PA House Democrats keep up the scare on privatization

As the State Store System trembles from the freshening breeze of competition from the likes of Wegmans and Giant and Giant Eagle (and remember, they're still chained by the cafe rule, and wine only, and the Four-Bottle Folly, and state-regulated pricing), and new salvos of booze freedom launch from an increasingly bold House GOP caucus, the House Democrats are in full spin mode in defense of the archaic PLCB monopoly. They're trying to convince the people of Pennsylvania that it is better to have a government retail monopoly than a free market for booze, a pure case of the mindwarp that is Wolfonomics.

For example, let's comment on a press release they put out on April 24th.

"Liquor sales in PA should be about consumer convenience and small businesses, not big profits for a few huge corporations."

Pennsylvania House Democratic Caucus    April 24, 2017 | 6:01 PM

Republicans in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives are scheduled to move several liquor privatization bills this week. They all have one thing in common: Pennsylvania consumers aren't demanding any of them and the Pennsylvania Senate is unlikely to consider them.

Of course the Senate will consider them, they may not act on them all but the four bills will be consolidated into some package...unless McIlhinney kills them. What party is he affiliated with again? Is he one of your guys?  

Consumers Are Happy With Modernization! Forward!

Consumers are happy with the modernization and convenience changes made last year to Pennsylvania's liquor laws -- there is no widespread public support for comprehensive privatization for privatization's sake. 

After 82 years of nanny state idiocy why wouldn't consumers be happy about changes? But are we satisfied? Since every scientific poll of the past 40+ years shows the public doesn't want the State Store System, probably not! 

Those guys? Only in it for the money!

There are only a few groups pushing to rush forward with more liquor changes so soon after last year's consumer-friendly improvements — the chain grocery stores; big-box retailers and mega-wholesalers that want to corner the market at the expense of consumers and small, family-owned businesses; and the newspaper publishers who want to reap millions of dollars in advertising sales. 

Of course stores (except the State Stores) want to gain customers by providing what they want, where they want it, be it Walmart or a local wine store (which you may have seen in other states). Just what small family-owned liquor stores are there in Pennsylvania that the Democrats are talking about? They don't exist, and unless things change, they won't. Not because of big box stores, but because the Almighty Liquor Code doesn't allow it, and the House Democrats are just fine with that. And they're still banging away at the news media. For years the Democrats and Windy Wendy Young have been saying newspapers only back privatization (and practically every Pennsylvania newspaper does, by the way) because they will reap a small fortune due to alcohol advertising. Just where is that happening? Looking at the papers in New York City: not a one has an eighth of a sheet worth of liquor ads. Even if there were more here in Pennsylvania, it would show that stores are competing with each other for your business, which can only be good for the consumer. 

By pushing expanded alcohol sales, the state risks jeopardizing public safety in many counties and municipalities, reducing revenues for the Pennsylvania budget, and killing thousands of family-sustaining jobs in every community in the state.

Really? Yet the PLCB has been pushing to expand sales for years - why is that good but real growth bad? Of the last two places that fully privatized in the past 25 years, both have lower rates of DUI, underage DUI, DUI fatality, and underage DUI fatality than the Commonwealth currently does. In fact, four of the six border states have better records. One that doesn't is Ohio (also a control state!), the other is Delaware. Maybe it's the PLCB that is jeopardizing public safety by focusing on increasing sales instead of regulating alcohol sales and abuse. The conflict of interest is real!

Jobs? The current system is limiting jobs in favor of the monopoly. Full privatization has tripled jobs in the industry where it has happened. It has increased convenience and consumer satisfaction, because there aren't some unqualified bureaucrats deciding what the entire state is allowed to buy. 

Creating thousands more wine and liquor retailers will saturate the market in many counties and municipalities.

Just to get to the national average Pennsylvania would have to add 2,000 stores. Like any other product there can only be as many stores as the market will bear (and local zoning and ordinances will allow). Imagine local communities deciding what is best for them, not Harrisburg. 

Access to a wide variety of wine and liquor selections in well-lit, clean and safe state stores will be replaced by a limited choice of major-brand items relegated to one or two aisles in chain grocery stores and big-box retailers like Costco and Wal-Mart. 

Why would a grocery store stock the same amount of products as a stand-alone liquor store?  Compare a State Store to a liquor store. Go look at a Total Wine, a BevMo, a Super Buy Rite, a Binny's or any of the real liquor superstores and compare it to a "Premium Collection" State Store. The private stores will have more variety ACTUALLY ON THE SHELF then the PLCB stocks in their entire system. Privatization can bring a wide variety of stores, specialty stores, warehouse size stores, local stores, convenient stores instead of the same one size fits all State Store. 

Wine and liquor in Pennsylvania's state stores are priced competitively. Prices for consumers in states where wine and liquor were recently privatized have gone up, not down.

With the largest border bleed in the country, there are probably a large number of citizens who disagree that the selection, service, and prices are competitive. As far as the ONE state that has fully privatized, one can expect that an additional 27% in fees and taxes that were imposed at the time of privatization may have had an effect on prices. However, prices didn't go up 27% which shows that the free market is much more efficient than a monopoly. Besides, with the knowledge of hindsight we don't have to do things exactly the same — wrong — way. 

Combined markups and taxes in Pennsylvania for wine and liquor are comparable to and, in many cases lower than, those in privatized states.

The first true statement in this entire release, but with variable pricing causing the markup to go up, it may not be true for long. As the 2nd largest retailer of wine and spirits, the real question isn't whether your prices are competitive; it's 'Why aren't they better across the board than MD, DE or NJ?'

The bills being considered this week will substantially increase the number of businesses selling wine and liquor but provide no additional money for alcohol control or law enforcement. There are already too few officers monitoring Pennsylvania's 30,000 licensed establishment. Do we really want to add even more locations to already-saturated markets? 

Most of the additional businesses that would be selling wine and liquor are already licensed by the board and are already checked by the BLCE. While there are 30,000 licenses of various types, only 19,000 are active and the state itself is adding 1,200 to that total. Again PA is below the national average, so the idea that we are "over saturated" is disingenuous at best. 

Many Pennsylvania municipalities are already struggling with the crime and expense caused by nuisance bars. We need to find solutions to those problems before we add even more licensed locations.

As already pointed out, the state is adding more licensed locations. Three of the four current bills are not adding any locations but expanding what can be sold. Maybe if the communities didn't have to wait for the PLCB to act, they could better control what happens in their towns. 

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has determined that liquor privatization leads to increased excessive consumption. Pennsylvania has not examined how vastly expanding access to wine and spirits -- and oversaturating the market in several counties and municipalities -- will impact public health and safety. 

The study mentioned also had consumption increasing by over 40%, which has not happened in any state, and overall the research data has been debunked by Stats.org the premier body for statistical analysis. The CDC report was so bad that Forbes did an article about it. 

Moving toward full privatization of wine and liquor sales in Pennsylvania would replace skilled jobs that provide financial security for thousands of families with a much smaller number of minimum-wage cashier jobs that don't protect public safety, improve customer service, or support families. 

Currently State Stores are never checked for age compliance by the BLCE, but every licensed establishment is. A number of private stores selling beer and wine have 100% carding policy; the State Stores do not. Everybody that serves alcohol in a licensed establishment has to be RAMP certified; State Store clerks do not. 

Being a clerk in a liquor store is not a skilled job, but as already mentioned, employment in the industry tripled the the last places that fully privatized. Not a guarantee it will happen here but a good indicator. Keep screwing around with these "ass-backwards" measures (as Senator McIlhinney pungently put it) that only complicate the mess further, and things probably won't go as well.

This blind leap toward full privatization of wine and liquor sales comes without an examination of the public health and safety impacts, no evaluation of whether Pennsylvania consumers believe full privatization is necessary or desirable in the wake of recent consumer-friendly improvements, and with no accounting of what privatization will cost Pennsylvania workers and taxpayers. 

The citizens have never wanted the State Stores. In poll after poll, privatization or private retail has always won out. After over 40 years of the same result, do you really think the citizens will change their minds? The recent improvements simply show that full privatization is desirable. People want convenience that the PLCB can't provide. They want better pricing that the stores can't give them because they have to buy from the PLCB. They want the selection they see at stores on our borders - stores that stock more than the entire state has on the shelf.

Pennsylvania should be working to benefit and protect consumers and small businesses, not rigging the system to put one of the state's most important and lucrative assets in the pocket of a few huge corporations.

Since there are no small liquor store businesses now it seems that you are already rigging the system against them. Privatization can fix that. Who will get licenses and what type are up to you in the legislature. If you say only stores of 10,000 sq.ft., then guess what...only chains and big box stores will get licenses. If you allow specialty wine or liquor only licenses then you will see entrepreneurs opening that kind of shop or restaurant - something that PA doesn't have now.
The one size fits all thinking of the PLCB can't and shouldn't be applied. 

This isn't 1934 anymore. It's time to move forward, toward a license and regulation model that the majority of states use. Get out of retail and wholesale so the free market can do what it does best. Provide products based on the wants and needs of the consumer, not on what is allowed by the government.

How to Lie Spin like the House Democratic Caucus

Way back on May 17th of this year, which qualifies as ancient history in political terms, I wrote to the Pennsylvania House Democratic Caucus to ask them if they would vote for a bill that gives special treatment to the Democratic National convention above that of the citizens of the state; in other words, the proposal to allow bars in Philly hosting DNC events to bring booze in through non-PLCB channels. Their reply:

"I fully expect the caucus to be fully against any relaxation of PA liquor laws while the Democratic Convention is in Philly. You need to treat all visitors as you do the citizens."

Bill must be from Pennsylvania; who knew?

Well...someone must have forgotten to tell the members in the House Appropriations Committee, since every Democratic member voted for it.

Given a second chance, the bill was then voted on by the House Liquor Control Committee. No Democrat voted against it, but there were four who chose not to vote at all; a clear vote of conscience (or else they were at lunch).

And Vote Number Three, the House Rules Committee? Once again, all the Democrats voted for it.

The last chance to actually do what the Caucus "fully expected" that they would do was the full vote of the House. And again, EVERY Democrat voted for it. At least 41 Republicans voted against. Either the Democratic Caucus has no influence on the Democrats, or they didn't know what they were talking about or flat-out lied, or they thought they had an out.

Because while the DNC will get special treatment, it's okay, because now it is a "National Event License" (that the PLCB makes money off of), instead of just special treatment for the Democrats. Only guess who are the only groups that qualify: the Republican National Convention, or the Democratic National Convention! Section 408.17 page 6 line 25: National Event Permit.--(a) Upon  application of the chief executive of a national political party conducting its national convention in this Commonwealth..."  I guess the Libertarians or the Greens could apply, but I don't know if the PLCB would consider them national parties. Probably not.

In any case, instead of trying to slide a one time special use bill that places the political class temporarily above the citizens, they decided to say screw it, let's make it a law that officially places the political class above the citizens any time we want. Now the Republicans are at fault too, although they didn't vote like herd animals to make you second class citizens in your own state. So when election time comes around remember who officially thinks they are better than you are...and who thinks that they represent you.

Quick, Clean Up Those Liquor Laws: The Neighbors Are Visiting!

5-20-2016: This piece has been updated after a full reading of the bill as released by Sen. McIlhinney's committee and subsequently swiftly approved 50-0 by the Senate. Updates are italicized; deleted words are struck out.


This headline in Tuesday's Inquirer caught my eye this morning:

Pa. May Ease Liquor Rules For Democratic Convention

Here's the piece, describing likely temporary changes in The Almighty Liquor Code for the duration of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia later this summer.

Short version: the Legislature feels politicians' pain, but not yours.

"C" is for "Cheat"

Less-short-but-still-short version: Bars can stay open past 2 AM while the convention's in session — four whole days — if they are granted a special license, which costs $5,000, and is only available for events directly related to the convention (What's odd: it's not clear if the event license applies to individual licensees, or the event premises, or wherever the "national event" decides to serve booze). Even more galling: for that time period only, these special licensees will be able to buy receive booze directly from out of state for those four days, unlike you...ever! This is so state delegations can get their favorite hometown booze (Washington State wines, Maine craft spirits), recognizing that (as our old pal, Senator Chuck McIlhinney, who passed the House bill out of committee, put it) "we're not going to put it in our liquor stores for four days and then sell it to them and then have to be stuck with it." Well...probably sounded good to him at the time. What Chuck probably meant to say was that it would be unreasonable to expect the clerks to have to deal with a bunch of interesting new products, so let's arbitrarily bend the law instead. Right, Chuck? That's what you do over in the Law & Justice Committee, after all.

Our version: Someone in the Legislature got a rush of blood to the brain and realized that conventions run on booze -- they do, even the Democrats, and don't even start on the whole weed thing -- and that our booze laws suck so bad that it could hurt future convention business...no, wait, if that was it, they'd make these changes permanent for Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, because that's true for every convention, not just political ones.

No, this is, as usual, about different rules for the ruling class, and charging you to pay for them. Because if you think that the bars who get those special licenses are going to pay for them in four days, or even try to pay them off in four days, you're dreaming. You'll be paying for them. Lucky you. (Okay, what's likely to happen is that some deal will be struck that the licenses are paid for as part of the venue payment, or covered by the donations of free booze.) And if the licensees are smart, they're going to stock up like mad during those four days, get Total Wine to ship in truckloads of booze to beat the PLCB like a gong. There is no limit on how much booze can be brought in, either. In the words of the bill as it stands, the licensees may "ACCEPT, IMPORT, POSSESS OR RESELL 
DONATED ALCOHOL ACQUIRED FROM LICENSED AND UNLICENSED ENTITIES SO LONG AS IT RECEIVES BOARD APPROVAL PRIOR TO DOING SO. THE DONATED ALCOHOL DOES NOT NEED TO COME TO REST AT A PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR STORE PRIOR TO ITS USE BY THE PERMIT HOLDER, UNLESS THE  BOARD SO DIRECTS. MALT OR BREWED BEVERAGES DONATED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL NOT NEED TO COME TO REST AT A LICENSED IMPORTING DISTRIBUTOR PRIOR TO THEIR USE BY THE PERMIT HOLDER, SO LONG AS
THE DONATED BRANDS ARE REGISTERED WITH THE BOARD AND THE BOARD APPROVES THE ARRANGEMENT." Note that this kind of arrangement would be exactly the kind of thing that could normally cause a licensee to be fined, possibly even lose their license.

Is that even how the law would work? Who knows, because McIlhinney had his fingers all over it, so it's likely to be something completely novel that no one asked for or wanted. Would you pay $5,000 for the "right" to be open from 2 AM to 4 AM for four days? For a bunch of drunken strangers? (On the other hand, would you pay $5,000 for the "right" to buy booze from regular wholesalers, rather than the PLCB? Just for the novelty of someone delivering the booze to you for a change? Hey, maybe!)

Leave out the longer hours, which is window-dressing: all they'd have to do to achieve this is to tell the BLCE to stay away from Philadelphia and give the bars the high sign. This is nothing more or less than an admission that the PLCB can't deliver what wholesalers and retailers in other states do routinely: put new products on the shelves (not in some airy-fairy "online store" that no one can search properly) in a timely manner by delivering them directly to bars. An admission that the state's booze monopoly is a failed, broken system that can't do what business needs.

If it needs to be fixed for four days...it needs to be fixed for good. And we know the way to fix it. The Inquirer knows, too. They ran this editorial on May 20: have a look. The House GOP caucus should belatedly redeem themselves by refusing to pass this deeply cynical bill. Failing that, the Governor should veto this unabashed deal-making. And if they don't, we the people should raise hell.

Privatize it. The time is now. 

The Citizens say Democrats holding up Liquor Privatization.

 Commonwealth citizens — we, the people forced to shop at State Stores — issued the following statement today.

The Citizens are disappointed in the House and Senate Democrats for not being able to help put together a budget that builds on the record education funding of last year and provides the relief from the state store system we have been asking for over the past 45 years.

Citizen spokesman Joe Sixpack reiterated that "There has never been a scientific poll in favor of the state stores. Given the choice of our current system or what the people see in free states they choose freedom every time." He continued with, "The state stores will never be as convenient as 1800-2400 private stores are, they will never be able to provide the selection of what a real super-store can, stores that have more on the shelf than the entire state stocks.  They will never have the expertise that can be found in private retail. State stores will never be able to satisfy the consumer the way the private market can - just look at EVERYTHING else you buy to see that."

The Citizens also want to be able to buy wine in a grocery store to go with their meals as is the norm in over half the states.  "While the goal would be able to buy wine at the same checkout as the food purchase we realize that such freedom may come as a shock to a number of people and fully expect the PLCB to make it as inconvenient as possible in order to uphold their mission statement." said a previous Citizen's press release.

END IT, DON'T MEND IT

The Citizens represent most of the 12 million people in the Commonwealth who work in the southeast, northeast and central, western and all parts of  Pennsylvania in supermarkets, drug stores, food processing plants, government services, manufacturing facilities, nursing homes, professional offices, and all businesses, except Pennsylvania's "Fine" Wine and "Good" Spirits Stores.

Progress

In 1933...this was what you drove:

In 1933...this was how you washed clothes:

In 1933...your phone was only as smart as the operator:

In 2015...this is still how Pennsylvania sells liquor:

1933: brought to you by Pennsylvania's Democratic legislators, assisted by The Senate Republicans of SouthEast Pennsylvania, cheered on (and funded) by the UFCW. Ain't it great to buy booze like Great-Grampa did?

PA House Democrats drank the PLCB Kool-Aid

Thinking the Democrats in the PA Legislature might suddenly, somehow come to their senses on normalization of the PLCB? Forget it. All the quotes below are taken from the PA House Democratic website. It seems that they have their own way of looking at things that may or may not match reality. Let's take a peek.

Facts?  Nobody posts facts on the internet!

"By modernizing and increasing convenience for customers, the stores would generate at least $125 million more per year once the changes are fully phased in."

That extra $125 million, even if possible, has to come from someplace and that place is you the PA consumer. Since they only make about that now with the prices they charge, how do you think they will double it? As for convenience, the number of stores has decreased by 25% since 1970, from over 750 to 605, and 7% of that loss is since 2010. Ask the people with only one or two stores in their entire county how convenient the state store system is.

"Recently, privatization in other states has brought higher prices and reduced selection in grocery stores."

There is only one state that "recently" privatized: Washington in 2012. Anyplace else was over 25 years ago and can hardly be called "recent" in my opinion.  So privatization brought reduced selection in grocery stores. Well, we can guarantee that won't happen in Pennsylvania, since they won't let us buy wine or spirits in grocery stores now! As for the higher prices, that's due to the higher taxes and fees that were imposed at the same time as privatization: can't blame that on the stores, that's just the greedy government. Don't want higher prices? Simple: don't raise the taxes!

Even if we look at states that did privatize 25 years ago we find that according to the PFM report and the State of Iowa itself -- they made more money. To quote the report, "Privatization was deemed successful from a revenue standpoint, with profits increasing by $125 million over the first 11 years of privatization compared to estimates under State control of the stores." For West Virginia it is said that not every county has a liquor store since they privatized and while that is true, NOBODY in West Virginia has to drive as far as some residents of Pennsylvania do. Let me say that again - NOBODY.

"In some communities, privatization would lead to the opening of more liquor stores, while in more rural areas, consumers might not have access to a liquor store without driving out of their way."

Again using Washington, only one of 39 counties has less liquor stores now than they did before privatization and even that county still has a liquor store. As far as driving out of their way, I guess that is subjective since the House Democrats don't think a round trip of 75 miles is "out of their way" as this citizen does. Perhaps the two years the people of Mountaintop had to wait for a store to reopen in the same shopping center wasn't an inconvenience either. More liquor stores means more convenience. Of course there will be more liquor stores! Pennsylvania has one of the lowest store densities in the entire world, outside of countries like Saudi Arabia where alcohol is literally illegal. We have been under-served for decades.

"PA Wine and Spirits stores carry 30,000 products, with an average of 3,000 in stock at any time. The stores provide or support 4,000 family sustaining jobs in every county in Pennsylvania."

Not to get too much into semantics, but if you have a product on a list -- that you don't control -- that just means it MAY be available in your system. There are private stores with 11,000 wine and spirits in stock, on the shelves, more products than in the entire state of Pennsylvania, and they can (and happily will) special order things too. There are none in Pennsylvania, of course, but they are easy enough to find. Just look across our borders. As for the jobs, over a third of all PLCB employees are part time and that isn't a "family sustaining" job. That leaves about 3,000 full time employees and not all of them work in the stores or support the stores so that 4,000 number is certainly high. The PFM report doesn't agree with it either. In any case, the states and provinces that have fully privatized tripled employment in the industry.

State Store Motto

And finally in an outright lie they finish up with:

"A June 2014 poll by Franklin & Marshall showed that more than half of the people questioned (57%) said they preferred to modernize the State Wine and Spirit Stores, rather than sell them off."

Too bad that the real number is 32% as shown on page 16 of the poll.  BTW, it went down in the March 2015 poll too. There has never been a scientific poll that shows the people want to keep the state stores, not once, not ever in 80 years. Maybe because we don't want the state store system and never have.

END IT, DON'T MEND IT.

What does it take to wake up the PA Senate?

Something for all the Democratic and RINO senators to think about as they prepare once again to avoid voting for what the plurality if not majority of people want: privatization and de-monopolization of the sales of spirits, wine, and beer.

Privatization does not increase underage drinking.  According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 29 percent of those ages 12-20 consumed alcohol in Pennsylvania. Compare this to states that have far less government control such as West Virginia (which is also a control state for wholesale) and the number decreases to 24 percent. In fact, the United States average is 27 percent. If government controlled liquor is effective in curbing underage drinking, why are we 2 percentage points higher than the national average and higher than almost all our neighboring states? Why is our underage DUI fatality rate higher than all but one border state?

Privatization does not cause more drunk driving, cause more alcohol related accidents or more alcohol related fatalities. Pennsylvania is once again barely average or worse. In alcohol related traffic fatalities in 2012, Pennsylvania was at the national average of 3.3 per 100,000. If the current government monopoly is better suited for curbing drunk driving, why are we not ahead of the national curve? Furthermore, MADD ranks the states in order of DUI-related accidents per capita. Pennsylvania ranked 35^th best – lower than New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Virginia, and Ohio. Obviously the median here is 25; Pennsylvania being 10 states away. In 2010 overall alcohol related deaths, Pennsylvania is also surpasses neighboring states. Pennsylvania reported 26 per 100,000 residents. Compare this to 24 in Delaware, 22 in Maryland, 20 in New Jersey, 20 in New Work, and 25 in Ohio.

In the 2 years since Washington privatized DUI fatalities have decreased at a far faster than in Pennsylvania even though they started at a lower rate. You now have a 36% less chance of being killed due to an alcohol related accident in Washington compared to Pennsylvania.

Privatization increases employment. As President Ronald Reagan used to say, “The best social program is a job.” The labor union UFCW 1776 will tell you that privatization kills jobs, but they are wrong. More than doubling or even tripling the amount of outlets for wine and spirits can only mean more jobs. It’s common sense. If anything, the UFCW saying there won’t be jobs for their members is tantamount to saying they don’t believe their members are employable in the private sector. Every locale that has privatized has seen an increase in employment. New warehouse jobs, new delivery jobs, new store jobs. Places that fully privatized tripled employment in the industry. The ability for these employees to use their previous knowledge to specialize in this new industry could actually increase their earning power.

Privatization will increase revenue. A 2010 study commissioned by the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America found that 23.6 percent of the wine purchased by consumers in Pennsylvania comes from out of state, resulting in the loss of $17.3 million in excise taxes. A more recent study conducted for the PLCB showed that 45 percent of residents in Philadelphia and its surrounding counties purchase some or all of their alcohol outside of Pennsylvania. The PLCB's own numbers showed that consumers purchased approximately a quarter of their wine and spirits in other states. This border bleed equals more than $180 million in lost sales, and more than $40 million in lost state tax revenue annually from just a handful of counties. These are lost dollars that could fund programs that are essential to our Commonwealth, but that are instead funding Delaware, Maryland, New York, and other border states with lower prices and increased selection.

Decreasing border bleed through price competition, increased convenience, one-stop shopping and increased selection will increase taxes collected. Increased sales will increase taxes collected. Business will pay taxes the current system doesn’t.  More people working will pay taxes. More people working means more sales across the Commonwealth for everything which also means more total taxes collected.

Privatization will remove the inherent conflicting interests of PLCB sales and enforcement. Quite simply, our current system is a house divided. The same entity charged with licensing vendors and enforcing liquor laws is marketing, selling, and producing alcohol...in direct competition with the private companies it regulates (with a surprising lack of consistency). Under privatization, penalties and fines could become much stricter as the PLCB’s conflicted mission would be resolved. In the new, fully privatized system, the PLCB would license, enforce, and educate; which is the appropriate role of government. The troika of party hacks who make the arbitrary and often inconsistent rulings on licensees' questions about application of the Liquor Code could be replaced by experienced regulators, lawyers who do nothing but apply the Code, full-time. The agency would then be run by a director, not a jumped-up "CEO".

Privatization can renew the people’s faith in their government. Distributing and selling liquor should not be in the hands of a state-run monopoly, which is clearly not a core function of government. There has never been a poll that has been in favor of the state run system. Historically, 40 years of polling show the citizens want a change and that change is to a free market system they see working far better in neighboring states. The lack of reform in the face of overwhelming public support leads citizens to conclude that state government is distant, unresponsive to their wishes, and captive to selfish interests. By responding to the will of citizens and consumers, lawmakers can show that Pennsylvania state government listens and responds to the will of the people they are elected to serve.

(Taken, updated and modified from an April  2013 letter sent by the PA Manufactures Association to the Senate)

Do Philly's Democratic legislators love the UFCW more than poor children?

Short posting, for two reasons. I'm busy as hell right now writing a book; and Jon Geeting pretty much says everything that needs to be said in his new Keystone Politics blog post:

Why Didn’t the Philadelphia Delegation Offer to Trade Alcohol Reform Votes for School Money?

He's spinning it off a Philadelphia Inquirer editorial today by Patrick Kerkstra: Ineffective Philly Leaders.

You should read both. Here is the Inquirer link; read it first. Then read the Keystone Politics link, here.

The point? Philly's almost entirely Democratic legislative delegation voted in lockstep against liquor privatization to satisfy organized labor, and missed a chance to compromise with Governor Corbett and Republicans to get desperately needed State money for Philadelphia's schools. As Geeting put it,

The only reason the Democrats aren’t offering Tom Corbett this trade is that they are putting coalition management concerns – placating the United Food and Commercial Workers union – ahead of adequate school funding for kids. Which makes sense in a perverse way – UFCW members donate money and this is a voting issue for them, while poor kids in Philly aren’t legally allowed to vote and can’t donate money to Democrats because their families are poor. The coalition management calculation is obvious, but the moral calculation is even more obvious. Consumers and city school districts could get a badly-needed win if Democrats would simply vote their districts rather than subsidizing rural Republicans’ drinking habits.

This is a voting issue. If your legislator screwed up on this vote, tell them, NOW, that if they screw up again in September, they've lost your vote.

Gotta go. I'll be back shortly with some news about where this blog is headed; major changes coming because of major changes in my career.

Suggested support letters

I don't like form letters. Don't like getting them, hate sending them. But this is an exception, so...here are two suggested emails to send to your Pennsylvania Representative to support HB 790, the current bill for State Store privatization. I know Democrats are lining up solid on this, so...let's ask them to consider abstaining, or just not being there for the vote. That's an easier decision than actually going against the party, and every abstention helps.
 
Find your representative here, and then send them one of the two letters below: it works better if you modify it a bit, personalize it, but the important thing is to be a name, a voter, in favor of privatization. Remember, it's crucial that you include your full name and address, and they like to see a phone number, too.


If you want to suggest any changes to HB790, suggest that the representative strongly consider lowering the fees on wholesalers. The current bill aims to reap about $500 million from that licensing process, and as an informed consumer and voter, you should know that all of that will be passed on to you as higher prices, and will come right out of your pocket. Tell your representative that there are better ways to find a billion dollars for education than grabbing it from Pennsylvania's wine and spirits drinkers.

TO A REPUBLICAN:

Dear Representative XXXX,

As one of the approximately 60% of Pennsylvanians in favor of the privatization of the PLCB State Stores, and as one of your constituents, I ask you to please consider supporting your party and your Governor by voting yes on HB790.

Pennsylvanians have polled in favor of privatization for over 30 years, and thousands of them cross the border to buy our wine and spirits every week instead of going to the State Stores. They'd much rather be buying in Pennsylvania, and bring those millions in tax revenue home, but the State Stores just aren't filling their needs. They go for better selection, or better prices, or better service, but thousands of them do go, and it's costing Pennsylvania millions. Having all that here will save citizens money, and bring in millions of additional tax revenue.

Please consider how many Pennsylvanians favor privatization. I hope you will vote for HB790, and make a public statement of your support. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

YOUR NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE


TO A DEMOCRAT:

Dear Representative XXXX,

I know you are opposed to privatization of the PLCB State Stores, but as one of the approximately 60% of Pennsylvanians in favor, and as one of your constituents, I ask you to please consider changing your mind, or abstaining from the vote on HB790.

Pennsylvanians have polled in favor of privatization for over 30 years, and thousands of them cross the border to buy our wine and spirits every week instead of going to the State Stores. They'd much rather be buying in Pennsylvania, and bring those millions in tax revenue home, but the State Stores just aren't filling their needs. They go for better selection, or better prices, or better service, but thousands of them do go, and it's costing Pennsylvania millions. Having all that here will save citizens money, and bring in millions of additional tax revenue.

Please consider how many Pennsylvanians favor privatization, and consider abstaining or changing your vote. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

YOUR NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE