Taxes are up, costs are up, but our state still offers $$$ to lure events. Honest guys, it's not a tax on consumers, sincerely! AG "misinformation" bill out of committee on a party line vote.
And while you struggle to pay your bills, while lawmakers say they can't reduce taxes because "how will we pay for our schools", our state is offering stacks of cash to businesses to hold events here or (maybe) move here.
The two articles below are from different outlets and are about (nominally) different things, but they share one thematic element: what is the state doing with your tax money and is it a good investment of it?
I could see reasonable arguments for the state giving some tax incentives to companies and events to try and lure them here.
Done right, there is the potential that the money spent by taxpayers to attract the event would be less than the economic benefit received.
It is just as reasonable, however, to question that practice. I find myself doing it often (call me a pessimist if you'd like).
I think it is especially relevant and reasonable to question what we spend vs. what we get in times like these: if we're at point where a small sack of groceries is $50, where the Democrats running this state say that they struggle to offer us relief on taxes because they can't fund schools, should we be spending tax money on charity golf events?
Should we be spending $3315 a head** to create a job? Could we do it cheaper?
I'm not going to tell you that the issue is simple or black and white. If you've lived on this planet long enough, you'll recognize that it's likely somewhere in the grey. You should read the below and come to your own decision.
What I can say is this. The fact that we're giving this money out should be part of the discussion. It ought to be something that we remind the people under the Gold Dome in Denver of when they tell us that they need more of our money because they can't make the state run with less.
**Taken from the Sun article linked second the state spent $66.3 million in incentives to create about 20,000 jobs
https://www.cpr.org/2024/01/23/colorado-golf-charities-received-70000-dollars-in-taxpayer-money/
https://coloradosun.com/2024/01/16/colorado-job-growth-incentives-claimed-tax-credits/
Another fee, this one going on producers that use any sort of packaging, that is "...not at all the same as a tax on consumers" according to Danny Katz of left-leaning group CoPIRG.
Mr. Katz's quote here is from the Sun article linked first below. The fee I reference is the outgrowth of a 2022 bill passed by Democrats, and signed by Polis, that aims to increase recycling in this state. That bill is linked second below for your reference.
Here's the summary of how the program is proceeding.
The bill creates a board within CDPHE and tasks their solid waste program to design a program where a fee on certain companies here in the CO would be assessed, the proceeds of which would create curbside recycling programs across the whole of the state.**
The group has defined which producers will be regulated (based on their size). They are now working on how much of a fee to assess on companies; that is, how much money they'll collect.
The details on that are in the Sun article if you'd like to learn more. The question at hand is whether a low, middle, or high fee and corresponding levels of services offered. As you might have figured by now, the environmental groups in the article, of course, want the middle option or higher.
Their arguments for this seem to be that, according to the estimates, we'll be getting a lot of recycling for much less money than many originally thought, even if we spring for the highest proposed fee.
From my perspective, I think there are reasonable arguments to be made that providing curbside recycling service will increase participation in recycling programs. As a teacher I can tell you from personal experience that removing barriers improves participation.
It is also reasonable to question the lofty goals put forth by the advocates the article quotes. The advocates being the only groups who got a platform here, what with this being a Sun article by Michael Booth and appearing in the Sun.
Can we expect that the money we spend will take us from 16 - 28% statewide recycling rate up to 47 - 60% (estimates varied in the article depending on who you ask and which level of program we are estimating for)?
Can we expect that this will, as Suzanne Jones, executive director of the nonprofit recycling services provider Eco-Cycle is quoted as saying "...get recycling services to all Coloradans across the entire state at no additional cost to them" and/or "... incentivize a reduction of unnecessary packaging and the use of less toxic and more recyclable materials"?
Can we expect that this program, in league with assumed increases in recycling rates, will foster a lively market in this state, where we grow or build businesses that take recycled materials and turn them around into new things to sell?
Call me a cynic if you wish, but I have a feeling that this will not come anywhere near these goals. Recycling may go up, but I don't think it will double. We're not going to see tons of new economic activity generated.
What we'll get are more government employees. More hoops to jump through. Maybe we'll be trucking more material out of state to other places. Maybe some moderate increase in glass recycling.
On the flip side, I don't know that it will make prices leap up either. Might be used as a pretext for some price increases, but probably not force big increases.
One last note. One of the themes (narratives) that was bandied about during the debate over the law, and that is reflected here in the article was that this sort of thing had industry buy in and that it would be led largely by industry.
To see what I mean, consider this quote:
"Once the producer responsibility governing group settles on what level of statewide recycling is the most realistic target, they will then set per-package fees on themselves to fund it."
If Mr. Booth here is referring to the advisory board for this program (see the third link below--and I did ask) in an email but didn't receive a response as of this writing) I think the idea that this is industry regulating industry, a quick scan of the members would easily dispel that notion.
This is another non elected board made up of appointees which likely doesn't represent the diversity of thought and opinion of people around this state and yet is making big decisions.
As such I think I may add this to my list of boards to speak to, in that same effort I have to talk in front of boards and remind them that unelected groups is not how we should be running this state.
**An important distinction must be made here. My town, Sterling, has recycling available but you must take your recyclables there; they do not have separate containers I can put recyclables in, and put on the curb next to the trash bin for pick up. This program would make those bins available.
https://coloradosun.com/2024/02/16/colorado-packaging-fees-recycling-expansion/
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb22-1355
https://cdphe.colorado.gov/hm/prab-members
https://cdphe.colorado.gov/hm/sw-proposed-rulemakings-stkh-proc
An update on the Attorney General "Misinformation" bill.
I posted a bit back about a bill that would tasks our AG with studying "misinformation" and "disinformation". That's linked first below.
I saw an article in Colorado Politics recently (linked second below) about the bill and have some bad news to share.
Not unexpected mind you, just bad. On a party line vote, and despite some strongly-worded concerns by witnesses, the bill passed out of committee on a party line vote.
Colorado Democrats doing the people's work.
Oh, one thing I never mentioned in the original post (but it comes up in the article). The $150K price tag the AG will charge to do all the studying.
https://open.substack.com/pub/coloradoaccountabilityproject/p/co-democrats-seem-eager-to-vest-our?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/news/colorado-bill-tasking-attorney-general-to-study-online-misinformation-sparks-first-amendment-debate/article_b433b036-cb75-11ee-b6d9-9798412c3d9d.html
This is not freedom