one to be clear passed by the voters.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
Not related to Tabor.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
I just want to I want to make sure we're
talking about this. So good news, very good news. It
has been doing so well actually that the payroll tax
will be reduced coming year, so marginally, but it'll be reduced.
So it's it's it's holding it so again, not the
way that I would have done it. I did not,
you know, support that ballot initiue, but the voter's overwhelmingly
passed it. I implemented it in good faith. It's gone
(17:51):
a lot better than I thought. Yeah, and that's very
I'm very glad to hear that.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
All Right, So we have about three minutes left, and
I just want to talk about a couple of things
that you vetoed And I want to start with Senate
Bill five, which you always made clear that you were
going to veto if there wasn't a compromise between business
and labor, and there wasn't. But can you just kind
of give us, you know, thirty to sixty seconds on
what was in your mind as you're signing that veto?
Speaker 2 (18:13):
Sure, give me like a.
Speaker 3 (18:14):
Minute I have to say, because people care about this
is okay. So here you have the right in all
fifty states under federal guidance to former union National Labor's
Relation boards.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
It's a majority vote.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
What this bill was about is, after younisformed, how do
you get the permission to negotiate for mandatory dues seduction
from all people that are members, not just the ones
you want to join and pay, which is the default.
The unions wanted to make it easier to do that.
There's a process under current law to do that. In
some states there's no process to do that. Those are
(18:44):
called open shop or right to work states. So you know,
it was a matter of what that compromise would be.
So currently there's a super majority required up to seventy
five percent of the vote of the workers in a
second election to be able to negotiate for union dues.
There was a broad consensus and even people in business
community agree that that could be a lower number. It
could be more reasonable. Look at turnout requirements. We wanted
(19:06):
something that was stable. The Labor Peace Act in Colorado
has been a law for eighty three years. I'm not
a big fan of uncertainty. It discourages an investment. It's
bad for workers and it's bad for business. So if
we were going to replace it, we wanted something that
would have staying power. I mean, it had enough buy
in for business and labor that it wasn't likely to
be thrown out at a ballot box a year later,
that it wasn't even likely to be swept away three
years late. We wanted the last of not eighty three years.
(19:27):
We wanted the last ten years, twenty years, thirty years.
Speaker 2 (19:30):
That was what we did. Were not able to reach
in an agreement, and so I did have to veto
that bill.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
Do you think there will likely be a ballot measure
either to do what that bill would have done, or
from John keldera perhaps to make us a right to
work stay.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
I don't have a crystal ball ross. I don't know
what else these are.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
To be clear, this is not the legislature referring when
you're talking about are there people gathering.
Speaker 2 (19:51):
Cigaret right now?
Speaker 3 (19:52):
The legislature. Yeah, And I don't know. I could say
that efforts at a compromise will continue. I mean, I
think it's both business and labor unions have an interest
in achieving a compromise. That's predictable because honestly, neither side
is thrilled to have to spend tens of millions of
dollars in ballad fights and maybe lose. I mean, that's
a that's kind of a powerful incentive to negotiate.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
Yeah, I agree. I mean my position is close to yours.
I would prefer us to be a right to work state.
I'm actually kind of sickened that there is a state
where you can anywhere in the US, where you can
be forced to have to pay money to a union.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
That's a whole different thing.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
But as long as we have the overall situation that
we have, this is working fine for us, and I
don't see a good reason to blow it up.
Speaker 3 (20:36):
And I would ad there's many unions and this doesn't
even affect so like you think, when people think unions
in our state, they often think public unions like CEA
that's an Educator's Association or WINS. These are actually not
even under this. There is no mandatory way that you
could force a teacher to join it. Only the teachers
that want to join the union join it. This does
not affect them, to be clear, it's really about private
sector unions.
Speaker 1 (20:56):
All right, last week thing because I got five listener
texts in a row and it came in my mind too.
Just going back to the previous topic of TABOR and
all that, one of the things that's happened in this state,
as you know, is the massive explosion in the number
of fees. And the state Supreme Court said fees aren't taxes,
and therefore we're not going to put them through TABOR.
But at this point, like based on research from the
Common Sense Institute, if you counted, even if you excluded
(21:18):
the fees for higher education and just look at other fees,
our effective tax rate is somewhere in the high sevens
rather than someone somewhere in the low fours. Does this
trouble you at all that we keep getting these new taxes,
but we call them fees so people don't have to
vote on them, don't get to vote on them.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
Well, so you know, Taber set up a process for fees.
Speaker 3 (21:39):
And again many of them have been there forever. I mean,
I'll give you an example. Call out the Parks of Wildlife.
You pay your hunting license, that's a fee. We reduce
some this session. We cut vehicle registration fees by about
three dollars and seventy cents per vehicle. For the last
two years, every session I've come in with a fee cutting,
you know, agenda. At the same time, you're right, there's
been some of the legis approved. And I'll give you
(22:01):
the example of one of the larger ones was around
oil and gas, where both the oil and gas industry
and environmentalists entered in negotiation last year and said, you
know what, we.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
Are going to agree.
Speaker 3 (22:10):
Oil and gas was going to agree hate it's I
think it's you know, thirty forty cents per barrel, if
you will. It depends on the price of oil. That
goes to then conservation and environmental mitigation. And they like
that better than kind of the regulatory uncertainty they were facing,
you know, onnorous provisions that could have really.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
Hurt their business. So they have their role. The key
thing is is that they're not They don't go to government.
Speaker 3 (22:32):
They go back out by law under benefit kind of
the same area was collected. They can't just be spent
as a slush fund. So if you're getting a fee,
for instance, on your motor vehicle registration, that has to
go then to something like roads or something like that
the administrative piece would be deminimous, like a couple percent,
but it has to go out for something that's directly
related to what generates the fee, and so that's that's
(22:55):
the way that they work. We've always tried to cut
some of the significant ones people pay, but there's been
a few others that have come along as well.
Speaker 1 (23:02):
Governor Jared Polus, thanks for making time, thanks for joining
us in studio. Congratulations on surviving another legislative session, and
we'll see what they try to do to us next year.
And thank you for for vetoing Senate Pill five in particular.
I'm you know, I send you messages from time to
time on what I hope you'll veto, but in any
(23:24):
case I do. I'm very grateful for that veto in particular,
and thank you, and happy one hundredth birthday.
Good morning, Happy Monday. I am so pleased to have
still in studio with me. Governor Jared Poulis usually sits
on my right, but he's on my left today, which
seems a little bit appropriate.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
And Jared, before we start with.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Legislative session and bill signing and all this, I wanted
to tell you and get your reaction to the fact
that KOA is one.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Hundred this year. Happy one hundredth birthday, KOA.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
I cannot believe that KOA has been on the air
the voice of the Rockies one hundred years. You know,
Colorado is going to be celebrating our one hundred and
fiftieth anniversary next year. Are Cessqua Centennial in twenty twenty six,
the centennial state. So a lot of big anniversaries this year.
Happy Birthday, KOA. Did you grow up listening to KOA?
Do you remember it from your I mean childhood or
(00:45):
young adulthood. Let's say, well, absolutely, I'm pretty sure it
was even Well, of course, the Rockies didn't come until
the early nineties, but it had the Rockies the whole time,
didn't Yeah, so I absolutely listened to Rockies games in
the nineties on it. But before that, you know, I
can't say I'm a huge radio guy. I don't know
if too many people have my generation are there's probably
some that are out there listening to radio today, but absolutely,
I mean AM radio. You could get it anywhere in Colorado.
(01:08):
Strong signals always fun. I used to listen to some
of your predecessors on talk radio as well.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Yeah, I'm I'm very proud to be on a three
letter radio station that's one hundred years old. I sometimes
I sort of pinch myself, like I can't believe I'm here.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
I don't know if you do that about being governor.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
Actually, before we talk politics, let me ask you one
sort of personal question, sort of personal when did you
become interested in politics? I met you before you were
in Congress. I think I met you during your first
run for Congress. But were you someone who, as a
young person was maybe interested or did that show up.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Later for you? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (01:44):
You know, I always knew, in some abstract sense for
us that I wanted to give back and make a difference.
It didn't necessarily mean full time. I mean I was
focused on business, love starting and growing businesses. I knew
I wanted to be cypically involved. I mean it wasn't
in my mind that I had to, for instance, you know,
run for office. Maybe it was a point of positions,
maybe was serving on public boards. But you know, I
(02:04):
was sold. As you know, I sold the company two
thousand and seven. Was upset with a lot going on nationally,
like the Iraq War at that time, and that was
coupled with the fact that my Congressman Mark Dahl was
running for Senate. So the seat was open, was available,
and I made the decision to go into it full
time at that point.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
I will note to folks, if you have a question
for the governor, you can text it to me at
five six six nine zero. I will also note I
never promised to ask every question, and usually when the
governor is here, I get a lot of questions, So
you know, I'll ask what I can. I already have
listener questions on a bill that on a bill that
(02:41):
I want to ask about. Anyway, the ride share thing,
I don't know that you've I think you've stated publicly
you have concerns. I don't know that you've stated anything
more publicly. Do you want to, you know, tell us
anything more here today?
Speaker 2 (02:54):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (02:54):
I mean, you know, usually you could look to the
position we take while a bill is in the process.
I mean, our Colorado Department Transportation testified against this bill
during the process.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
This is the bill for your listeners by the way,
that it.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Has to do with safety in ride shares, but effectively
it has you know, video taping of passengers and a
number of protocols which are so difficult that, for instance,
Lift and Uber both said that they would likely have
to leave the state if this were to become lost.
So it's one that again our Department Transportation was opposed
to during the process. There were things that we said, hey,
(03:29):
this could make it workable Lift to do. We're agreed
a few of those things might have been included, most
of them weren't.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Like anything. We're analyzing the bill.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
I'm not about to give you a big scoop today
about announcing any vetos or signings. I did veto a
few bills last week, but obviously there's a few more
ahead and then the remaining.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
Two weeks that I have.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
Yeah, so just reading between the lines there, I'm going
to say you're a little better than fifty to fifty,
or maybe a lot better to veto it.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
We'll see. I'm not asking you to respond to that.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
You know, on every bill that passes, and I think
there's something like three hundred more that I haven't taken
action on.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Ye, we do.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
I do a full analysis, so we get the legal analysis,
the policy analysis, make a decision, sign or veto. And
so we've done that on about two hundred bills. Roughly,
there's about five hundred that came to me.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
About three hundred more to go.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
Wow, and I have until I think, what is it
June and six that get all those done.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
Wow. And you read all those analyses yourself. Absolutely. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
By the way, as you know, some bills are just
clerical and very minor and it's very simple, and they
pass unanimously. But you know, of those five hundred bills,
let's say there's probably one hundred and fifty two hundred
that are you know, interesting intellectually and had some opposition
and might be worth really looking at and examining. I
don't pay attention to every single bill, but I did
see one that struck me because it's not very often
(04:44):
that I see votes that are unanimous in both chambers,
and it was this wacky bill about very small Japanese cars.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
Do you remember this bill? I love it. We legalized
K cars I pronounced K.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
They're great little minni any trucks basically band probably they
were not considered street legal in Colorado, and I think
thirty two states they were. And thanks to William Linstad
are represented from Broomfield. This is his second year trying.
He got it done and it was It's a great bill.
We helped them crafted and supported it and I was
thrilled to sign it. So Colorado's can now drive their
(05:18):
key cars K cars on surface roads. They're not for
highway use. They go up to you know, fifty sixty
miles an hour.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
That was a fun bill.
Speaker 1 (05:26):
I do want to go back in a few minutes
to some stuff that you vetoed, including Senate Bill five.
But before we do that, just tell us a little
bit about what you think are a couple of the
most interesting and important bills that you have already signed.
And first of all, I want to give a quick
shout out with the tornadoes in eastern to rap On
alex County and destroyed over a dozen homes and are uh,
(05:47):
we're watching that closely. I was on the phone over
the weekend and we're working closely with those counties. So
I just want to highlight that's that's going on right
now as we speak.
Speaker 3 (05:56):
Look a big focus for me Ross and for our state.
And you know the fact that it's a pain point
for the state is what drives me is housing costs.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
And Colorado is a great place.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
To live, but that artificial constraints on supply have driven
housing costs up, up, up and up.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
And so we have really been.
Speaker 3 (06:13):
Looking at this over the last three years and trying
how can we prevent government from stopping housing, reduce paperwork,
speed up approval. Just in the last couple of weeks,
I signed two significant bills. One is for modular and
prefab housing. So this is housing that's made in factories.
It's very much the new way we are doing housing.
It can cost twenty thirty percent last and a great
quality year round construction.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
You don't have to close for winter.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
But what we said is, you know, rather than have
hundreds of different codes across our state, we're going to
have one, you know, statewide building code, so that you
can benefit, we can benefit from those economies of scale.
They don't have to turn out a different version in
Parker that Colorado Springs and Boulder. So We're very excited
about that. The second one that we did is called
smart stare Reform. This basically gives a lot more flexibility,
(06:56):
and this one primarily affects cities Colorado Springs, Denver, load
Boulder for Collins, where you have a lot more flexibility
about how and where you design the fire escape staircase,
for example, to maximize safety, but also free up more
room for actual usable space. So those are two examples
of things we did here just in the last couple
of weeks.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
You know, it's funny. I actually talked about the stair
thing on the show.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
Okay, it's a fun one, is really exciting. Yeah, And
I used.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
It as an example of a concept that I tell
listeners from time to time. You know, the federal government,
especially with Trump in office, sucks up a lot of
the oxygen as far as news coverage, but really state
and local governments are more likely to have important day
to day effects on your life.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
And I use that as an example.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
Certainly a lot more nimble, a lot more quick, even
on something like housing. I mean, the big thing the
federal government does is their policies affect interest rates, right
like so, and I'm worried about just interest rates and
crew in going up with Trump's crazy spending plans and
his tariffs and all that stuff.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Big deficits, but we don't control that.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
So we focus on what we control here, which is
basically the process of allowing things to be built and
the regulatory structure around things being built, and if we
can save time and money and get more approval. For instance,
we did multifamily zoning near transit. We got rid of
this is last session art of parking requirements. We had
municipal governments imposing state for every two thousand square feet
(08:21):
you have to have two parkings, you know, squats. Let
the market determine that, right, Who's to say, maybe somebody
only once won, maybe they want three. But you shouldn't
have these minimums in law about parking. You should let
the market determine that because nothing's worse than an unused
parking spot. It adds about forty thousand dollars to the
cost of a condo or a home. And if nobody's
using it, why did we use that space for that?
Speaker 2 (08:43):
Tell me a little.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Bit, because I probably didn't pay as much attention to
details as I should have. But about the construction defect,
reform that passed.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
That's a huge one to us.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
So basically in our state, people have been building things
over the last decade, lots of new inventory coming, housing
inventory coming on board, but with regards to multifamily, it's
mostly been apartments for rent rather than condos for sale.
And you look at you know, usually for many people,
that first home they're going to buy needs to be
in that two hundred and fifty three hundred thousand dollars
price point right, and very few people can afford a
(09:14):
six hundred thousand dollars five hundred thousand, seven undred thousand
dollars home right off the bat, and those are often condos.
Because of construction defects liability, nobody has really been building
condos and slow to a near halt in our state.
People are building apartments for rent instead, which are great,
we need them, but we want people to be able
to build equity and wealth. This reforms the condo liability
(09:35):
in several ways. You can get into the details. With
higher consent for lawsuits, the money actually actually be used
to correct the defect. There's a limited kind of right
to repay ability to repair it. So there's a number
of different things that basically, we hope will kickstart condo
construction in our state and bring more homes online than
people can buy two hundred three hundred thousands.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
So I actually have a bunch of listeners texting in
with a similar question to something I wanted to ask
you as well, And I'll just read a headline.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
This is from CBS Colorado.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Colorado governor threatens to withhold grants from cities that don't
comply with housing laws.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
What's going on here? So these are some of the
laws we just talked about. Parking requirements is an example.
So if a city tries to impose now it's illegal
for them to do this. If they try to impose
parking requirements, we then for one of our enforcement mechanisms,
will not provide some of our discretionary granta is funding
to a city that's in violation of the law.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
There are other ways to address it.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
Right, somebody could sue, example saying, you know, an individual
could say you are forcing me to build parking. I
don't want I am suing you, but as we know,
that puts a large burden on the individual, it takes
a long time, it's very costly. We are directly trying
to get make sure that people are following the pro
housing laws, to get government out of the way by
tying our state discretionary grants, to making sure that our
(10:51):
cities and counties are partners in building more housing.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
Now.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
So, one thing that comes up a lot from in
Colorado in particular, more than other places I've been is
local control. And you talk a lot about local control
on certain issues. This seems to be the opposite of
local control.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
So how do we.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
Square that circle? So there's absolutely a local control piece
to how we build. I give several examples. One is
height limits. You know, some cities want to have three
stories four stories tops. Some don't want to, you know,
someone higher. Another thing that's sometimes even more local, sometimes
in an HLA, but it could be in a city, is,
for instance, we want all the homes in this neighborhood
to be in this color palette. Right, you have to
be one of these five colors, because we don't want
(11:32):
a hot, pink one. It hurts the value of the
neighboring properties. The state is no business, We don't get
involved with that stuff. But for instance, something like accessory
dwelling units by right, that's another law we pass. You
can now build in Colorado. You know, yes, it got
water done a little. So it's not everywhere, but in
most of our cities, most of our medium sized towns,
you can build. And that's a mother in law flat,
like a separate detached unit on your property.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
You can build. They can't turn you down again.
Speaker 3 (11:58):
It can be of the city and ha in terms
of it doesn't have to be a certain color, it
doesn't have to have a certain look, all those things.
But they no longer can say no to preventing you
from building. So we have a statewide interest in housing
costs and providing more housing. We found out that one
of the barriers, there's others we talked about the course
through the liability for condos, but one of the barriers
(12:18):
where local governments has said we're not letting you build.
And we have been trying to reduce the ability of
them to do that, while of course maintaining of course
their land use authority. In terms of determining the things
that really affect the shape and color of the community,
like building size and height and all of those important
things we don't get into device like commercial versus residential.
(12:39):
No one's telling them, you know, where each of those
are they have commercial zones, they have residential zones. But
if you have a residential zone, we want to make
sure that multifamily is allowed, and at least some of that.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
You mentioned in passing the federal budget. I want to
talk about state budget a little bit. There was some
significant effort that had to be made this year to
get government to a size where well, we have to
have about budget here, right, and there is a talk
of something like a one point two billion dollar quote
unquote shortfall, even though the budget was six hundred and
fifty million dollars bigger than last year, or whatever, whatever
(13:09):
the number is. So what actually I want to ask
you about now? I hear a lot of chatter about
how next year may be more difficult than this year,
and that maybe there was some stuff this year that
they found a way not to touch, like perhaps medicaid
or some other things like that that the budget writers
might not be able to avoid touching next year. So
(13:32):
what are your thoughts about next year's state budget? At
this point, we absolutely in our budget we submitted.
Speaker 3 (13:38):
The governor submits a budget, it's never passed as is,
of course, it's up to the Joint Budget Committee.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Legislature.
Speaker 3 (13:43):
We included several cuts to Medicaid, which the legislature rejected.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
They did not make those cuts. But you know, I
think you your framing is right.
Speaker 3 (13:50):
I get frustrated because there were years where people said
a Pulse is a big spender. Now this is the
year they say Polus is cutting all this. We just
follow the formula of inflation plus growth. Every year i've
been governor, the budget go up by the amount of
inflation plus growth. That's the Tabor formula, right. So the
reason the budget went up less this year is because
inflation was a lot lower and it came down significantly. Now, yes,
there were also healthcare costs. Some of that was because
(14:10):
of the roll off of the pandemic era Medicaid expansion
that added to the state piece. But fundamentally, in my
time as governor, the state budget has grown every year
at the rate of inflation plus population growth, which is
something like one point five percent population growth. That will continue.
It's hard to predictab what to happen next year. Will
inflation further come down, We'll go up. Now, obviously, if
(14:31):
there's a recession, we could be below that Tabor limit.
That would those would be real cuts. That means you
are actually cutting the budget, not just the rate of increase.
That is not a Colorado thing. That's more of a
national thing. I worry about headwinds with the tariffs, as
we talked about. I'm very concerned about that. On the upside, obviously,
you know, if there's a positive tax or regulatory form
it could help growth.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
But your guess is a good of mine about that.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
But as long as we're above the Tabor level and
we have refunds going out to people, basically the state
budget will grow according to that formula.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
You've always been very clear in public and in private
with me that you like TABOR, but you hate the
refund mechanism. And then it just feels sort of cluegey
and maybe it just means we're taxing too much and
let's lower tax rates. But the legislature has in recent
years done a bunch of stuff to basically reduce the
(15:22):
TABOR refund by just spending the money.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
And you signed that stuff. So how do you feel
about TABOR.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
Now, Well, they can't spend the money, to be clear,
it has to be a tax refund mechanism.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
But that leaves it up to so so a couple
things on that.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
First of all, there's part of taber that says voters
should get to approve any tax increase. I totally agree with,
you know, full stop. So I don't think the legislature
should have that authority. I think you go to the voters,
you ask that's muniicible, it's county at state. I totally
agree with that. Do you get into kind of what
happens with this surplus? Right And for decades Republican and
Democratic administrations have selected different tax refunds that they consider worthy.
(16:03):
And I'll give you one, and yes I've supported it,
but it started long before me. It's a political third rail.
The senior homestead tax exemption. Right now, we made that portable,
which is great, so now senior can down size without
losing that because if you're going to have that distortion
in the marketplace in the first place, the last thing
you want to do is say, if somebody's downsizing from
a seven hundred thousand dollars home to a six hundred
thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
Home, they're going to pay more in property taxes. That
makes no sense.
Speaker 3 (16:25):
That was what was the case before we now have
it portable. Did that reduce the tabor surplus. Sure it
was a tax refund mechanism. The one I'm most proud
of is we cut the income tax so twice at
the ballot box, once through the legislature, depending on the surplus.
When I came in, the income tax was four point
sixty three percent, reduced permanently to four point five percent,
reduced permanently to four point four and now depending on
(16:46):
the level of the surplus. And for this current year
that people are paying taxes on file to April or October,
it was four point twenty five percent. Now it could
we might not get that full reduction next year because
the surplus will probably be lower, depending on whether there's
a recession or not.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
So one very quick thing, and then I want to
ask you about some vetos. Is the family leave, the
paid family and Medical leaf program. Do you know anything
right now? And I wasn't even thinking of asking this question.
And if you don't know the answer, just say I
don't know the answer right now. But how's that doing
as far as the cash flows there? Because I've been
(17:19):
I've been worried that lots of people would come for
that benefit and that the whoever's running at is going
to have to raise the tax rate it has, so
this is one to be clear passed by the voters.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
Not related to Tabor.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
I just want to I want to make sure we're
talking about this. So good news, very good news. It
has been doing so well actually that the payroll tax
will be reduced coming year, so marginally, but it'll be reduced.
So it's it's it's holding it so again, not the
way that I would have done it. I did not,
you know, support that ballot initiue, but the voter's overwhelmingly
passed it. I implemented it in good faith. It's gone
(17:51):
a lot better than I thought. Yeah, and that's very
I'm very glad to hear that.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
All Right, So we have about three minutes left, and
I just want to talk about a couple of things
that you vetoed And I want to start with Senate
Bill five, which you always made clear that you were
going to veto if there wasn't a compromise between business
and labor, and there wasn't. But can you just kind
of give us, you know, thirty to sixty seconds on
what was in your mind as you're signing that veto?
Speaker 2 (18:13):
Sure, give me like a.
Speaker 3 (18:14):
Minute I have to say, because people care about this
is okay. So here you have the right in all
fifty states under federal guidance to former union National Labor's
Relation boards.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
It's a majority vote.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
What this bill was about is, after younisformed, how do
you get the permission to negotiate for mandatory dues seduction
from all people that are members, not just the ones
you want to join and pay, which is the default.
The unions wanted to make it easier to do that.
There's a process under current law to do that. In
some states there's no process to do that. Those are
(18:44):
called open shop or right to work states. So you know,
it was a matter of what that compromise would be.
So currently there's a super majority required up to seventy
five percent of the vote of the workers in a
second election to be able to negotiate for union dues.
There was a broad consensus and even people in business
community agree that that could be a lower number. It
could be more reasonable. Look at turnout requirements. We wanted
(19:06):
something that was stable. The Labor Peace Act in Colorado
has been a law for eighty three years. I'm not
a big fan of uncertainty. It discourages an investment. It's
bad for workers and it's bad for business. So if
we were going to replace it, we wanted something that
would have staying power. I mean, it had enough buy
in for business and labor that it wasn't likely to
be thrown out at a ballot box a year later,
that it wasn't even likely to be swept away three
years late. We wanted the last of not eighty three years.
(19:27):
We wanted the last ten years, twenty years, thirty years.
Speaker 2 (19:30):
That was what we did. Were not able to reach
in an agreement, and so I did have to veto
that bill.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
Do you think there will likely be a ballot measure
either to do what that bill would have done, or
from John keldera perhaps to make us a right to
work stay.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
I don't have a crystal ball ross. I don't know
what else these are.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
To be clear, this is not the legislature referring when
you're talking about are there people gathering.
Speaker 2 (19:51):
Cigaret right now?
Speaker 3 (19:52):
The legislature. Yeah, And I don't know. I could say
that efforts at a compromise will continue. I mean, I
think it's both business and labor unions have an interest
in achieving a compromise. That's predictable because honestly, neither side
is thrilled to have to spend tens of millions of
dollars in ballad fights and maybe lose. I mean, that's
a that's kind of a powerful incentive to negotiate.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
Yeah, I agree. I mean my position is close to yours.
I would prefer us to be a right to work state.
I'm actually kind of sickened that there is a state
where you can anywhere in the US, where you can
be forced to have to pay money to a union.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
That's a whole different thing.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
But as long as we have the overall situation that
we have, this is working fine for us, and I
don't see a good reason to blow it up.
Speaker 3 (20:36):
And I would ad there's many unions and this doesn't
even affect so like you think, when people think unions
in our state, they often think public unions like CEA
that's an Educator's Association or WINS. These are actually not
even under this. There is no mandatory way that you
could force a teacher to join it. Only the teachers
that want to join the union join it. This does
not affect them, to be clear, it's really about private
sector unions.
Speaker 1 (20:56):
All right, last week thing because I got five listener
texts in a row and it came in my mind too.
Just going back to the previous topic of TABOR and
all that, one of the things that's happened in this state,
as you know, is the massive explosion in the number
of fees. And the state Supreme Court said fees aren't taxes,
and therefore we're not going to put them through TABOR.
But at this point, like based on research from the
Common Sense Institute, if you counted, even if you excluded
(21:18):
the fees for higher education and just look at other fees,
our effective tax rate is somewhere in the high sevens
rather than someone somewhere in the low fours. Does this
trouble you at all that we keep getting these new taxes,
but we call them fees so people don't have to
vote on them, don't get to vote on them.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
Well, so you know, Taber set up a process for fees.
Speaker 3 (21:39):
And again many of them have been there forever. I mean,
I'll give you an example. Call out the Parks of Wildlife.
You pay your hunting license, that's a fee. We reduce
some this session. We cut vehicle registration fees by about
three dollars and seventy cents per vehicle. For the last
two years, every session I've come in with a fee cutting,
you know, agenda. At the same time, you're right, there's
been some of the legis approved. And I'll give you
(22:01):
the example of one of the larger ones was around
oil and gas, where both the oil and gas industry
and environmentalists entered in negotiation last year and said, you
know what, we.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
Are going to agree.
Speaker 3 (22:10):
Oil and gas was going to agree hate it's I
think it's you know, thirty forty cents per barrel, if
you will. It depends on the price of oil. That
goes to then conservation and environmental mitigation. And they like
that better than kind of the regulatory uncertainty they were facing,
you know, onnorous provisions that could have really.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
Hurt their business. So they have their role. The key
thing is is that they're not They don't go to government.
Speaker 3 (22:32):
They go back out by law under benefit kind of
the same area was collected. They can't just be spent
as a slush fund. So if you're getting a fee,
for instance, on your motor vehicle registration, that has to
go then to something like roads or something like that
the administrative piece would be deminimous, like a couple percent,
but it has to go out for something that's directly
related to what generates the fee, and so that's that's
(22:55):
the way that they work. We've always tried to cut
some of the significant ones people pay, but there's been
a few others that have come along as well.
Speaker 1 (23:02):
Governor Jared Polus, thanks for making time, thanks for joining
us in studio. Congratulations on surviving another legislative session, and
we'll see what they try to do to us next year.
And thank you for for vetoing Senate Pill five in particular.
I'm you know, I send you messages from time to
time on what I hope you'll veto, but in any
(23:24):
case I do. I'm very grateful for that veto in particular,
and thank you, and happy one hundredth birthday.
The Ross Kaminsky Show News
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
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
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.