A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Daily Sentinel, Dec. 5, on close observation of state’s legalization of marijuana:
The canvass of the Nov. 6 election in Colorado was officially completed Dec. 5, showing that voters did pass Amendment 64 to make possession of small amounts of marijuana legal under state law.
Along with Washington state, whose voters adopted a similar ballot measure last month, Colorado is beginning a major experiment in ending the prohibition of marijuana.
And that process is being closely watched across the country and even outside U.S. borders.
Perhaps the first important question to be addressed is this: What will the federal government do?
Because marijuana remains a federally controlled substance, possession and sale of pot are still illegal at the federal level.
It seems unlikely that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration will suddenly start cracking down on people possessing less than an ounce of marijuana, since the agency hasn’t historically done so.
But a group of business organizations in the state—including Club 20 and the Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce—have asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to do just that to provide clarity to employers in Colorado about the conflict between federal and state law.
Even if the U.S. Department of Justice doesn’t pursue people for possession of minor amounts of marijuana, the question remains about how it will react to marijuana retail outlets, which are authorized under Amendment 64.
Also, how many communities in the state will vote to prohibit retail pot outlets? Will pot stores be rare or ubiquitous?
The business groups also have a legitimate concern. Employer rights and responsibilities remain a substantial area of uncertainty under Amendment 64.
Can employers fire someone who tests positive for marijuana, even if the person proves he or she only imbibed while not at work? What about liability issues if a business allows a pot user to, say, operate heavy machinery? What if there is an accident or injury?
Then there are the law enforcement questions: Will Amendment 64 have any impact, good or bad, on black-market pot sales? On teens using marijuana? On drug-related crime or the number of people doing prison time for drugs?
Additionally, what will Colorado’s image become to the rest of the country and the world? One marijuana advocate recently speculated there would be marijuana cafes here, much like there are in Amsterdam. However, as The Denver Post noted, nothing in Amendment 64 authorizes those sorts of businesses. In fact, the language of the measure expressly prohibits the consumption of pot in public places.
The answer to these many questions won’t be known immediately. But beginning soon, the great Colorado marijuana experiment will be under way.
Editorial:
———
Aurora Sentinel, Dec. 7, on online-sales tax policies at the national and state level:
If federal officials can’t figure out a way to snag billions in tax revenue slipping away because of dated online-sales tax policies, state and local officials need to step in and do the job.
If you’re a frequent online shopper, you probably already know that many online sales are exempt from sales taxes. If you buy something online in Aurora from a retailer with a real “bricks and mortar” store in Colorado, you still have to pay the tax, but there are myriad e-retailers that let you bypass that nuisance.
Now unless you live in a cave in central Colorado, you also know that the state is desperate for money for roads, schools, health care, mass transit, social services and the list goes on and on. Locally, Aurora has shut down libraries and now faces a new dilemma. Long-awaited light rail service is finally headed to Aurora, but the city doesn’t have enough money to build adequate parking.
It’s mind-boggling that as places like Colorado Springs shuts off the lights to save money, billions of dollars in potential revenue slips away because of a good online incentive policy gone bad.
About 20 years ago when online shopping was in its infancy, total sales were measured in hundreds of thousands of dollars. Earlier this month, so-called Cyber Monday sales went off the charts, 30 percent more than swollen online sales last year. According to IBM Benchmark, which tracks Internet sales, retailers are expecting a whopping $586 billion in online sales by the end of this holiday season.
Just how much money the government loses because of spotty and shifting no-tax policy is unclear. Estimates vary from $11 billion nationwide to upwards of $100 billion. When you look at how much cash would make it to the empty general funds of Aurora and Colorado, you’re talking serious impact.
Here’s the bottom line:
Despite the ravings of a small group of tax protesters, a strong, healthy state and local government is a good thing. They provide much-wanted and needed roads, schools, public safety and other services that almost all Colorado residents agree are critical. Likewise, most Colorado residents are sensible enough to know that government services aren’t free. For better or for worse, sales taxes make up a biggest part of how we all have agreed to fund our state and local governments. There are good arguments against using sales taxes as a public funding source, the best one being that it’s too volatile. Aurora’s financially struggling government is a perfect example of that problem.
But given that we all agree we want a strong and solvent government, and that we will depend, for now, on sales taxes to help fund that government, it’s only fair and responsible for the state to ensure it’s getting the money it has coming to it.
When the Internet was just getting warmed up and so-called “e-commerce” was in its infancy, it made perfect sense to overlook sales taxes as a way to lure consumers onto their computers and away from the “brick-and-mortar” shops.
With annual Internet sales exploding, those days are long gone. Now, it’s wrong to give retailers like Amazon an unfair advantage over struggling businesses here in Aurora by allowing them a continued bye on collecting sales taxes.
It’s time to move beyond a costly and useless incentive. Before this congressional session ends, Congress needs to pass the bipartisan Marketplace Fairness Act, and state lawmakers need to iron out problems that keep Colorado from getting the money it needs and has coming.
While nobody wants to pay taxes, we wouldn’t have a state in our country if we didn’t, at least not one anyone would want to live in. The expectation of paying sales taxes is there, it’s time to create a fairer retail market here and across the country, and it’s time for governments to get access to revenue needed to make all of our lives better.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Denver Post, Dec. 12, on new master plan for state’s higher education system:
When the public hears government officials promise higher quality and greater efficiency, there is often reason to be skeptical.
But for Colorado’s higher education institutions, greater efficiency and enhanced quality aren’t really a choice. Escalating tuition over the past decade has started to meet with pushback from students and parents. Meanwhile, in the past five years the state has cut nearly $200 million from higher ed, equaling more than a quarter of total state funding. So colleges and universities have had little choice but to seek other funding sources while tightening their belts and emphasizing customer satisfaction.
As part of this process, the Colorado Commission on Higher Education last week adopted a statewide master plan for higher education, with clear goals as well as performance contracts for schools that could be tied to extra funding.
Because so many future jobs will require some form of post-secondary degree, the goals include boosting the number of Coloradans between 24 and 35 with “high-quality postsecondary credentials”—with a goal of 66 percent for that group by 2025. To achieve it, however, the commission recognizes that the higher-ed system must also do a better job recruiting and retaining students.
As a commission report called Colorado Competes explains, “Colorado ranks at or below average in student persistence and completion.”
One major problem: Remedial education in this state is subpar. Incredibly, for example, “only one in 10 students requiring three terms of remedial mathematics will ever pass an entry level, credit bearing course in mathematics.”
Also, many students take far too long to complete a degree or certificate—and the longer the time, the greater the attrition rate. As Colorado Competes explains, “Time is truly the enemy of successful college completion.”
Of course, some students can’t complete 24 or more credit hours a year because of work or family obligations. But it’s also clear that plenty of students drag out their college experience for other, less compelling reasons—and the commission is signaling that colleges and universities must do something about it.
Finally, the schools will address the state’s changing demographics by increasing enrollment and graduation rates among minority students.
The commission doesn’t hide the fact that the reforms, although justified in their own right, also have an ulterior motive. “Building support for higher education will require more than simply pointing to statistics of revenue deficiencies,” it says. That’s undoubtedly true. And this master plan is one of numerous steps that should help buff the system’s image.
Editorial:
———
Loveland Reporter-Herald, Dec. 8, on Denver’s bid to host the Super Bowl:
Denver Mayor Michael Hancock is making a bid to bring the Super Bowl to the Mile High City. The chance of that happening is about as good as scoring a touchdown from 50 yards out with a second on the clock. We say throw the Hail Mary.
It all comes down to the weather. The NFL doesn’t want to see its prized product buried in snow, and the Super Bowl has always been played in warm cities or domed stadiums. It’s not just the game itself that could be affected by nature’s whims. The elaborate and expensive entertainment productions during halftime could be compromised. Think of how a weather malfunction would have mucked up Madonna’s Roman-theme performance during the halftime show this year.
But Denver has everything else the league could want.
The area boasts plenty of accommodations.
The stadium is modern and has enough capacity.
Denver is one of America’s great cities, and it has proved, with the 2008 Democratic National Convention and other large events, that it can handle something like the Super Bowl circus.
The fact is that the weather in Denver, even in February, when the Super Bowl will be played in the Denver bid years of 2018, 2019 or 2020, is usually pretty good. In an exception to its warm-weather rule, the NFL awarded the Super Bowl to New York (the outdoor stadium is actually in New Jersey) in 2014. Where would you rather be outside in February, Denver or New York? Besides, who doesn’t like watching a football game played in the snow? The fans in the stadium might not. The players might not. But the hundred million people watching the game on TV would. As for the halftime entertainment, producers could design a show with built-in versatility such that snowfall would cause it minimal disruption. Leave the bikinis in Miami (host of 10 Super Bowls) and embrace the brisk mountain air.
If the successful New York bid for the Super Bowl represents a thaw in the league’s thinking about host cities, we’re encouraged it might give Denver a serious look.
Editorial:
