Today the Denver Post editorialized favorably on a legislative proposal to modestly rein in run-away tax incentives (read corporate welfare) in Colorado’s “enterprise zones.”

A better policy change might just be to get rid of enterprise zones altogether. Much to his credit, my former state representative Joel Judd (A Democrat from House District 4 in northwest Denver) tried to do just that a couple years ago and met with bi-partisan opposition. Judd was quoted in a recent Post series on enterprise zones: “In effect, it’s the state general fund paying for a local developer’s curbs and gutters, and that’s just not the intent.”

The following op-ed, written in 2010 by former Independence Institute intern Jacob Zax, makes the case for a free-enterprise friendly tax and regulatory environment throughout the state, rather than in specially designated “zones.”

Every year, Colorado extends around sixty million dollars in targeted tax credits to businesses operating in specially designated regions called enterprise zones. Politicians, enabled by business interests, encourage enterprise zones as a way to promote economic growth by encouraging businesses to locate in underdeveloped areas and hire more workers. Although targeted enterprise zones might have been worth trying, they are not working well in Colorado. Statistical analysis demonstrates that enterprise zones have a minimal effect on employment, businesses, and the larger economy, and instead mostly benefit private property owners.

So why don’t lawmakers pursue equitable policies to help make the entire state of Colorado, rather than “specially designated regions,” an enterprise zone?

A 2005 report by the state of Minnesota that reviewed both the economic theory and empirical evidence on enterprise zones states, “Most of the more sophisticated studies (conducted on the subject) show no increases in employment or per capita income.”

How is it possible that considerable tax credits designed to encourage hiring are so ineffective?

The surprisingly trivial influence of enterprise zones on employment is the result of tax credits that reward the use of capital. Businesses in the special zones get tax credits for hiring workers; but they often use that money to buy more machinery in order to replace other workers. The net result is a negligible increase in employment. In the United Kingdom, the first country to implement enterprise zones and the model for current systems, a government-commissioned study published in 1987 determined that the 300 million pounds spent on enterprise zones from 1981-1986 produced an embarrassing net total of just 13,000 jobs. A 1989 Congressional Quarterly report concluded that each new job cost the United Kingdom 250,000 dollars.

Furthermore, the few employees that are hired because of enterprise zone credits don’t necessarily receive higher wages. Businesses profit from the subsidies regardless of the new worker’s salaries; because of the competitive nature of the labor market, prospective employees will always end up working for whatever is the normal wage rate that is paid outside the enterprise zone.

But if employees and the public aren’t profiting from enterprise zones who is? Surprisingly, it’s not businesses. It’s private land owners.

When an enterprise zone is established, property values within the area skyrocket. Previously unappealing lots suddenly attract serious interest because businesses are willing to pay a premium to relocate into the area and take advantage of the tax credits. Furthermore, because the benefits are solely predicated on location, all companies, including those already doing business in Colorado, are eligible and, therefore, interested in relocating into the zone.

The resulting demand for limited space creates the ultimate sellers’ market as businesses bid against one another for space. In the end, businesses are willing to pay so much to move into the region that the tax credits they eventually receive barely offset the initial cost of procuring the property.

In other words, businesses are not the ultimate beneficiaries of enterprise zones. By providing region-limited tax credits, the government is effectively giving a boost to some private landowners to the detriment of other landowners.

In a July speech at the Rocky Mountain soda company, Denver mayor and democratic gubernatorial candidate John Hickenlooper stated that he was “absolutely interested” in strengthening and expanding the use of enterprise zones in Colorado.

In his speech Mr. Hickenlooper also said on the issue of enterprise zones: “This is the 21st century, the key to all of these issues is how you measure them.”

But by almost every statistical and empirical measure, enterprise zones have failed. In the 2010 Colorado legislative session, State Representative Joel Judd (D, Denver) proposed a bill that would have eliminated enterprise zones in Colorado. The measure was largely condemned by politicians of both parties, including Don Marostica, the state’s economic development director, who opposed the measure by arguing that subsidies bring businesses to Colorado.

While that is probably true, it ignores the point that Coloradans do not profit from the relocation of those businesses. There are no long term benefits from the slight increase in jobs, and businesses fail to realize greater profits which might strengthen to the larger economy.

So should the government be funneling close to 60 million dollars a year in tax credits based solely on geography towards private land owners?

Considering the current budget deficit, the Colorado Legislature cannot afford to waste more money either maintaining or expanding enterprise zones, but rather should concentrate on fostering a business-friendly tax and regulatory environment throughout the state.

Were you too busy having a social life this year to follow political goings on in Colorado? Then catch up by tuning in to the Independence Institute’s public affairs television show Devil’s Advocate tonight as Denver Business Journal reporter Ed Sealover and Colorado Public Television’s Dominic Dezzutti join host Jon Caldara for the political year in review. That’s 8:30 pm tonight on Colorado Public Television 12. Re-broadcast Monday at 1:30pm.

A massive medical privacy invasion in Colorado, another lame attempt to control the Internet by Congress, and the case in favor of fracking are all topics of recently published works by Independence Institute writers.

First Independence Institute intern and president of the Denver chapter of Liberty on the Rocks Donovan Schafer explains why hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is nothing to panic over. Writes Donovan:

In a recent report, the EPA linked groundwater contamination in Pavillion, Wyoming to the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) used to extract oil and gas. You can almost hear the collective “Hooray!” from anti-fracking advocates. But the actual data in the EPA report make it clear that fracking is safe.

Check out the whole thing here in the Colorado Springs Gazette.

Also be sure and check out II’s Amy Oliver Cooke and Linda Gorman in the Summit Daily as they point out the huge threat to medical privacy from Colorado’s “All-Payer Claim” database. According to Cooke and Gorman:

Colorado state government, and local foundations and health policy elites, have become so ideologically invested in failed health reform policies that they now see nothing wrong with forcing Colorado citizens to give their medical records to a centralized repository, free from scrutiny by state auditors, open records requests and open meeting requirements.

Read the whole thing here.

And don’t miss Senior Fellow in Technology Barry Fagin writing for the Colorado Springs Gazette’s editorial board on the Stop Online Piracy Act, which Barry calls a “bipartisan pile of waste making its way through the bowels of Congress…”

Check it out here.

In 2010, Colorado lawmakers took a meaningful step towards drug law reform by passing House Bill 1352, which nibbles at the edges of the disastrous War on Drugs by amending some of Colorado’s controlled substance statutes (see my HuffPost Denver piece on HB 1352).

And while lawmakers continued that reform momentum this year, those efforts were tempered by other bills that expanded an already intrusive and expensive drug law regime that returns questionable public safety value.

For instance, the 2011 Colorado Legislature voted overwhelmingly to create new drug felonies (and thus new drug felons) by passing Senate Bill 134 which added synthetic cannabinoids and the naturally occurring Salvia Divinorum as Schedule I illicit drugs under Colorado’s Uniform Controlled Substances Act.

The Legislature in 2011 also involved itself in human resource decision making by local school districts by passing House Bill 1121, which among other things bars those convicted of a drug felony from employment with a school for five years from the time of conviction. This despite a lack of any evidence that the hiring of drug felons by school districts is a problem in Colorado.

But in the same session where Colorado lawmakers expanded the scope and reach of Colorado’s drug laws, they also passed several drug law reforms.

In this ivoices.org podcast, I interview Christie Donner about these reforms, and what they are meant to accomplish. Besides being the Executive Director of the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, Christie is also on the Drug Policy Task Force of the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ). The three bills were generated out of recommendations of the CCJJ and all have been signed into law by Governor Hickenlooper. The bills are:

Senate Bill 96, which excludes Class 6 felony drug possession convictions as a qualifying offense to be convicted under Colorado’s habitual offender statute.

House Bill 1064, which establishes a presumption in favor of granting parole to an inmate who is parole eligible and serving a sentence for a drug use or possession felony that was committed before August 11, 2011 (inmates must meet other criteria related to their behavior in prison and criminal history to be eligible for the presumption).

House Bill 1167, which shortens the time frame people convicted of certain drug crimes (schedule is staggered based on the seriousness of the offense) must wait before petitioning the court to seal that criminal record.

For a more thorough explanation of these reforms give a listen here.

If you are looking for a back-up plan tonight in case that blind date is a disaster, consider tuning into the Independence Institute’s public affairs television program, Devil’s Advocate, at 8:30 PM on Colorado Public Television 12. Tonight, Denver Post reporter Lynn Bartels and Fox 31 political reporter Eli Stokols join host Jon Caldara to talk about the results of the recent elections in Colorado.

Re-broadcast on Monday at 1:30 PM.

If you stay up until at least 9:00 PM on Friday nights then you might as well be watching the Independence Institute’s public affairs television show Devil’s Advocate at 8:30 PM on Colorado Public Television 12. Check it out tonight as host Jon Caldara is joined by Durango Herald reporter Joe Hanel and Denver Post reporter Tim Hoover for a look at current political goings on around the state by the reporters who cover Colorado.

Re-broadcast Monday at 1:30 PM.

Tune in to the Independence Institute’s public affairs tv show Devil’s Advocate tonight for a debate over the City of Boulder’s upcoming energy municipalization ballot initiative. Host Jon Caldara is joined by Susan Perkins from Renewables Yes (in favor of municipalization) and Boulder City Council candidate Mark Gelband (opposed). That’s tonight at 8:30PM on Colorado Public Television 12. Re-broadcast on Monday at 1:30PM.

The Independence Institute’s dynamic scoring study on the impact of the upcoming sales and income tax increase ballot initiative, Proposition 103, on jobs and the economy in Colorado has been published and cited in both print and television news. Here is a round-up thus far.

The study has been cited in newspaper editorials in opposition to Prop 103 by both the Colorado Springs Gazette and the Pueblo Chieftain.

The study has also been cited in television news coverage of Prop 103 here by CBS4, and here by 9News.

Opinion pieces excerpted from the study have appeared here in the Denver Business Journal, here in the Summit Daily newspaper, and here in the Salida Mountain Mail newspaper.

The Colorado Springs Gazette’s editorial page editor Wayne Laugesen rips into the Proposition 103 sales and income tax increase ballot initiative, citing the Independence Institute’s recent study on the impact of Prop 103 on jobs and the Colorado economy.

Concludes Wayne:

A vote for Prop 103 is a vote to make Colorado’s economy even weaker. It is a vote to worsen the state budget, which relies on a strong economy to fund government education, transportation and other important needs. Imposing new costs on a struggling economy is no different than imposing new costs on a household that’s struggling to get by on fixed or dwindling income. It just will not work.

Read the whole thing here.

Be sure and tune into the Independence Institute’s public affairs tv show Devil’s Advocate tonight at 8:30PM on Colorado Public Television 12. Host Jon Caldara is first joined by Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler to talk about mail in ballots and inactive voters, then Independence Institute’s energy blogger Amy Oliver Cooke sits down to talk about the National Renewable Energy Lab and “green jobs” in Colorado.

Show is re-broadcast Monday at 1:30 PM.