It must be their incredible buying power because the difference in taxes doesn't account for the difference in price. Maybe the PLCB can rename a store in response.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Not in the public interest
Reasons why the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board should be abolished, and The Almighty Liquor Code completely overhauled and rewritten, to reflect over 80 years of change since Repeal.
Needed: passion for privatization
"...there was [in 1997] no overarching passion within the General Assembly, or in the public at large, for privatization. Unless and until there is a general hue and cry, it is very unlikely there will be a privatization initiative that succeeds." -- John E. Jones III, former PLCB chairman
Join the Facebook page!
Not in the public interest
The Reasons
- #1: We're Adults
- #2: The Two-Headed Monster
- #3: Where's the Beer?
- #4: The 18% Emergency Tax
- #5: The Liquor Code Serves the PLCB, not us
- #6: The Pennsylvania Legislature
- #7: One Problem, Everyone's Problem
- #8: Too Much Information, Too Little Privacy
- #9: Can I get a Ruling?
- #10: Only 623 Stores for the Whole State
- #11: Harrisburg is a Black Hole (for paperwork)
- #12: Like They Care -- no consumer fairness focus
- #13: Who Needs 'Em? -- anyone can collect taxes
- #14: Control Isn't Working Worth a Damn
- #15: The Case Law is Stupid
- #16: Why Control Wine & Spirits?
Contributors
Love Letters to Harrisburg
-
▼
2014
(63)
-
▼
April
(11)
- The truth of the day
- Why can't Johnny read or do math — Part 3
- Would Privatization Kill Children?
- I guess I'm on the official Enemies list
- The PLCB responds to the Smackdown.
- PLCB SMACKDOWN
- More fun with PLCB numbers
- Washington State is not equal to PA
- Privatization facts & figures
- 30 years of progress – You’re kidding right?
- Let's Kill Another Privatization Myth II
-
▼
April
(11)
Other Sites of Interest
- Choose Responsibility -- reasons against the 21 LDA
- Divesting the PLCB: Reason.org explains how and why
- PLCB Customer Satisfaction Form
- PLCB issues -- 4-part series in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
- PLCB list of beer brands currently registered in the state
- PLCB posts at the tleaves blog
- PLCB Product Search Page -- find PA booze here (I'm just trying to help the customer!)
- PLCB Users Group -- a non-official blog that does what the PLCB fails to do: tell you what's being discontinued, added/relisted, and put on clearance. What a concept!
- Repeal the Johnstown Flood Tax -- what more needs to be said?
- Seen Through a Glass -- Lew's full-service blog
- The Almighty Liquor Code -- Title 40 of PA law (searchable)
- The PLCB's website
- The Session Beer Project -- Lew's blog about 'session beers,' good beers at 4.5% ABV and under
If you've got your own reasons...
Send them to me. I'd love to hear from you, and take those ideas and blend them with mine. And if you're in favor of the continuing existence of the PLCB, well, send me that, too. If it makes sense, I'll publish; if it doesn't, I'll publish it also, but I may have to disagree with you.
9 comments:
Another proposal to change the PA system is coming the week of April 28. "Senate lawmakers are expected to consider the latest privatization plan in caucus when they return to Harrisburg the week of April 28."
Not really a smack down, more like a shameless plug. Of course, the ad only points to a few items where they are lower. Jefferson's Very Small Batch Kentucky Bourbon is $23.99 at any PLCB store and $29.99 at Total Wine in Cherry Hill. I guess I could drive the extra miles and pay $5 bridge toll to spend an extra $6 per bottle.
I believe that is the "business" plan that they will be looking at. It hasn't been formally introduced yet.
You might be right Albert, but I don't think so. In the last few days Senator Pillegi has been quoted in the papers saying he doesn't like the idea of a sell off for a budget fix, that he prefers a more incremental approach, something that will improve convenience while retaining control, revenue, and the wholesale end. I think they are talking about licensees selling wine to go. Which is not privatization at all. :( I've heard that one of the most conservative Senators in the body has said there is no way they could get 26 votes for the business coalition plan.
After seeing how McIlhinny butt-f'd HB790 I have no doubt he can screw this one up too.
For the most part any argument over cost, convenience or the benefit to the state is really a secondary concern. The PLCB is like a 3 legged stool. Licensing, real estate and product. We have all seen the mess with the product side of the organization but think about the other 2 legs. Politicians represent licensees, real estate developers and property managers. These private interests all go to the politician to ask assistance in whatever issue and accordingly it comes back to the politician in "support." What politician is willing to vote that out of existence?
Since licensing will still be a part of the PLCB, the PRIMARY part after privatization you have no leg to stand on for that point. You admit product is a mess and so concede that leg.
My question is where do you think an additional few thousand stores are going to get storefronts? Not all will be big box stores already in existence so that leaves rental space for far more than the 605 stores in existence now. I fail to see how you support that last leg.
Why does licensing have to stay with PLCB when it could be easily handled by the Health dept or L&I. I would like to think that any legislation passed would allow for sales in all types of stores and not just stand alone w&s stores. It is that reason why the PLCB has closed Sunday stores because they lacked the diversity of products to insure profitability. I think the whole place needs to be abolished in order to eliminate the opportunity for public corruption.
I agree. I wrote this five years ago in this blog: "Do away with the PLCB: privatize booze sales, put licensing and inspection in the hands of the Dept. of Agriculture, tax collection in the purview of the Dept. of Revenue (they've got some experience with that), put the anti-alcoholism and underage drinking prevention programs under the Dept. of Health, and fully hand over enforcement to the State Police. Give a re-write of the Code over to a commission that includes interested consumers for a change, and charge them with writing a simpler, more understandable Code."
You can see how the Legislature proposed a similar plan here: http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/004/chapter7/s7.341.html
Just keep clicking Next through s7.346. If only they would have gone through with this back in 1987. DON'T MISS THE OPPORTUNITY NOW!
Post a Comment