I remarked the other day that Amy Oliver and Michael Sandoval of our Energy Policy Center have been doing some fantastic work lately. Not sure why energy policy doesn’t get as much play as other policy areas but I certainly think energy is sexy. Their latest article scrutinizes the Obama administration’s love affair with China. The relationship is not simply a trade friendly “I give you something, you give me something” type of deal. It has more to do with China’s rare earth minerals and the ability of said minerals to produce “renewable” energy – which Amy and Michael once again prove is anything but green (and often times deadly).

We just released a new Issue Paper that tackles the perennial question: how much are we taxed here in Colorado? Many on the Left presume it’s not enough. When our researcher Anthony Gonzalez really dug into it and looked at the whole picture (state AND local taxation), Colorado it turns out sits right in the middle of the nation at 26th. Take a look at our first Issue Paper of 2012, How Colorado’s Tax Burdens Rank Nationally.

In his latest blog post, our Constitutional scholar Rob Natelson shares his thoughts on the recently signed into law National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Many believe the NDAA codifies the Executive Branch’s ability to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial. What does Rob think? Check it out here.

Keep your eyes on this developing story: Democratic lawmakers are putting RTD’s toes to the fire on building out the Northwest corridor. RTD made a promise many years ago and the folks up in the Longmont area have been paying for a rail system that has yet to be delivered. How long can RTD hold out? How long will the Northwest corridor take it? Time will tell…

Finally, there is a really cool economics fundamentals class being held at our building this Saturday the 11th. I encourage all of you to take a look at the details here. For those still not on Facebook, here is some information:

Are you a liberty activist who loves free markets, capitalism and limited government – but have a difficult time describing its myriad benefits and merits when talking with others?

Then this is the educational training course for you!

Liberty on the Rocks is looking for leaders in the liberty movement (current or future) who are interested in obtaining insights into the basic fundamental principles of free market economics by attending a half-day educational course in Denver. **Tickets to attend are $10**

On Saturday, February 11th from 1:30-6:30pm, Liberty on the Rocks will present an exclusive hands-on, discussion and activity-driven economics session. During this half-day course, attendees will learn and/or better understand:

-The role economics plays in the advancement of liberty

-How to make the case for freedom from an economic and philosophical perspective

-How prices work in a market place

-Different ways of looking at public policy from an economic perspective

-The essential arguments for why socialism can’t work

RSVP today by purchasing tickets at: http://denver.libertyontherocks.org/economic-freedom-session/

Email Amanda Muell for even more info.

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.

Wow. Michael Sandoval hits a home run over on our Environmental Policy page. His latest work completely destroys the idea that green = clean. It’s the standard line we hear all the time. “Wind is clean!” “Solar is clean!” “Save our environment!” Well, sorry to let the cat out of the bag, but green is not clean by any stretch of the imagination. But don’t take my word for it, let Michael explain here.

In her newest article for Townhall.com, Amy Oliver asks an important question: can you be an advocate for the poor AND for “green” energy simultaneously? Her answer is: absolutely not.

Poverty rates have been rising over the last decade. Even in states like ours that claim to be renewable energy meccas.

…Colorado, home of the New Energy Economy and an aggressive renewable energy mandate, now has 40,000 fewer jobs than in 2000 with 900,000 more residents, the highest rates of unemployment in 28 years, and the median salary remains at the same level it was in 2000. The wage gap is considerable between black and Hispanic households, which make $20,000 less than the state’s median household income of $54,000.

No question, times are tough. Especially for the poorest folks among us. This makes for a rock/hard place situation for those on the Left. They promote themselves as champions of the poor and downtrodden. They claim to be the voice for the voiceless. Yet at the same time, they push aggressively for green energy in America. These positions become diametrically opposed when you consider the effects of our green energy policies.

Take for example our renewable energy mandate (RPS). The mandate in Colorado is 30%. This means that 30% of the electric power in our state must come from renewables. Whether you want it or not and whether you can afford it or not is beside the point. You’re paying a good chunk of your income for someone else’s wind and solar fantasies. This acts like a regressive tax on the poor. Why? Well, I’ll let Amy explain.

From 2011 to 2020, the RPS “will cost Colorado citizens an additional $11.78 billion over conventional power. By 2020, the RPS will force working families to an average of $337 more per year. By 2020, the RPS will cost commercial businesses an average of $2,360 per year. By 2020, the RPS will cost industrial businesses an average of $43,367 per year.

Renewable energy is simply not efficient. Unfortunately, our renewable energy mandate forces the least capable of us to fork over more of their money for energy. In many cases, it’s nothing more than a wealth transfer from poor to rich. How can you say you care about the poor when you force high energy costs on them en masse?

The working poor cannot afford this green agenda. The unemployed cannot afford this green agenda. If you want jobs in Colorado, the last thing you should want is green energy.

By 2020 “Colorado will lose an average of 18,380 jobs. Wages will be reduced by an average of $1,269 per worker. Total “annual real disposable income will fall by $1.87 billion.

That doesn’t sound very poor-friendly does it?

There are few times when we at the Independence Institute agree with the Denver Post editorial board. When it happens, our first reaction is… “Check the calendar. Is it April fools?” As far as we can tell, it’s October, so the Denver Post must be completely serious when they wrote this editorial opposing Rollie Heath’s Proposition 103 tax hike. (Side note: I wonder if the Post editorial board is more disturbed by the fact that they agree with us or that they agree with Mike Rosen?)

You can imagine the predicament Rollie Heath finds himself in: he can’t even sell a tax increase (for the children) to the Post editorial board. He must know he has a loser on his hands. Thankfully however, Rollie can always find a friend in Colorado Public Radio. There’s no way CPR would give Rollie a tough appearance.  It would have to be all softballs and sunshine when a Boulder Democrat talks raising taxes on public radio right?

Rollie could not have been more wrong.

Rollie did get his appearance on Colorado Public Radio, just as you’d expect. But unexpectedly, CPR decided to invite our Penn Pfiffner on as the opposition. Sorry Rollie! Take a listen to this CPR audio of the two men debating Rollie’s massive tax increase: $3 billion over the next 5 years. Then after digesting Rollie’s justifications for raising taxes during a recession, take a look at these two research papers by the Independence Institute. The first explains what we all intuitively know: raising taxes kills jobs. Lots of them. Over 11,000 jobs lost in Colorado, that’s the real cost. The second is a quick Issue Backgrounder from Penn Pfiffner himself. It is Penn’s analysis of this huge tax increase.

The writing is on the wall for Proposition 103. Rollie Heath essentially failed to sell fresh chocolate chip cookies to a hungry Cookie Monster. Turns out, Cookie Monster couldn’t stomach what Rollie was selling in this economy. Who knew?

The idea has been rammed down our throats for ages now: We need energy independence! We need “clean” energy! So said Jimmy Carter. So says Bill Ritter. So says President Obama. But Amy Oliver, William Yeatman, and Michael Sandoval with our Environmental Policy Center want to prove that there is no such thing. It’s a myth. “Green” energy, “clean” energy, whatever you want to call it, is a myth. Don’t believe me? Read Amy and Michael’s new Townhall.com piece called, “Clean Energy’s Dirty Secret: Cancer.”

Putting aside the massive taxpayer subsidies to even get these green fantasies off the ground… putting aside the giant corporate welfare monstrosity that has been built around this ineffective industry… putting aside all the lies and empty promises… the Solyndra’s if you will. Putting aside all that, what do you get? You are left with an energy source that can barely charge a cell phone, that requires minerals from China and other foreign countries (where’s the “independence” in that?), that requires “dirty” energy backup sources to keep the lights on, causes pollution on an embarrassing large scale, and, according to the unfortunate people living at ground zero of the “new energy economy,” causes Cancer.

Mining in China has turned towns and hamlets into “cancer villages.” Rivers run murky white to shades of orange. Fish and ducks are dead. And villagers bury friends and neighbors who die of cancer in their 30s and 40s.

Turns out, “clean” energy is so incredibly toxic that it is killing the people in proximity to it. You want to see a wasteland caused by a fuel source, look no further than solar. Sheesh. The bottom line is this… Well, I’ll let Amy give you the bottom line:

The bottom line is that all energy sources come with some type of risk and to assume that solar panels are an economic and environmental panacea is wrong, despite what the Denver Post and other New Energy Economy cheerleaders would like us to believe.

Let me repeat. ALL energy sources come with risk and reward. It’s just that some are more efficient than others. And when it comes to the conventional lines that separate “dirty” and “clean” energy, what classifies as “dirty” is millions of times more efficient than the half-baked, “clean” energy we’re seeing these days.

It might be hard to hear this, but the green energy fanatics out there have to hear it from somebody: your clean domestic energy source has proven be none of those three things. It’s not clean. It’s not domestic. And it’s not an energy source. It’s no more an energy source than my cell phone charger is. It’s power is laughable. And it is killing people. This is our reality until the technology gets better.

As you may have noticed, we at the Independence Institute don’t like tax increases of any kind. We especially don’t like them during rough economic times. (Side note: Have you heard the good news yet?! Colorado’s unemployment rate is DOWN to 8.3%! Hooray?) The evidence is pretty clear. If Proposition 103 passes and we get a massive tax for the next five years, all of our jobs will be in jeopardy. Just like these falling dominoes over here. Aside from just losing around 11,000 jobs if we tax ourselves into oblivion, there’s also the education side to the argument. Prop 103’s proponents say the tax hike is “for the kids.” (What tax hike isn’t really?) But nowhere does it say that the money raised from Prop 103 must go to education. Remember all that Ref C money and where it went? Yeah, me neither.

Thankfully, Charlie Leonard of the Aspen Times wrote on the education side of Prop 103. He cited two important points: one, that the money isn’t guaranteed to go to education to begin with. And secondly, even if all the money went to education, that doesn’t mean OUTCOMES – the stuff that matters – would improve. Charlie writes,

According to the nonpartisan Independence Institute, “Americans have increased spending on K-12 education by 50 percent over the past 30 years, and doubled spending over the past 40 years. Educational outcomes, as defined by test scores and international comparisons, have barely budged. Some school districts such as those in Washington, D.C., and New York City spend the highest amounts per pupil and have worse outcomes than Colorado’s test scores. The neighboring state of Utah spends $2,700 per pupil less than Colorado and enjoys better outcomes.”

And there you have folks. There is very little connection between money spent and educational outcomes. It’s not as if the more you spend, the more our kids learn. Not even close. So why tax ourselves into despair for the kids nothing?

Yesterday the Independence Institute held a press conference here in Golden to illustrate the job destroying results if Proposition 103, Sen. Rollie Heath’s tax hike, passes this November. Like I say in the video below, we wondered, “how in the world can we show the domino effect of job loss if Prop 103 passes? People’s jobs will fall like dominoes! How do we show this???” Well, after much thought and some whiskey, we finally came up with the perfect illustration… LET’S KNOCK THOUSANDS OF DOMINOES DOWN! So I got on the phone and called up 5-time domino world record holder Robert Speca to see if he wanted to come to Colorado to knock some dominoes down. Thankfully, he said yes and within a day, he was out near our offices in Golden setting up thousands upon thousands of dominoes to represent all of the jobs that will be lost if Prop 103 passes.

Yesterday at 2pm, we held the press conference and I was the lucky guy who got to push the first domino over. It was REALLY fun! In total, Robert the “Domino Wizard” set up 5,500 dominoes, with each domino representing TWO jobs lost due to this tax increase. Take a look at the video below to see the job killing destruction Prop 103 will wreak on our economy. Prop 103: Colorado’s job killing tax increase:

Fox31’s political reporter Eli Stokels also covered our event. Here is the article and video they took. You’ll notice in the video that Eli Stokols makes a mistake. He says that only 1,100 jobs will be lost because of Prop 103. Oops. It’s actually 11,000. Eleven thousand. Big difference.

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.

Independence Institute writers appeared in the opinion pages of Colorado’s two largest newspapers this weekend.

In the Denver Post, Brian Schwartz makes the case, as part of a pro/con series, against the Proposition 103 sales and income tax increase ballot initiative.

Brian’s piece is here. Colorado State Senator Rollie Heath’s accompanying piece in favor of Prop 103 is here.

In the Colorado Springs Gazette, Amy Oliver Cooke and Michael Sandoval burst the green jobs bubble, explaining how Colorado’s “New Energy Economy” has failed to become the jobs engine promised by its proponents.

You can also check out a longer version of Amy and Michael’s green jobs take-down over at Townhall.com.