Printed Letters: October 13, 2016

Vote no on 69, 
socialism at its finest

ColoradoCare would impose the largest tax increase in state history and double the state budget by $25 billion. The $25 billion tax increase is about $5,000 per person, or $12,500 per household, and would give Colorado the highest combined income/employment taxes in the nation.

More specifically, it will increase state taxes on employees at least 72 percent (and generally more), impose the ColoradoCare tax on all wage/income-earning members of a household, more than triple state taxes on non-wage income, and impose a 6.67 percent payroll tax on all employers, including small, locally owned businesses and farms. Amendment 69 will devastate these small entities or require them to lay off their employees. Bigger businesses and corporations will undoubtedly pass the new 6.67 percent employer tax along to consumers.

Most middle-income households are typically in a 15- or 25-percent federal income tax bracket. Combining that with the current state tax of 4.625 percent, the employee portion of Social Security and Medicare — i.e. 7.65 percent — and the ColoradoCare tax of 3.33 to percent, results in payroll and income taxes of 30 to 47 percent; roughly one-third to one half of income just for income taxes, before life’s necessities of food, housing, or even other taxes.

Coloradans will pay an estimated $2 billion/year for at least the next two years to “re-invent” the wheel and provide the administrative infrastructure, IT systems, provider contracts, and rate/payment systems that insurance companies and the federal government already have in place.

Unlike Obamacare, which allows one to keep his/her current health coverage, all residents pay the ColoradoCare tax, even if they prefer their current coverage. The tax is mandatory. However, without the mandatory requirement, such a proposed health plan would likely be declined by some (if not many) and thus become totally infeasible. Vote no on 69.


Americans must unite as a people, work for justice for all

What defines an American?

Like most, I am concerned about the upcoming election. With either candidate, we will see changes in our nation, some to our liking and others not. It occurs to me that what we are as Americans does not fundamentally depend upon the bureaucrats in Washington, but rather whom we choose to be as individuals. Historically, Americans have had faith in God, e.g., “In God We Trust,” and have shown love, kindness, goodness and generosity to others. And many of our finest have bled and died to defend those who needed our help. Because of our faith and the character of this nation, God has blessed us beyond measure.

I believe that who we are as Americans has been and will continue to be defined by who we are as individuals. My prayer for this nation is that we will love God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength, and love our neighbor as ourselves.

We all want to live in peace and safety. For that to occur, there must be justice for all. We must unite as a people and work for justice for everyone, regardless of the differences that now divide us. This is my hope for America.

Grand Junction

Trump will benefit the country in the long term

Two questions are at the core of the upcoming presidential election. They are: Which candidate will benefit me in the short term? Which candidate will benefit the country in the long term?

The answer to the first question is Hillary Clinton. This answer is clear because she knows how to use government to transfer wealth to herself and to her supporters by taking money from those who have it and giving it to those who want something for nothing. The problem with this short-term solution is that it impedes the creation of wealth and you eventually run out of someone else’s money. More troubling is the fact that after years of getting something for nothing individuals lose the skills required to earn money.

The answer to the second question is Donald Trump. The answer is clear because he understands how government can impede the creation of wealth and the most significant actions the president and Congress can take to remove those impediments.

Creating stability and minimizing uncertainty improve the climate for creating jobs, wealth, and prosperity. The unrest in our country and abroad increases the risk to entrepreneurs investing money in new ideas. We see the effect of this unrest in slow economic growth rates world wide, and increasingly risky financial maneuvers to prop up sagging economies.

Underneath this wet blanket lies a latent technology revolution that will propel our country and the world to levels of health, wealth, and prosperity so great they tax our imagination. The country that will benefit most from this revolution is the country with the fewest impediments to the creation of wealth.

Our electorate will decide which of these questions is most important. Most of the current political debate topics are irrelevant to understanding these questions.

Grand Junction


Page 1 of 1

Mr. Eilts neglects to mention that those tax increases replace insurance premiums currently being paid by both the employee and the employer.

and Mr Iles conveniently neglects to mention the rise in costs of Obamacare, the costs up till now pissed away in government rhetoric and website development, and the current trend of single payer government run direction. Mr. Bright

You mean the costs that will be replaced by the far lower cost of ColoradoCare? You’re absolutely right, Mr. Bright. Thanks for pointing that out.

While Ed Arnos can be commended for endeavoring to clarify the key questions in this election, his irrational analysis of short- versus long-term benefits poses a clear choice between objective fact-based reality and purely wishful thinking (“Trump will benefit the country in the long term”).  Arnos’s baseless belief in the latter is obviously oxymoronic.

Thus, an emerging majority of likely voters and virtually all credible publications in the Country share Arnos’ conclusion that Hillary Clinton is the superior candidate – not because she will “transfer wealth to herself and her supporters” (which is exactly what Donald Trump’s tax proposals would do for himself and his wealthy contributors), but because she plans to “take money from those who have it” in excess (but avoid and/or evade paying a fair share of taxes on it) and invest it in our families’ futures.

Contrary to Arnos’ contention, such investments do not “impede the creation of wealth”, but rather enable it – because, after years of growing income disparities (despite hard work and “playing by the rules”), individuals lose both their self-respect and incentive to
participate in a “rigged” system that affords few opportunities for upward mobility.

Moreover, the fatal flaw in Arnos’ logic is his false dichotomy between the “short-“ and the “long-“ term – because the latter is but the cumulative result of multiple sequential formers.  So, as the Washington Post’s editors opined this morning in endorsing Clinton, “If progress is possible, it will be incremental” – one short-term advance after another.  See:;_term=.4a7e92747f70.

In fact, Arnos’ fantastical conjecture as to any “long-term” benefits rationally attributable to a Trump presidency is manifestly contraindicated by his own short-run shenanigans.  As the Washington Post opined today, “Mr. Trump, by contrast, has shown himself to be bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic, vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, contemptuous of democracy and enamored of America’s enemies. As president, he would pose a grave danger to the nation and the world.”  Thus, there might not even be a “long-term” after a series of “the Donald’s” short-terms.  See, e.g.,

Page 1 of 1

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050; M-F 8:00 - 5:00
Subscribe to print edition
Advertiser Tearsheet

© 2016 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy