Broncos and public money. The lefty media standing up for tax receivers, not payers (part 2). Head's up for the PUC Sunset hearing.

Broncos and public money

I’m not a fan of professional sports. Never really have been. I understand that things like pro football plays a large part in a lot of people’s lives, and good on them, but it’s not my thing.

I’m also not a real fan of public money going to finance professional sports, and this goes beyond my lukewarm feelings about watching them. I don’t like government handouts and subsidies in general, regardless of whether they be bottomless government welfare programs, tax breaks for special interests, affordable housing, or gimmes to sports teams. This latter I find especially grating because of the scale of the money involved in player salaries, team earnings, etc. It’s harder to feel like I ought to be forced to pay for something for those making millions than it is to be forced to pay so that a single mom can feed her kids.

And pay we do, apparently, even when our government tells us we don’t. Per the link below, despite saying the Bronco’s stadium will have private financing, the new stadium has all kinds of public money going to it.

A couple non-contiguous quotes (with any links left intact) flesh this out.

“Team owners building private facilities also typically receive public dollars through tax breaks, which is government spending in disguise. Property tax exemptions, sales and use tax exemptions on materials and machinery, and income tax credits are common forms of government givebacks to sports team owners.”

“As of January 2026, Denver taxpayers know only that the Broncos stadium construction will be privately financed and that public dollars will be spent on some infrastructure. Being enamored with such a proposal is similar to being offered a $1 billion yacht at a 75% discount. In my experience, there are two types of public officials: one will want to spend $250 million to save $750 million, while the other will ask whether $250 million for a yacht is an appropriate use of taxpayer resources given existing needs elsewhere.”

The theory behind such incentivizing and sometimes direct payments is, of course, that taxpayers get back more than they put in by the economic activity generated. I’m skeptical at such claims, but even if true, it’s still wrongheaded.

Regardless of your thoughts on that balancing act, I would hope you could at least recognize the soundness of the latter argument, the appeal to priorities. Investments, even those with a guaranteed rate of return, are below funding the necessaries on the priority list. I’m not going to worry about putting money in the stock market til I have heat in my home.

This is critical for a government entity which doesn’t face the usual constraints you and I might. “Why, this money to the stadium is a good investment which will pay off in the future. While we wait on that, any shortfalls in the here and now can be made up with increased taxes and fees!”

Corporate welfare is just as wrong as special interest tax breaks is just as wrong as limitless, “forever” social welfare programs.

All of them take from hardworking families and give to someone else. All of them put a burden on people just trying to live their lives and raise their children.

Like the Broncos or not, support paying the stadium or not, now shouldn’t have been the time.

https://theconversation.com/broncos-say-their-new-stadium-will-be-privately-financed-but-private-often-still-means-hundreds-of-millions-in-public-resources-270053

---

The lefty media standing up for tax receivers, not payers (part 2)

I wrote back in November of last year about how the lefty media makes a habit of standing up for tax takers, not payers. That newsletter is linked first below if you'd like to read back.

I thought I'd share an example with you. If a shiny red fruit typifies the category "apple", surely the Mountain West News Bureau article (seen through one of the local affiliates, KUNC, and linked second below) typifies coverage prioritizing those that receive government goodies over those that fund them.

A quote from the beginning of the article sets it up nicely (copied here with link intact):

"The U.S. Department of Education began sending notices of collection, which may include wage garnishment, to borrowers whose studente [sic] loans have been unpaid for more than nine months and are in default status. Employers can withhold up to 15% of disposable income, without a court order, from employees whose student loans are in default. This policy may hit Indigenous communities especially hard. Higher education analysts say that about 40% of Native borrowers default on their federal loans, and many carry balances longer after graduation than other groups."

I don't think any of the above is factually incorrect. I don't think it's wrong to share it.

What I do think is wrong is to focus on those who signed up for loans and how that choice has affected them without closing the loop and talking about the burden that unpaid student loans place on the government, and thus, you and I.

It's okay to feel sympathy for someone that has hit hard times, even if those hard times are a result of their choices, but sooner or later we need to reckoning with the fact that government money doesn't come from the aether.

It is coercively taken from families. It's taken from people who would like to save up to get married, buy homes and start families of their own. It's taken from older people who have to worry about making an income that won't grow fit growing bills.

Articles like the below, like much of the relentless drumbeat from the lefty press, leave that part out to the detriment of us all.

As I said in that earlier newsletter (paraphrasing): imagine how our politics and discussions would go if the lefty media spent as much time and attention on taxpayers as they do on tax takers.

https://coloradoaccountabilityproject.substack.com/p/the-data-aint-perfect-the-lefty-medias?utm_source=publication-search

https://www.kunc.org/2026-01-21/indigenous-student-loans-education

---

Head’s up for the PUC Sunset hearing

Details are slim on what the PUC sunset bill will have in it, but I've heard it's liable to be stuffed to the rafters with all kinds of bad ideas.

Among them (and the ones that concern me most):

--State control over renewables land use and siting

--Less transparency

I've heard there's likely to be more, but have nothing solid.

Unfortunately, this isn't likely to change in the near future. It's my understanding that the bill and all its contents won't be revealed until much closer to its first committee hearing (per the link at bottom and screenshot 1 --this will come on Thurs 2/26).

I will update as I hear more, but for now just wanted to get this on your radar. If you look at the position of the sunset hearing, it's likely that they won't get to the PUC until later in the day.

If you have concerns about the PUC, transparency, and/or renewables siting decisions, consider signing up and/or emailing. You can do so in the usual way.

If you get wind of what the sunset bill will contain and have some documentation to share, send along.