Wanna Talk Washington? Fine, Let's Talk Washington

The latest claim by some union members and supporters is that Washington state is making less money this year than when they had a state run system, and the implication is that it's because they privatized. The truth is that they are about $46 million ahead of the last year of state-run stores.  Even though I explained and pointed out where to find all the numbers in "Why Johnny can't read or do math Part 3", they seem to still have difficulty with addition.

One more time, then: the Washington State Department of Revenue collects liquor taxes. The total for Fiscal Year 2014 was $267,374,563. The Washington State Liquor Control Board collects spirit fees, license fees and beer and wine taxes. That was $227,320,000 for Fiscal year 2014. That means the total state booze-related revenue collected in FY 2014 was $494,7 million. In the last year of state-run liquor stores (FY2012), the total returned was $448.7 million (including store "profit") which also included the one-time $31 million income from the sale of the old state stores and was still $46 million less than this year.

Now, here's the crucial part that brings all the crowing about the State Store System's "record sales" into perspective. Compare what the PLCB, with control of both wine and liquor and twice the population and over twice the total sales of Washington State, did over that same period. They didn't even come close to  increasing the contribution to the state by that amount. Their increase was only $33 million, and yes, that includes the so-called "profit" and taxes, too. Washington does not charge regular state sales taxes on liquor, but includes a Spirit Sales Tax in the price, the same way PA includes the Johnstown Flood Tax in the retail price. I did include PA sales tax in the above comparison; it's revenue from booze sales. But still...they couldn't match the increase Washington saw when it privatized (and remember; Washington only privatized liquor!).

Freedom of choice, free enterprise, free interstate commerce...those are things the country was founded on, and these are the things denied the citizens of Pennsylvania by the State Store System. Washington State now has greater selection, more convenience, more taxes collected, and lower DUI fatalities. Looks to me like Washington is winning. We can be winners too. Privatize.

Privatization Is Modernization.

Why can't Johnny read or do math — Part 3

If you remember in Part 2 of this saga, one anonymous poster — we’ll call him Business Rep 23 — was not able to figure out how Washington State collected more money after privatization. He couldn’t add the numbers from the Washington State Department of Revenue and Washington State LCB, and he said that the money from the old state stores wasn’t included.  If you look at the WSLCB Annual Reports, none of them list “Store Profit.”  It’s just part of their income after expenses and since they turn over everything else to the State or Local governments, they seem to not feel the need to do reporting the PA way.

Let’s see what the real numbers were in Washington, and how they compared pre and post-privatization. The last annual report before privatization was for FY 2012, which went from June 1, 2011 to May 31, 2012. This would include the big run on liquor that happened before privatization took effect on June 1, 2012 and the auction sales of the old state stores.

Total liquor sales were $900.47 million or about 42% of what PA does (it bears repeating: Washington only privatized liquor sales; they already had private wine sales). Washington State LCB does collect the beer and wine taxes, and some tobacco taxes too, but those obviously weren’t affected by privatization. If you do include all of that, the total is $448.7 million returned to the state. That number is what Business Rep 23 and his cohorts like to use when comparing Washington’s old liquor income to Washington’s new liquor income.  The key number here would be $448.7 million turned into the state for everything, including any profit made in the old state stores.

Now let’s look at the 2013 Annual Report, the first one after privatization.  There is no income from

Gross Liquor Sales any longer, but the License Fees have gone up from $33.91 million to $257.6 million and that the total returned by the WSLCB  to the State is now $318.32 million.  (License Fees are the actual cost of licenses, plus the 17% Retail License fee and the 10% Wholesale License fee that were added as part of the privatization bill.)

AHA! you say, that’s $130 million less than the year before, Business Rep 23 was right!  Er, well, no, he isn’t.  When Washington State was the only source to buy liquor, they collected all the state liquor taxes: the Spirits Sales Tax and the “Spirits Liter Tax.” But now that Washington State has a private system, those tax collections are now part of the Department of Revenue, and not the WSLCB. (Imagine: the Department of Revenue collects the taxes, instead of some dinky enforcement bureau. Makes sense, right?)

To get the total tax numbers, you have to look at the spreadsheet the Department of Revenue so kindly keeps updated here.  Looking at the Summary FY2013 tab and adding the monthly tax collections, you see approximately $228.6 million was collected from consumer sales and $37.3 million was collected from licensees through distributor sales, a total of $265.9 million.

This gives Washington State approximately $318 million from the WSLCB, and $266 million from taxes, for a grand total of $584 million in liquor/booze revenue.  Even Business Rep 23 has to admit that $584 million is more than $448 million. Okay, he doesn’t have to, and I’m sure he will make a bunch of statements trying to tear that fact down without any proof, but…come on. $584 million is at least 23% more than the $448 million that was collected the year before, just like I said in part 2.

So to sum it all up:

The WSLCB Beer and Wine taxes, tobacco seizures, other income, and all liquor revenue including store “profit” collected in FY2012 before privatization resulted in a total of $448.7 million being returned to the state, while in FY 2013, the first year after privatization, it was $584 million.

The moral of the story?  

Don’t believe Business Rep 23 or anybody else unless they have the facts to back up their statements.

Gypsies, tramps, and thieves.

By now, you have heard that the leadership of the PLCB is full of crooks. We already knew that it was full of incompetence: just look at date-rape ads, buying mom vodka for mother's day, the born-to-fail wine kiosks, computer systems 158% over budget, and who knows how much more that hasn't even been exposed yet. Meanwhile, the CEO, Chairman, and Marketing Director were out having a good time when they should have been working (The board only works 22 partial days a year as it is), taking gifts and then conveniently forgetting to report them. Maybe "conveniently" isn't the right word, since we all know the PLCB isn't convenient. How about we say "on purpose" instead....yeah they forgot about $2000 golf trips on purpose, or forgot about a few thousand in free booze on purpose. That sounds more like it.

While the ethics committee has no teeth itself, they apparently thought that these good ol' boys were just  playfully forgetful....after all, what PA legislator hasn't taken a favor or two or two or eight thousand? So they got caught; just fill out the paperwork and pay what you should have paid -- nudge nudge wink wink -- and everything will be fine.

I'm not sure if our AG saw a chance to make a point, or if she really felt these people should pay more than restitution, or if it made her skin crawl that a so-called public servant would disrespect the citizens as they did, but she at least refereed the case to the Dauphin County DA, recusing herself... since her husband has a $12 million contract with the PLCB.  Nepotism isn't new in Harrisburg but this was a bit to high profile to not be noticed.

As reported in the Intelligencer:

Unfortunately, this type of corruption is a symptom of a much larger problem: the government’s complete control of the sale and distribution of wine and spirits in Pennsylvania. If government bureaucrats did not have the sole authority to determine what alcohol is sold in all the state’s liquor stores, businesses would have no incentive to bribe them with golf outings, fancy dinners and free liquor.

Hopefully the DA can give the people what they want:

And...now turn left, convicts!

Modernization wouldn't do what the consumer wants -- Part II

Today we are going to look at some other parts of so called “modernization;” increasing the licensee discount from 10 to 18% and variable pricing.  Notice that there is nothing mentioned for the consumer, even though they spend 2.8 times as much as licensees. Why?  Because licensees contribute larger sums than regular people, and since they don’t complain too much, you don’t have to pay as much attention as you do to what the citizens want. Pretty much saying, “to hell with standard practice, no case discounts for you!”

Based on last year’s PLCB sales numbers to licensees, an additional 8% discount would come to around $24,250,000. Where does that money come from?  It isn’t taxes since they are added in before the discount. Everything else stays the same since the discount doesn’t affect inventory or salaries or other costs...so it has to come from what the PLCB calls "profit" (what we know to be taxes that they just hadn’t happened to spend yet). Let’s look how that $24 million ties into the big scheme of things. To do that we have to do some math.

The PLCB had “profits” of $128,356,057.00 after the transfer to the PA State Police, but before the General Fund transfer. I'll be rounding the numbers from here on so they may not match exactly.
According to the PLCB talking heads “modernization” will increase this amount by $75-125 million depending on who you listen to.  Since there is a 66% difference between those two numbers, I’m not sure how accurate their guesswork is. In any case, let's use $100 million and add to that the $24 million that has to be made up from the proposed additional discount for the licensees to bring it to almost as much as they make now. The new total for operating income after PSP transfer is $252.4 million. Add to that number $387.6 million in operating expenses and you get $640 million in gross revenue from sales needed if this happened this year. 

But it didn’t happen this year so let us estimate what next year might look like.  I’ll say that sales will increase 5% to $2.28 billion which means that Sales Tax and Local Taxes will be about $135.8 million leaving $2.14 billion.  From that the 18% liquor tax ($327.2 million) will come out giving us $1.82 billion as sales net of taxes.  Historically cost of goods sold is about 69.5% so I’ll use that. COGS would be $1.26 billion leaving us with $554 4 million

However we needed $640 million leaving us $85.6 million short and I’m being generous since I didn’t put in any increase for expenses. Now the PLCB just can’t raise prices of X number of products by $85 million and call it even.  They have to raise prices enough so that after all expenses and taxes come out they have $85 million extra left over. Remember they had to sell almost $2.2 billion last year to get $128 million, so working off of that, they need to sell $3.8 billion worth of product to get to $252 million and we know that isn’t going to happen. They could raise the markup 65% or they could reduce costs by closing 25% of the stores and I don’t see that happening either. So they have to get the money from somewhere and “Variable Pricing” is one of the places they say it will come from. Not all of it but certainly a large portion.

Just what is the PLCB version of variable pricing?  Unlike a pure model the PLCB has to keep the prices the same state wide instead of regionally, by neighborhood or even by store. Also, unlike other variable pricing models of commodities, the consumer has no negotiating power other than to drive to New Jersey (which they probably should have done to begin with). Think Airline tickets if you need another example of variable pricing.  The price changes by demand, time of day, competition and other factors so while you may pay $200 for that round trip to Orlando, the next person could pay more or less.  

Now I don’t give the PLCB credit for being able to change pricing in real time as the airlines do.  They don’t have a good history with computerized things. The intent is the same though.  Lower prices on slow moving items to get them out or move a specific volume of items, and stores may strategically raise prices on more popular or high demand items when possible to increase profits.  A good overview is here. Something the PLCB should pay attention to: “When variable pricing can be tied to differences in costs of doing business, different prices can be justified; otherwise, brands run the risk of being seen to be opportunistic and unfair, likely damaging their reputations.”

I don't have any idea how many or how much prices will have to go up to get near that magical $85 million extra (and I don't think Senator Ferlo really does either), but it isn’t a small amount, considering that the PLCB only clears an average of 92 cents per bottle and it would have to go up to $1.80 per bottle if applied evenly and we know it isn't going to be applied evenly. Maybe some other things will reduce that or maybe not.  I’ll look further into some other “modernization” statements in another installment.

Privatization IS Modernization, accept nothing less.

Modernization wouldn't do what the consumer wants

We've been told that what the State Stores, the PLCB, and the whole police-enforced monopoly really needs is a good dose of "modernization." No need to dismantle this freak of nature; just "modernize" it!

Hey, how about some perks?

Let's look at one part of “modernization,” Direct Wine Shipping, and see what is being offered compared to what Pennsylvania citizens really want. Representative Costa said recently that direct shipping would be, and I quote, a “perk” for consumers. Why after all this time do the politicians and PLCB even care about direct wine shipping? Is it because they suddenly thought it would be good for consumers? No, it is because the Supreme Court Of The United States told them they had to allow all wineries, in-state and out, the same freedom in shipping. That was the Granholm decision, almost NINE YEARS ago, and our legislature still can’t comply. Strictly speaking, in my opinion, the failure of the legislature pretty much means it is currently legal to have wine shipped to your door since the section of the PA liquor code imposing restriction was deemed illegal and therefore unenforceable.

Representative Costa, 8 years later, decided he wants to support direct wine shipping and the bill he co-sponsored (HB 121) lists a fair amount of requirements to allow that in PA. Here are some of them.

(1) File an application with the board.
(2) Pay a one hundred dollar ($100) registration fee.
(3) Provide to the board a true copy of the applicant's current alcoholic beverage license issued by the board or another state, if applicable.
(4) Provide documentation to the board which evidences that the applicant has obtained a sales tax license from the Department of Revenue.
(5) Provide the board with any other information that the board deems necessary and appropriate.

Now that doesn’t seem too bad. But read on.

(6) Each month, the board shall publish on the Internet a list of all classes, varieties and brands of wine available for sale in the Pennsylvania Liquor Stores (Apparently all that money on rebranding was wasted, just like we said; if your own pet legislator can't even remember it, what's the point?). A person holding a direct shipper license may ship only those classes, varieties and brands of wine not included on the list at the time an Internet order is placed.
(7) Not ship more than nine liters per month on the Internet order of any person in this Commonwealth
(8) On a quarterly basis, pay to the Department of Revenue all taxes due on sales to residents of this Commonwealth
(9) Report to the board each year the total of wine shipped [into] to residents of this Commonwealth in the preceding calendar year.
(10) Permit the board, the enforcement bureau or the Secretary of Revenue, or their designated representatives, to perform an audit of the [out-of-State] direct wine shipper's records upon request.
(11) Annually renew its license by paying a renewal fee established by the board. (Unknown amount at the time of publication)
(12) A direct shipper may ship wine on the [Internet] order of a resident into this Commonwealth provided that the wine is shipped to a Pennsylvania Liquor Store selected by the resident.

So what we get is "direct shipping" to a State Store, not directly to the customer, and on top of that they want to track what and how much you buy. PA's own little spy network. That is not what the citizens want, no matter how the good representative tries to spin it.

That leads to situations like Arthur David Goldman accused of illegally selling wines not available in PA, providing the goods and services that the PLCB either couldn’t wouldn’t or was too incompetent to provide. Why? Because there hasn’t been any resolution in Pennsylvania of the Granholm decision. If people were able to direct ship then there wouldn’t be the market for somebody to fill with wines not available in the PA system.

How about we do reciprocal shipping, the same way other goods are done within the framework of interstate commerce? We don’t charge unnecessary fees or taxes to out of state wineries whose states don’t charge us any unnecessary fees or taxes. In-state wineries would benefit from increased sales, consumers would benefit because more out of state wineries would decide to ship to PA since they wouldn’t have to go through all the mickey mouse steps that Mr. Costa wants and after all this time PA would finally be in compliance with the Granholm decision.

Direct wine shipping is about 2% of total wine sales except here in PA where it is about nil. Privatizing and removing the PLCB from the equation results in a system that truly benefits the consumer.

We don’t want “perks.” We don’t want crumbs offered by poor half-hearted measures designed to placate and not really improve. We want and deserve better then what is being offered. Read HB 121 for yourself and decide if this is really the direct shipping you want or if a free and private system would do a better job.

Privatization IS Modernization – Accept nothing less.

Liquor revenue vs. other revenue

More in the continuing saga of why can’t Johnny read -- or do math?


The Union in the guise of a former clerk and current business manager will tell you that “No state has ever realized equal revenue after they privatized, period.” (except Washington State, but I’ll get to that shortly). They cite the decline in Iowa and the contract in Maine as prime examples.

Let’s look at those in real terms. Iowa got out of the retail wine business on July 1 1985, the wholesale wine business on July 1, 1986 and the retail liquor business on March 1, 1987. UFCW Local 1776 president Wendell W. Young IV in sworn testimony stated that, “In just three years, after wine was privatized, revenues dropped by $20 million annually. Revenue dropped by $4 million in Year One; by $12 million in Year II and, finally, by $20 million in the third year of private control.”

What he said is true but there is more behind the numbers that isn’t told. On July 1, 1986 — the same day that retail wine sales were privatized — a 15% licensee tax was repealed. On March 1, 1987 — the first day that private retail liquor sales were allowed — Iowa lowered the wholesale mark up by 12% in order to help the newly established private liquor store businesses. There were 221 state liquor stores, and at the end of the four month transition period, there were 256 private stores; within the year the number rose to 430.

In fact, as reported back in 1997 on the 10^th anniversary of Iowa’s privatization, “Keeping the wholesale liquor business and selling the retail end proved to be fiscally sound. State officials estimate their treasury is $95 million richer than it would have been had Iowa retained its state stores.” And “Between annual license fees and the wholesale markup, the state now makes almost $15 million a year more than it would have, had it stayed in the retail business.” Not exactly the disaster that Mr. Young said in his testimony.

So who do you want to believe that Iowa is better or worse off, Wendell Young, who has an obvious bias, or the State of Iowa itself?

As for Maine, they contracted out their liquor distribution. They knew ahead of time exactly what they would get and what it would cost. Ten years later that contract is ending and Maine is looking to do another 2 contracts instead of just one. This time they want one for distribution and one for marketing and advertising. Obviously, Maine thinks this is the better way to go instead of running the whole show themselves and having all of those salary, retirement and medical costs.

Now for Washington. Collected revenue is up, over any year during state control; up 23% for the last fiscal year. That will go down some when one of the newly imposed fees decreases from 10 to 5% but is still going to be above anything the state stores brought in according to the Washington State Department of Revenue.  So much for the UFCW business manager’s quote about no state ever realizing equal revenue.

Lastly there is Ohio. The union doesn’t like to talk about Ohio since they sold their wholesale operation for $1.5 BILLION. While it is a strange combination of public/private partnership, the Jobs Ohio non-profit that controls the wholesale operation is a private entity. They can go bankrupt with no cost to the state, and anything they make goes to Ohio job creation. The state has no jurisdiction over their books or the management.

Now Ohio might be a special case but when Wendell Young or any other representative says that nobody would pay X amount for PA’s system or that no place made money after privatizing – they are simply lying. Every place in the U.S. (or Canada) that has privatized some or all of their liquor system has also seen an increase in employment, and while that isn’t “liquor revenue,” it is better than what we have here.

The takeaway is simple: if you’re a Pennsylvania legislator, revenue should not be a factor when you’re considering liquor/wine privatization. As far as that goes, neither should employment. Privatization will, based on previous experience, most likely increase revenues, and almost certainly increase employment — if you do it right. In this case, “right” is not giving in to compromise. Do a Washington State — shut everything state-owned down in a matter of six months to a year — but don’t raise taxes. Watch border bleed decrease, employment increase, and voter satisfaction go right off the charts.

Privatization IS Modernization. Accept nothing less.