How does AARP pick what policy to support? A twofer on Polis: kudos for one + shoveling his BS in another.
AARP endorses Prop HH, and this makes sense, but I hear them often endorsing plenty of other things. How and why does that work?
It makes sense that AARP would weigh in on Prop HH (see the graphic pulled from the internet). Property taxes, property tax increases in particular, hit people on fixed incomes hard.
But I hear them often testifying at all kinds of Assembly committee hearings on all kinds of issues that, frankly, have nothing to do with advocating for retired people.
They've been at hearings about bills affecting illegal immigrants. They've been at gun control bill hearings. All kinds of social issues that I have a hard time overlapping with retired people directly.
That got me wondering and so I did what I usually do. I asked. I sent an email to AARP asking how it was that they as an organization decided whether to take a position on an issue, and how.
In particular, the exact question was: "How does AARP come to a decision on whether or not to endorse a bill or initiative or referendum?"
The response I got back from AARP's spokesperson was (and this quotes the email including the links that the press person added):
"Thank you for reaching out. Here are the steps we take when deciding what legislation to support/oppose on a state level.
Staff and volunteers monitor proposed bills.
We consider if the legislation align with AARP’s overarching social mission.
We then consult our Policy Book for guidance.
Based on the answers to #2 and #3, we hold a discussion with our volunteer advocates (committee of approximately 20 volunteers from across the state).
If all are in agreement that the proposed legislation 1) aligns (or does not align) with our social mission 2) our policy book support (or opposes) the type of legislation and 3) our staff and advocates agree it is an important issue, we will take a position. "
I followed up this email by asking where I could find AARP's social mission spelled out, and how someone who was interested in being a volunteer on their panel could sign up.
The response to the follow up was (again, quoting with the embedded links I received intact):
"I would recommend you check out these two websites for a more in depth overview of our social mission:
Keep in mind, AARP is a non-profit, non-partisan, member based organization. Our Advocacy Committee will focus on specific issues, not politics. To join the committee, a person should reach out to the AARP CO office directly. We ask them to complete a volunteer application form (this applies to all volunteer roles with AARP). Following the application process, the individual will be interviewed by our Associate State Director of Advocacy and the Volunteer Chair of the Advocacy Committee."
I have to be honest, I looked and looked through their materials on, for example, "Who We Are" and couldn't find anything that I could see that tied directly to advocating for a bill that protected the CO drivers' license records being searched (AARP testified in favor of this bill because it would help protect illegal immigrants in this state).
I also take exception to their claim of being non-partisan. I suppose this is yet another example of the word being used to mean "not supported by a major political party" as opposed to unbiased or neutral. The bills I have heard them testify on and the words that came out of the mouth of their representative were anything but non-partisan in the second sense.
If you're in AARP and you find the issues that they advocate on to be things you disagree with, and you're open to suggestions, I'd offer the following.
You can stay with them and try to get on the committee so at least there is some counterpoint. There is value in this; it's something I intend to do with the PTA as soon as my young one's in a public school.
You could also leave. If you choose to drop your membership or not contribute, however, please please take the time to write them and explain why. I have had friends who quietly stopped contributing to things as a protest and, while I agree with the sentiment, I would say that you shouldn't quit quietly. Let them know in no uncertain terms why you're not supporting them.
Consider this my letter of protest and you can safely assume I will not be joining AARP when my time comes. If they bother to send me mailers, they'll likely get a quick email from me explaining why I'm NOT joining.
Related:
A reader shared the op ed below.
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2023/02/03/aarp_is_cheering_on_the_socialist_lefts_takeover_of_our_health_system_879582.html?fbclid=IwAR2jakfNnJ1Zi3c---RbjOocERf5XXZ_j9kQbMZG5ADgbnPXqeKCsMCWlfo
Cue the "Libertarian-leaning Governor Jared Polis" music ...
Polis recently (and interestingly enough publicly which is not his usual style) signaled a veto for any proposed taxpayer-subsidized, government-run drug dens (pardon me, forgot my progressive jargon, "safe use" or "overdose prevention" sites).
So it looks as though we won't have one of those. At least not til Gov Polis is term limited out and whatever raving leftist the Democrats put up is safely installed.
You know my feelings about Polis enough to know that this pains me, but I do have to say thank you here to him. But for his veto, there'd likely be an attempt at this morally reprehensible idea by the even-more-progressive people in the Assembly.
Fox News, I hope you're in contact with the guv's press people so you can tenderly pet him and tell us all what a moderate, libertarian-leaning, really-decent-and-not-at-all-progressive a guy Polis really is. Give him his earned kudos here, but please tone down the thoughtless complimenting for me; I just ate.
More in the article below.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/10/31/overdose-prevention-centers-colorado-jared-polis/
In the post above I said it was remarkable for Polis to take a public stand. I don't doubt that it's a calculated move, but it's just unusual.
As you can read in the article below, working behind the scenes, putting in phone calls to lean on people, sending word down to one of the numerous unelected boards that make way too many policy decisions in this state is much more his style.
That way he can, like Janus or any practiced career politician, show two different faces to different groups in this state.
https://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/how-a-call-from-colorado-gov-jared-polis-helped-swing-steamboats-brown-ranch-annexation-vote/
One more setting the record straight on Polis, this time it's the BS factor (and no I don't mean Polis' bulls**t, I mean Budget Stabilization).
Besides cueing up the music to introduce our "Libertarian-leaning" governor, the media has done a spotty (some good, some not so good) job in pointing out our governor's role in, to use the Sun's particularly brief and thoughtless coverage as an example, "...accomplishing a long-standing goal of the General Assembly": that of paying off the annual debt ritual that the Assembly goes through in holding back some of the Constitutionally-required money for education.
I gave you a sampling of some various other outlets' coverage in the link below the Sun's (as well as attaching CPR's education reporter's hot take from Twitter on the matter as a screenshot). As I say, they range from decent to far off the mark.
Here's more of the context and reality than you'll find from most of them.
The BS factor has been around a long time. As I covered in my videos on school finance it's a way for the Assembly to short the amount required by Amendment 23 for school funding. A bit of pretty financial trickery. It has been put in and tolerated by administrations and Assemblys both Democrat and Republican.
Missing from almost all coverage is the fact that there have been multiple attempts by Republicans in the Assembly over the last couple years (see the bill linked 4th below) to use some of the federal largesse coming our way to help pay down or pay off the BS factor.
Each and every one of their efforts meeting defeat at the hands of Assembly Democrats. So much for it being a long-standing goal.
Pair that with what you see Sen Kirkmeyer mention in her twitter account (attached as a screenshot). Polis is now REQUIRED by law, a bipartisan law from last session linked 5th below, to do this.
No, it's not a gift. SB23-287 is not the first and only time paying down the BS factor has been floated. No, it's not a long-standing goal.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/11/02/jared-polis-school-funding-budget-2024-2025/
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/news/jared-polis-colorado-spending-2024/article_538da0ae-78df-11ee-b6a8-abba66c7b5d3.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share
https://www.cpr.org/2023/11/02/colorado-budget-2024-school-funding-polis/
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb22-039
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb23-287#:~:text=The%20act%20creates%20a%20public,committee%20by%20January%2031%2C%202024.