08-11-25 *INTERVIEW* Candidate for State Treasure Jeff Bridges on the Upcoming Special Session

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I am very very pleased to welcome back to the studio.
Joining me in studio a very very sharply dressed Jeff Bridges,
State Senator, chairman of the Joint Budget Committee, knows more
than most people about the state budget. And we're going
to talk a lot about this special session because there's

(00:21):
going to have to be a hole filled in there
between some combination of spending cuts and new revenue and
so on. Jeff is also a candidate for Colorado State Treasurer.

Speaker 2 (00:31):
Thanks for coming back in. Good to see.

Speaker 1 (00:33):
You did not need to put on sport code for me,
but I appreciate it.

Speaker 2 (00:36):
It is radio.

Speaker 3 (00:37):
But still, you know you dressed for the job you
want right there, one of my dressed for all right.

Speaker 2 (00:44):
I think you have the job here. I do have
the job. That's true. That's true. All right. So let's
talk about this special session.

Speaker 1 (00:50):
Before we get into the nitty gritty, please define the
problem that needs to be solved.

Speaker 3 (00:55):
Sure, so HR one, the big beautiful bill reduced what's
known as federal taxable income. So it is a line
on your tax returns. Reduced it significantly, and the state
of Colorado uses that line to determine our own tax rate,
so we apply our flat rate against FTI. Because the
federal government changed their tax code, federal taxable income has

(01:18):
gone down, and so we lose one point.

Speaker 2 (01:22):
Two billion dollars as a consequence.

Speaker 3 (01:23):
In Colorado, we just sort of adopt all of the
tax cuts and all of the new loopholes that the
federal government creates sort of automatically. We're one of only
four states that does that, and so that reduction hits
us directly.

Speaker 2 (01:38):
That is just math.

Speaker 3 (01:39):
That is that is what has caused this one point
two billion dollars shortfall.

Speaker 1 (01:43):
Okay, and the cause is within that are not the
most important thing.

Speaker 2 (01:47):
But let's just.

Speaker 1 (01:48):
Lay out a couple some of the big things contributing
to a decline in revenue for Colorado will be no
tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and then a
couple of provisions for business. You were mentioning to me
just before we went on the air. Can you elaborate
on those?

Speaker 2 (02:04):
Yeah, you know.

Speaker 3 (02:04):
The non partisan Legislative Council staff did an analysis of
who benefits more from these changes in the federal tax code,
and this was mirrored in the analysis by OspB, which
is sort of the governor's version of that.

Speaker 2 (02:20):
And it shows that of that one point two.

Speaker 3 (02:23):
Billion dollars that Colorado was losing, about seven hundred and
fifty million of that is to corporations exclusively, that is
not to individuals, that is to escorps are included in
that through what mechanism, How are they benefiting? What's the
change in the tax code that's benefiting the businesses.

Speaker 2 (02:42):
So there's a couple of different.

Speaker 3 (02:46):
Different changes that were made made specifically that apply to
businesses as opposed to individuals, things like being able to
write off your research and development costs, so big tax
credit there for research and developments. There's a big tax credit,
a big change in how quickly people can write off depreciation,
not people companies can write off depreciation, and so that

(03:09):
hits us really hard early on. So we were talking
off air a bit about how in future years the
hit is not quite as great, and that is because
there is some makeup for that depreciation loss this year
in future years. The other big reason that we're seeing
such a huge hit this year, the one point two
billion dollar number is opposed to next year, where the
reduction specifically attributable to the big beautiful Bill HR one

(03:33):
is about seven hundred and fifty million is because they
change their tax code retroactively, so it is all of
two thousand and five and six. So we take all
of that two thousand and five and half of that
two thousand and six hit in this fiscal year in
our budget.

Speaker 2 (03:49):
I can go into why that is.

Speaker 3 (03:51):
Essentially, we're taking a year and a half worth of
cuts at the federal level, applying that to Colorado state
tax code and taking that hit all in one year,
so eighteen months as felt in just one year.

Speaker 1 (04:01):
Okay, and a little more, a little more math. So
this number is out there, numbers similar to what you've
been saying, one point two to one point two one
point one to one point two.

Speaker 2 (04:09):
Billion dollars in revenue reduction.

Speaker 1 (04:12):
But the hole that you guys need to fill in
the legislature at the special session that's going to start
in ten days or something is more like seven hundred
and fifty million. So there's what a few hundred million
of budget surplus coming from somewhere? Else Where's that?

Speaker 2 (04:27):
Where's that first three hundred million coming from?

Speaker 3 (04:29):
Great question, and this is one I think your listeners
in particular will care about. It is a reduction in
revenue coming into the state. A reduction in revenue means
that we drop below the taber cap. So about two
hundred and fifty million dollars that one point two billion
we will be air quotes paid for by the removal
of that taber refund. Table refunds are gone. We were

(04:51):
going to have about two hundred and fifty million in
table refunds. No more, we aren't bringing in the revenue.
We are below the tabercap now, and so that is
two hundred and fifty million, and there's another portion of
that that is attributable to reduction that we will see
not in the general fund but in the state education funds.
So that's dollars that we bring in that are attributable

(05:13):
just to education. That's a longer term problem. That fund
itself is has some solvency challenges in future years. We
don't have to see that hit or address that hit immediately.

Speaker 1 (05:21):
Right now, we're talking with State Senator Jeff Bridges, chairman
of the Joint Budget Committee, candidate.

Speaker 2 (05:26):
For Colorado State Treasurer as well.

Speaker 3 (05:29):
So anyone who's still listening right now is a huge,
huge nerd.

Speaker 2 (05:32):
We just lost like half a year. I'm really sorry
about that. Now, so you've got.

Speaker 1 (05:37):
To fill you plural, The legislature have to figure out
how to deal with something like three quarters of a
billion dollars in this fiscal year, give or take right,
And I guess there's three ways you can do that.
Take money out of a rainy day fund, cut spending,
raise new revenue through fees or taxes, not necessarily a

(05:59):
new tax, but be adjusting or removing deductions, whatever changes
to the code. So it sounds like, just based on
what I'm reading, there's probably going to be a.

Speaker 2 (06:07):
Little bit of all of those.

Speaker 3 (06:08):
Yeah, I think a third to third a third is
roughly the plan. So I think it's irresponsible to not
spend some of our reserves right now. There is likely
to be some kind of a recession in future years,
very soon here, just given what we're seeing with the
economy nationally, So it would be irresponsible to spend all
of this out of our reserves. We need those if
there is going to be a recession, but there may

(06:30):
not be it major out that there's not, so I
think it would be also irresponsible not to take some
out of those reserves.

Speaker 2 (06:36):
So about a third will be taken from the reserves.

Speaker 3 (06:38):
A third will be just straight cuts to the budget
that we have we already cut one point two billion
out of and then a third will be closing some
tax loopholes on those corporations that have benefited from the
changes at the federal level. So they're seeing billions in savings,
We're going to say, well, how about two hundred and
fifty million, three hundred million of that comes back here
into the state.

Speaker 1 (07:00):
So my next thing will kind of represent a very
different a big difference in philosophy between between me and you,
and I realized it's a fairly big number. You probably
need to cut somewhere between four and five percent of
the state general fund spending, which is a lot.

Speaker 2 (07:15):
And you know, listeners might think, oh, I could cut
four percent or five percent, but it's not the.

Speaker 1 (07:20):
Same when you're running a government or a big company
that has contracts in place and people relying on stuff.
It's doable, but it's much harder, and it wouldn't even
be that easy, as easy as you think to cut
five percent out of your household budget all at once.
But in any case, in any case, if I were
in charge, I wouldn't take anything out of the rainy
day fund, and I wouldn't raise.

Speaker 2 (07:39):
Any new revenue.

Speaker 1 (07:41):
Our government, our government, our state government has grown so fast,
so is so expensive, has so many more employees. It
has exploded way past inflation and population, and one hundred
percent of this should be coming from spending cuts.

Speaker 2 (07:58):
Your turn. Thanks for the setup. Here's the thing.

Speaker 3 (08:04):
If you want to cut, you know, have been suggested
suggested by folks. You want to cut five percent across
the board. Great, that means fewer kids will be going
to kindergarten. That means cuts to pre k, that means
cuts two corrections, that's prisons. So you need to figure
out which five percent of folks you're going to let
out of jail. I know my colleague, Senator Gonzalez has

(08:25):
a plan for that. I don't think that's a plan
that shared by the folks who suggested the five percent
across the board cut. You know, there's not we talked
about this last time I was on here. There's not
like an entertainment budget in the state government budget. Right,
you can't just skip the Dave Matthews concert and all of.

Speaker 2 (08:41):
A sudden, you know you have all the money you need.

Speaker 3 (08:44):
Any cut that we make is going to mean people
that are no longer in nursing homes. There are real
consequences to anything that we cut at this point in
the budget, especially after a year where you just cut
one point two billion dollars to get to balance.

Speaker 1 (08:57):
Okay, so this is actually it's serious and it's amusing
at the same time. So whatever we get to the
possibility of budget cuts, people who don't want to.

Speaker 2 (09:07):
Cut the budgets say things like.

Speaker 1 (09:09):
We're gonna hurt the children, We're gonna hurt puppies, we're
gonna hurt veterans, we're gonna let murderers out on the
street and they're gonna come rape you and your family.

Speaker 2 (09:16):
And I did not say that. And we're gonna and.

Speaker 1 (09:19):
We're gonna cut we're gonna cut education, and we'll.

Speaker 2 (09:21):
Cut all this stuff. And I just, dude, I just
don't think people.

Speaker 1 (09:25):
Are buying that there's that government can't cut without hurting people.
Our government is too big, it does too much, It
gives away too much money to too many people. And
you know what, if fewer kids go to pre k,
then fewer kids go to pre k. Right, there's and
again I do realize that five percent or four and
a half percent.

Speaker 2 (09:46):
All at once is hard, and you might even get me.

Speaker 1 (09:48):
To say, all right, let's do one and a half
percent out of the rainy day fund. But I think
it's nuts to be raising taxes. We are feed to death.

Speaker 2 (09:57):
In this state.

Speaker 1 (09:57):
We have a nominally low income tax rate. But but
if you add in our fees, even without higher education,
we are just feed to death.

Speaker 2 (10:04):
It's enough already.

Speaker 3 (10:06):
Two things on that first, if you can show me
the five percent of cuts, I will take a look.
Every time I've heard some one on the other side
say just cut five percent, it has never come with
a plan. They've never shown me what five percent they're
going to cut. So if you want to have a
conversation about those cuts, tell me what it.

Speaker 2 (10:22):
Is you're going to cut.

Speaker 3 (10:24):
I had a conversation about this with Barb Kirkmeyer on
Fox thirty one the other day. She said, well, how
about that bridge for starters, We never funded the bridge.

Speaker 2 (10:31):
The bridge.

Speaker 3 (10:32):
The bridge is not something that you can cut. You know,
the governor's going to chain himself to himself to stop
himself from building this, right, So tell me what it
is that you're actually going to cut. I just haven't
heard that. Well, I would love to have that conversation question.

Speaker 1 (10:46):
No, can't they come like the department heads, like, could
you go to each apartment head and say, show us
what we need to find. Pick a number three percent
and we'll take the rest out of the rainy day
fund two and.

Speaker 2 (10:56):
A half percent.

Speaker 1 (10:58):
Show us let's say I gave you or you must
cut two and a half percent. Come back to us
and tell us what you can do that does the
least what you might call harm to Colorado.

Speaker 2 (11:08):
I mean, is it really that difficult.

Speaker 3 (11:10):
We did this exercise this last year on the Budget Committee. Right,
we had to cut one point two billion effectively. Right,
it's a decrease in the increase, but we effectively had
to cut one point two billion of services to the
people of Colorado. And we succeeded in doing that while
preserving funding for K twelve, for public safety, for public lands.
And it was there was not broad agreement on the

(11:33):
Budget committee about what else to cut. And to be
totally fair to I think the challenge that we have here,
there was bipartisan agreement not to cut a lot of
the things that were proposed to cut, whether that is
services in medicaid, the provider rate, for example, we increased
by less than inflation.

Speaker 2 (11:52):
We did increase by one point six percent.

Speaker 3 (11:54):
That was driven in large part by the Republican members
of the budget committee.

Speaker 2 (12:00):
So if there are.

Speaker 3 (12:01):
Cuts to be made, I welcome the conversation. These are
hard and painful cuts. If there were easy things to cut,
we would have already done it this last year.

Speaker 1 (12:09):
I hope you realize that most normal people have no
sympathy for a reduction in the rate of growth totally.

Speaker 2 (12:15):
It's not a cut.

Speaker 1 (12:16):
It's just we wanted to we wanted to go out
for lobster, and we're going to go out for steak instead,
and now we're supposed to feel sorry that it's a
bad I'm president at bad analogy clubs for a reason.

Speaker 2 (12:27):
Well, let's let's use this analogy, okay, right.

Speaker 3 (12:30):
I wish that we could just switch from lobster to
shrimp or chicken or rice and beans.

Speaker 2 (12:35):
I wish we could do that.

Speaker 3 (12:37):
That's not the budget that we have at the state level,
and I welcome a conversation with real proposals about what
the other sides and es we're going to cut, because
even with just cutting one third, because of this one
point two billion dollar loss, we are going to see the.

Speaker 2 (12:51):
It's going to hurt.

Speaker 3 (12:52):
You're going to see people that are going to have
a real impact on this. So and we'll get that
plan from the governor at some point in the next
few weeks.

Speaker 2 (13:00):
But here's the other thing.

Speaker 3 (13:01):
Right, So, if you think about your household budget, you
invest in, you spend your money on, let's say, school supplies,
on gasoline, on your healthcare premiums.

Speaker 2 (13:14):
Right, I'm paying for healthcare.

Speaker 3 (13:16):
Well, roughly what the state is expending money on, a
third of our budget is K twelve, a third of
our budget is medicaid, and we're building roads and bridges.
Now what we know year to year, and this is
where the other piece that we have to cut comes
in the tabor cuts that happen on an annual basis
that Republicans have said it's because you spend too much, Well,
it's essentially that we get to increase every year a

(13:38):
paycheck goes up by inflation. But we know the costs
for things like K twelve, education, like healthcare, like.

Speaker 2 (13:46):
Roads and bridges, goes up faster.

Speaker 3 (13:48):
So if your paycheck just went up by inflation every year, effectively,
you would not be able to buy as much gasoline.
You wouldn't be able to afford as many school supplies.
You would have to find some cheaper plan on on
your health premiums in order to afford it. That's what
we're doing every year, and we're doing that responsibly. We
are reducing what we invest in healthcare, reducing what we

(14:09):
invest in transportation. We cut a bunch of multimodal projects,
which is mass transit and like bike paths this last
year good, and we're going to be continuing to make
those cuts every year. But that's not There is some
implication that we are overspending and that's why we have
to cut.

Speaker 2 (14:25):
That's not the case.

Speaker 3 (14:26):
We have to cut because our paycheck, the state's paycheck,
doesn't go up as fast as the cost of what
it is that we buy.

Speaker 1 (14:33):
This may be a thing that is sort of a
reflection of overall characteristics in my audience, But I have
a whole bunch of folks asking how much do we
spend on benefits of one type or another for illegal aliens,
including salute or whatever that thing is called us like
medicaid for illegals?

Speaker 2 (14:55):
Is there money there? About thirty six million dollars right there?

Speaker 3 (14:58):
That doesn't close a one point two billion dollar the
coverall Coloradin's program. Initial estimates were cost about six million
this last year, it's about thirty six million. That being said,
it's thirty six million for kids. This is not adults.
This is for you know, you're zero to.

Speaker 2 (15:15):
Eighteen year olds.

Speaker 3 (15:17):
For you break your leg, you get to go to
the hospital and you know, get care.

Speaker 1 (15:23):
These are challenging situations because you know, on the one hand,
having that probably attracts illegal aliens here to get the
free healthcare. On the other hand, if you don't have that,
they're going to go to the emergency room anyway, and
their legs are gonna get fixed anyway, and then it's
probably going to cost taxpayers more.

Speaker 3 (15:39):
So it's all a very difficult thing. Okay, you brought
this up, I am. Let's let's go there. Because if
you look at HR one, the big beautiful bill, I
think it is the single largest increase to private healthcare
premiums in the history of our nation.

Speaker 2 (15:53):
And here's why.

Speaker 3 (15:54):
The way that they are cutting Medicare coverage is not
by reducing eligibility.

Speaker 2 (15:58):
They are increasing the hurdles.

Speaker 3 (16:00):
You have to file twice a year, you have to
prove that you're working, and the Congressional Budget Office has
said the reason that this reduces costs on Medicaid at
the national level is not because there are people who
don't qualify who are getting care, is because there are
people who qualify who just aren't filling out the paperwork.

(16:20):
So these are people that the country has said should
qualify for Medicaid but will not get it because the
paperwork is too hard, which is its own crazy insanity
of like why does the federal government have all these
paperwork kerdles anyway, and that's across the board, but anyway,
it is. It is an increase in paperwork. So people
aren't going to be on Medicaid. They're still going to
get care because when they break their leg, they're going

(16:42):
to go to the hospital. A hospital can't turn them
away and shouldn't turn them away, is going to fix
that leg, and then you know how, they're going.

Speaker 1 (16:48):
To pay for it, raising the cost on everybody else
in our health insurance premium will go up.

Speaker 2 (16:54):
They are reduced.

Speaker 3 (16:55):
The way they've reduced spending on Medicaid is going to
directly impact people that have insured.

Speaker 1 (17:00):
I agree with you, and actually I wish and I
think you and I might have talked about this privately
on the phone. I think that the way the BBB
is reducing the roles of Medicaid is kind of dishonest.
I would like to see them just come out and
say we're just changing the qualifications, right, Instead of one
hundred and thirty eight percent of the poverty rate, you
can only be one hundred and fifteen percent of the
poverty rate, or just some direct.

Speaker 2 (17:21):
Thing like that. But Jeff is right, most people who.

Speaker 1 (17:23):
Lose Medicaid coverage under the Big Beautiful Bill are actually
people who are eligible and just won't be able to
spend the time or figure out how to file paperwork
twice a year. All right, We've only had about a
couple of minutes left, and I feel like we've dealt
a lot in theory, which is kind of my fault.

Speaker 2 (17:38):
But give me, give me a quick sense.

Speaker 1 (17:42):
As you're going through this whatever, what do you anticipate
will be the parts of the state budget that actually
do get cut when you guys do the special session
in a couple of weeks.

Speaker 3 (17:54):
I think you're going to see some cuts to Medicaid.
It's a third of the state budget. I don't know
how you can without some cuts to medicaid. We did
increase overall spending on medicaid this last year. It actually
became the largest single part of our budget, even larger
than K twelve K twelve had been the largest part.

Speaker 2 (18:13):
So you'll see some cuts in medicaid. I don't think
you can handle this without that.

Speaker 3 (18:16):
You'll see cuts in human services things like you know,
we already cut a million dollars in what we are
able to provide to food pantries.

Speaker 2 (18:26):
And food banks. That may go down as well.

Speaker 3 (18:28):
I mean it's going to be services that frankly are
for the least among us.

Speaker 2 (18:34):
Are you going to try to avoid cuts to K
through twelve? Absolutely? And well, do you think there will
be any impact on Higher Ed?

Speaker 3 (18:42):
There is a requirement that the governor have conversations with
the governing boards before and he cuts the Higher.

Speaker 2 (18:48):
ED are made.

Speaker 3 (18:49):
I'd also say that it's difficult at this point in
the year for Higher ED to absorb those costs. They
sort of have the rest of their academic year planned.
That is a difficult place to cut. We did increase
funding by sixty one million dollars for Higher ED last year.

Speaker 2 (19:04):
What we may do.

Speaker 3 (19:05):
Instead, what the governor may do instead, is to say, hey,
heads up, we're cutting you by a certain amount next year,
so build that in starting.

Speaker 1 (19:13):
Now, okay, and then what about transportation, roads, bridges, stuff
like that.

Speaker 3 (19:17):
I don't think you'll see a huge hit to transportation
in this upcoming budget. Again, the main change that we
made to transportation last year was we shifted out some
of our obligations one more year, just to spread that
out over more years. And then we also cut, as
I said, some of those bike paths and pedestrian bridges
and things.

Speaker 2 (19:35):
That brings a smile to my face.

Speaker 3 (19:38):
Jeff Bridges, State Senator, Rural Colorado is very mad.

Speaker 2 (19:41):
Every time I go talk to a rural county commissioner.

Speaker 3 (19:43):
The bike paths, the multimodal stuff we cut hit them hardest.

Speaker 2 (19:48):
Jeff Bridges, State Senator, chairman.

Speaker 1 (19:50):
Of the Joint Budget Committee, candidate for Colorado State Treasurer
as well. That website for the Treasurer's race is Bridges
for Colorado dot com. That's Bridges f O R Colorado
dot com. If you want to learn more about Jeff
in that campaign. Thanks for coming in, Thanks for dressing
up for us. Appreciate it.

Speaker 2 (20:08):
Always great talking Always talking to you too,