A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Denver Post, Nov. 14, on the proposal for an online sales tax:
A new Internet sales tax bill introduced in Congress has the potential to allow cash-strapped states to collect billions in sales taxes from online purchases.
The Marketplace Fairness Act is a significant step forward that could help Colorado—someday.
The problem that Colorado and a handful of other states would face in trying to use the authority described in the bill is lack of uniformity.
Colorado’s local taxing authorities have many different rates for various items and would have to agree on uniform sales tax rates for online purchases.
Yes, it’s a heavy lift. However, the folks at the state Department of Revenue say they think it’s possible. We hope so. This measure could put an end to the Amazon tax wars, and could help states collect revenues rightfully due.
Some online retailers have fought hard against state-level attempts to get them to collect sales taxes. They argued states were imposing improper and burdensome regulations on interstate commerce, and they had the law on their side.
The answer was federal legislation to allow states to compel sales tax collection. In Colorado, that could mean an additional $173 million in state and local taxes in 2012. That’s not chump change.
Geoff Wilson, general counsel for the Colorado Municipal League, said his reading of the legislation is that local taxing authorities would have to agree to the same rates for online sales originating with out-of-state retailers, ones without a physical presence in Colorado. They’d still keep their local rates for local sales.
Those online sales taxes would be collected at the state level, and then disbursed to the local entities.
It would likely mean that there would still be a difference—one tax rate if you buy something in a store locally and another if you buy online. Optimally, you’d want those to be pretty close, but given the variation in Colorado’s sales tax rates from one jurisdiction to another, there would certainly be a difference between the sales taxes you’d pay at a brick and mortar store versus online.
“It’s not a perfect remedy, but it’s not the injustice that it used to be,” Wilson told us.
What he means by that is now, people who buy goods online from out-of-state retailers frequently do so without paying any sales taxes.
That puts a local retailer with the store down the street at a big disadvantage in competing with those selling items online. A uniform tax rate for an online purchase would drastically reduce the “Main Street inequity” problem, Wilson said.
State revenue officials say passage of the bill, which has bipartisan support, would create a big incentive for Colorado’s many disparate taxing authorities to agree on simplification.
We hope Colorado policy makers give this serious thought. We appreciate and respect the autonomy of home rule cities and counties.
However, forging an agreement on this matter could result in a measure of fairness for local retailers and much-needed revenue for state and local governments.
Editorial:
———
The Daily Record, Nov. 14, on Cuba’s decision to expand ownership of private residences:
The changing nature of the kinds of freedoms the Cuban government will allow its people crossed a bridge last week when Cuba’s decision to allow expanded ownership of private residences went into effect. The change was announced last March by President Raul Castro.
When announced, the changes made it clear the new law would apply only to Cuban citizens living in the country and permanent residents only. Reportedly, there will also be expanded ownership of used cars, the kinds of classic but challenged vehicles seen cruising the wide streets of Havana.
This change regarding housing ownership is one of several differences that have come about in the years since the extremely restrictive regime started with the revolution led by Fidel Castro in 1959. Some religious observances are now allowed, which wasn’t always the case.
People in the U.S. seem eager to have greater communication and travel rights with Cuba. Wishful thinking that all is well should be tempered by the knowledge that the Castros have led and continue to preside over a brutal dictatorship that has stomped out most of the freedoms enjoyed by Americans, including freedom of the press. But times can change.
The U.S. should continue to encourage greater freedoms for the Cuban people while our government keeps a wary eye on official Cuba because of the island nation’s history of support for international terrorism. The tense and frightening days of the Cuban missile crisis are still in this nation’s memory. As the decades have unfolded, there have been encouraging signs that there someday will be more normal relations between the U.S. and the beautiful island of Cuba, home to more than 11 million residents.
The Cuban people themselves seem genuinely friendly toward Americans and there is a surprising amount of trade allowed between the two countries despite the official trade embargo.
Due to the economic, housing and other problems in Cuba, Raul Castro may have had little choice but to push for reforms to bring the nation into the modern world. Whatever the reason, working toward expanded freedoms for the Cuban people and continued better relations between our two countries are goals worth pursuing.
Editorial: 19267627
———
STATE:
The Pueblo Chieftain, Nov. 14, on estimates about the state’s future water needs:
When Colorado water buffaloes tried to estimate the state’s future water needs, they only looked at what they thought municipal and industrial users might need in the future. They paid scant attention to agriculture, except to accept the orthodoxy that ag water would be the source of the resource for cities.
But wait a minute. Does anybody except the avaricious water barons think that Colorado can do without agriculture? Don’t we need to grow a substantial portion of our own foodstuffs in our own state?
Enter Reeves Brown, a Beulah rancher and member of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District. Mr. Brown chairs an Arkansas basin water roundtable committee that is seeking to build statewide support for securing future water supplies for agriculture.
He says his committee is trying to establish a baseline value for the use of ag water. “We need to find public support for the value of water,” he told a recent roundtable meeting.
Colorado State University-Fort Collins already has conducted some studies of the issue. The results will be presented to the roundtable in January.
A survey of more than 6,250 households in 17 Western states showed the public has an aversion to drying up farms to provide more water for cities. Buying farm water placed dead last in short- and long-term solutions to urban water needs.
It seems the public is ahead of the water buffaloes in appreciating the value of agriculture. The water barons in the big cities along the Front Range should take notice.
Editorial:
———
Glenwood Springs Post Independent, Nov. 11, on state’s disclosure rules for fracking:
The state agency charged with regulating the gas industry is now developing regulations mandating public disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing.
It’s high time the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission answered the widespread call for mandatory disclosure, and we endorse the proposed rules with some reservations.
Fracking chemicals run the gamut from dangerous to hazardous to toxic. While drilling and completion companies intend to keep the fluids contained, the risk of groundwater contamination is very real.
For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency confirmed this week that domestic water wells in Pavillion, Wyo., west of Riverton on the Wind River Indian Reservation, are heavily tainted with chemicals directly related to fracking and gas production.
The fear of fracking is valid, and it’s been made worse by gas companies guarding the chemical ingredients of fracking fluids.
Public disclosure of fracking fluid additives is essential, both for residents, regulators and emergency responders to know what they are dealing with and for the gas industry to gain public confidence.
In a nutshell, the proposed rules require the operators of all wells that undergo hydraulic fracturing to post detailed reports on the chemical additives for each fracking job within 60 days. Reports will be posted to the website FracFocus.org, maintained by two multi-state organizations representing government groundwater and gas industry regulators.
Some gas operators working in Garfield County—Williams Production, Encana Oil and Gas and Occidental Oil and Gas—are already voluntarily posting fracking chemical reports to FracFocus. We applaud them for proactively addressing the call for disclosure.
Unfortunately, the industry as a whole isn’t responding to the opportunity for voluntary disclosure, so the state oil and gas commission is now enacting the rules to make disclosure mandatory.
We support the rule-making effort, but have a few bones to pick on the details.
The proposed Colorado rules still allow gas operators to withhold information on chemicals and chemical formulas under an exemption protecting trade secrets. This is an unacceptable loophole that will undermine public confidence in overall disclosure, and we urge the commission members to strike the exemption entirely from the proposed rules.
We question whether industry really needs 60 days to fill out and post its reports, and again wonder what effect a two-month delay in providing information will have on public confidence.
Finally, the rule takes effect in February 2012. We’d like to see some provision requiring drilling companies to disclose the chemicals used in fracking jobs prior to that date, ideally going back five to 10 years.
That said, we urge the oil and gas commission to move forward quickly in adopting its rules requiring mandatory disclosure of fracking chemicals.
Editorial:
