Joe Johnson

Comment: The increase in minimum wage without the increase in offset has created a big problem for non-tipped employees and restaurant owners alike. IF there is to be a minimum wage* and a tipped offset, the offset should be a percentage, NOT a fixed amount. this would be the only way to even get close to fair. With this said, this is but one example of why minimum wage causes more harm than good. The government will never be able to accurately know the prevailing market value of employment. Employees and employers should be free to set wages without the force of government artificially setting the figures. Especially during a time of a pandemic, the value of employment and the underlying market value of such is even more fluid, however with a fixed minimum wage, businesses may not be able to pay the legally required amount, and regardless of how many potential employees might be willing to do the work, they are thus prevented from working, harming not only the economy, but their personal finances and their family's well-being. Price and wage controls always distort economic conditions, and it is the lowest income workers who suffer the most - the very group of people that Minimum wage is SUPPOSED to help - by denying them the opportunity to work.

Comment: CLARIFICATION: you used the words "...provide gig economy workers access..." While I support voluntary options, I DO NOT support that as a requirement. Gig workers currently have access to insurance, and in most cases that insurance is LESS expensive than government run programs - ADDITIONALLY by being in the state run unemployment, employers are required to take money from the funds earmarked for employees to pay onto the state-run programs and thus reduce employee pay by that amount. Thus, if Gig workers would rather the state unemployment they should have the option after weighing their available options.

Comment: NOTE: I support such legislation in principle. HOWEVER it depends on the legislation. Since I am assuming that we are talking about regulating private business, protecting the public and environment is a legitimate function of government, protecting the company from itself is an issue for the company to deal with. So I would support legislation that falls within the legitimate purview of state government.

Comment: I support any move that moves us more toward a Federal system of government and away from a National form of government. By this I mean that I support state's rights and state autonomy. With this said, I also believe that it is important that we keep in mind that taxation is theft, and we are taking money earned by our citizens against their will and at the point of a gun As such, in taxing our citizens, I believe that it is important that we remind ourselves daily of the above fact and only do so for the absolute good of the citizens of the state and not for every item on a politician's wish-list.

Comment: Some of the question above is misleading at best, and at worst, simply false. I served four years as Town Trustee, and am VERY familiar with TABOR. The law has reserve funding as a REQUIREMENT in the law. Additionally, there is NO LAW that prohibits a town, city, or the state from saving money in a 'rainy-day fund.' This is simply false. What TABOR does do however is prevent the state from collecting and keeping revenues that exceed adjusted growth. This is simply good economics, and exactly how smart households are run. Far and away, the single best thing that ever happened to the taxpayers of this state was TABOR. The fact that politicians must work within a budget that is tied to economic growth or reduction is a good thing, not a burden. Every citizen of this state has had to do with less income as a result of COVID. Many have lost their businesses and livelihoods. These men and women know hardships FAR more than politicians in Denver that have not yet come to grips with having to make similar sacrifices. Smart families have savings that they are now relying upon. Colorado government is not in a similar situation because Colorado politicians have spent all of their revenues year after year, and have no savings. This is not the fault of TABOR, it is because of a lack of Libertarians in the state legislature.

Comment: Government interference NEVER - EVER reduces costs in the market. The American medical system is in the mess that it is in because of government meddling. It began with price and wage controls during WWII which brought us employer medical benefits as a way around those restrictions, we then got Medicare and Medicaid, then HMO's, then PPO's, then ObamaCare. With every government intervention, new problems (and increased expenses) drove up the costs, and drove down the care in "American Medical Care." We now pay more per patient than at any time in our history (adjusted for inflation), and our medical care is a skeleton of what it was when doctors and patients dealt directly with one another. So no, I do not support another measure to drive up the costs of medical care in Colorado. (PS, "Health care" is a gym membership and healthy diet - "Medical care" is for those who are sick and need a doctor)

Comment: Here again, you don't offer your proposed solution. But let me answer this way, costs and prices have NEVER been reduced as a result of additional legislation. Repealing legislation, and/or removing red-tape, that is a different story.

Comment: ... but I also do not think that business should be forced to close, and I do not believe that businesses should be given money unearned.

Comment: There is no "Maybe" button, so I chose this one at random. Nowhere in the question do you explain how having a lower income would deny a voter the right to vote. Additionally, the question does not explain how race has been used to deny any person the right to vote in Colorado. Discrimination in voting is already against Colorado state law, and as the office that I seek is for the state legislature, I do not believe that this question is directed toward my office. I believe that you meant this question for candidates for Sheriff since law enforcement enforces the law in Colorado, but Sheriff's are elected during non-presidential years.

Comment: I cautiously support a Constitutional Convention - VERY cautiously. So very many of our rights have been infringed upon all across the nation including Colorado. Rights that are already supposedly protected by the Constitution. Thus I fear that any such convention would only make those infringements part of the Constitution rather than EXPAND the protections of our rights. With this said, a Constitutional Convention is written into the Constitution, so I feel that at the very least, there should be dialog on the subject.

Comment: While I support the intent, he trouble with an outright prohibition on a person spending his money as he sees fit is that it is unconstitutional and wrong. Your money is your own, and you are free to spend it as you wish. With this said, I do see the problems with which we deal, election after election, with large donors 'buying' an election. And I am open to dialog and creative solutions to the problem. Additionally, if one will just "follow the money" it is not a long journey to the discovery that the problem of money is politics is not the power of corruption, but rather the power to corrupt. People 'buy politicians' because they can get something in return. The less power that we give to politicians to gran favors, and or dole out money, the less interest there is in funding political campaigns. The trouble of course is how to get to those ends. As a state legislator, I will work to tie the purse strings very tightly so that campaign contributors cannot get at them. THIS is the root of the problem, and where I will focus my energy