They Think You Won’t Support It If You Understand It

This week at the Colorado State Capitol, Democrats advanced SB26-135, a bill that controls how taxpayer dollars are collected, retained, and distributed within Colorado’s budget, particularly in areas tied to education funding. Alongside it, they adopted Amendment L014, which modifies that funding structure and reshapes how it is presented to the public.

You will hear this framed as support for children and families.

That is not the full reality of what this policy does.

Amendment L014 makes substantive changes. It adjusts how funds are allocated and how programs are defined within the broader budget. But just as important as what it changes is how it is being communicated.

The amendment elevates language centered on children. That becomes the focus. That becomes the headline.

That is not neutral. That is strategic.

SB26-135 is a fiscal mechanism. It governs the movement of money. It creates obligations that taxpayers will carry. It affects priorities across the entire state budget. Amendment L014 operates inside that system. It does not stand alone as a simple children’s initiative.

So why present it that way?

Because the full policy is far more complex and far more controversial than the label suggests.

If this proposal were introduced plainly, as a restructuring of funding within an already strained budget, voters would ask harder questions. They would examine cost. They would examine tradeoffs. They would evaluate long-term impact.

That is the scrutiny this framing avoids.

Instead of persuading you with the full picture, the policy is presented through its most sympathetic outcome. Children. That framing narrows your focus and shapes your response before you have the facts.

That is not persuasion. That is manipulation.

The amendment does not merely update language. It rewrites portions of the law while directing your attention to what is easiest to support and away from what is most important to evaluate.

Ask the questions that were not put in front of you.

• What is the total cost over time?
• Where does the money come from?
• What programs are reduced or displaced to fund it?
• What happens when costs grow faster than projected?

Those are the questions that define responsible policy. Those are the questions this amendment does not emphasize.

Colorado is already under fiscal pressure. Reserves have been reduced. Funds have been redirected. Core services are competing for limited resources. In that environment, every financial decision must be presented with full transparency.

This was not.

This reflects a belief that if you fully understood the scope of the policy, you would not support it. So instead of making that case directly, the policy is framed to guide your reaction.

I think Coloradans deserve better than that.

You deserve a government that speaks plainly. That trusts you with the full truth. That believes its policies can stand on their merits without being shielded by selective language.

• Say what the policy does.
• Say what it costs.
• Say who pays.

If that case cannot be made clearly, it should not be made at all.