More on Contigate

Monica Yant Kinney scorched the two apparently ethically-challenged heads of the PLCB -- Joe Da CEO Conti and PJ "PJ" Stapleton --  this morning in her Inquirer column. It made me think more about this, because she brought up some good points, not least of which was this: why were these guys dumb enough, cheap enough to do this stuff on their State-supplied email and computers...after Bonusgate and the conviction of Bill DeWeese?

Putting in an order for more Phillies tix

It's worth pausing to shudder that Harrisburg remains so clueless about the need to separate public business and political enrichment in the aftermath of Bonusgate and Computergate, the scandals and trials that led disgraced former House Speakers John Perzel and Bill DeWeese to share a prison cell.
Have those who run this state learned nothing about relegating greed to their home networks? Surely these guys can afford a second BlackBerry. After all, Gmail is free.

Apparently they haven't.

I posted this on Facebook, and some have brought up that this kind of thing is common in many industries. Well, sure. I have to say, the booze companies think nothing of this kind of stuff. It's open knowledge that I accept samples -- practically everyone in the business does, even journalists at newspapers with solid ethics codes (when you get samples from everyone, there's no influence to be "nice" to anyone in particular) -- and I've been on junkets to production facilities. Those were only when I had an actual story to write, and believe me, the Caribbean rum trips and cognac trips I've turned down, jeez, I woulda liked to have gone....but that didn't pass my personal sniff test.

I've turned down offers that were just plain over the line. Like Phillies tickets, and concerts. Only time I've ever been in a Phillies box is when I was hired to do a beer tasting in one; only free tickets I've ever accepted were from the Red Cross as a thank-you for platelet donations. I don't do that. I keep it to stuff that will actually, honestly help me do my job by getting me into relevant facilities and areas that I wouldn't otherwise be able to visit. And when I do, I make a point of noting that it was paid for, and I try to write about it as honestly as possible.

The difference is, by the rules these guys acknowledged when they took the jobs, all of that kind of thing is illegal and unethical. They are government officials, in charge of a retail monopoly, and therefore have to play by different rules. Apparently they forgot that, and yes, that does make you wonder about the "culture" at the rest of the agency...especially an agency that's been the subject of multiple special audits in the past few years for possible ethics violations (that found that while the agency had met the letter of the law, the spirit of the law was bent or broken).

Does all this have anything to do with privatization? Does it say anything about the agency and its mission? Or is it, as one State Store clerk and union rep told me, simply an ad hominem attack on the people at the top, and has nothing to do with the State Stores? Stepping aside from his misunderstanding of the ad hominem fallacy, I would argue that even so, there is a direct relationship between the agency and the behavior of its leaders...particularly given that the same kind of ethical violations took place at another, very similar agency (the North Carolina ABC, see below), and that, as I mentioned above, this isn't the first ethical question that has come up at the agency.

This is an independent agency. It answers to no one directly. The Governor can't fire Joe Da CEO, he can only ask the Board to do so, and has made it clear that the Board has defied him on that (something they did to Ed Rendell fairly regularly). The Legislature can't make the PLCB do anything without changing the Liquor Code, something they've shown very little stomach for -- at least, any effective change. The PLCB has its own judges (lazy though they apparently are), its own police agency (yes, under the State Police, but at the PLCB's beck and call; it's called the Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement, after all), and most importantly, its own budget. The Legislature can't even cut off their funds, the usual method of reining in a rogue agency.

The PLCB has grown to be lazy, arrogant, and wasteful. The administrative costs of the retail operation are out of control; there are fewer stores and more employees than there were in 1999, for example. It is a patronage pit; Conti's job alone proves that. Privatization will cure that. The regulatory functions will run cleaner without the contradictory retail function, or they could easily be assigned to other agencies (as suggested here and here), which would save even more money.

We'll have to take it to the Capitol before this is over.

The Legislature may have dropped the ball...again. Doesn't mean we have to. I'm working on a plan of action, and hope to have it up here shortly. This is opportunity, people: Turzai's shit plan HB11 has failed. We need to press our desires home to the Governor's office, but they won't give a damn if we don't give a damn.

Read that quote up to the right, the one that's been here since the day I started this blog. It's the truth, and it's the only way we'll get this done.

"...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

Postponed II...and a modest proposal

Privatization is on hold till the fall, according to KYW (and an interview with Rep. Turzai), and I'm thinking that's not a bad thing. HB11 as it stood was not good enough, and was pissing off people who had to be in it to make it work. And it sounds like Rep. Turzai was pissing some people off as well; maybe the Governor's involvement will help.

In the meantime...we should help too. Take a look at my earlier suggestions for a clean bill, and discuss them with your representatives and senators. We don't want a repeat of the Washington bill, we want one that will give us normalcy.

Or if you want to make it really simple...check out this 1987 proposal for privatization that would cut through the whole Gordian shebang.  How about it:

The plan shall provide for the transfer of all the property, inventory records and employes of the State Store system and the liquor wholesale distribution system to the Department of General Services on or before June 30, 1987, for appropriate disposition as provided by §  7.343 (relating to divestment of State Stores and initial private licensing). 

That's right, check out 7.343, because it's a doozy, a brutally simple way to get the damned job done.

(3)  Termination of State Store operations. The Department of General Services shall develop a plan for the disposition of the State Store system which provides for the continued operation of each State-owned liquor store for up to 90 days following the auction of the right to purchase the property of the store. The Department shall further provide for the continued operation of liquor wholesale distribution for a maximum period of twelve months to the extent necessary to provide an adequate supply of consumer products and services during the phase-in of operations of private retail outlets and wholesale distributors. Each State-owned liquor store may remain in operation for not more than 45 days, but not later than June 30, 1988, following the opening of the substitute privately licensed wine and liquor store in order to assure adequate continuity of services to the public. 

Hear that sound? That's a clean break with the State Stores. Tell your representatives to have a look at this...because they LOVE pre-written laws that they don't have to work on.

Crunch Time -- A Bill is in Debate

I don't have time to explain why I've been silent here for over six months -- a lot of it was work, and some of it was that I did a lot of talking on Facebook, which I now realize was wasted -- but that's not important right now. What is important is that HB 11, a privatization bill, is being debated in the Pennsylvania House today. Debate began last night, and continues this morning. That's exciting, but...the bill needs a LOT of work.

I've got some suggestions. Oddly enough, I got into an email discussion with Jon Geeting, who's involved with the Keystone Politics blog, "Pennsylvania's source for liberal political news and commentary." Jon's an example of why this is not your typical privatization battle, which usually lines up as liberal vs. conservative, free marketer vs. union supporter. Jon recognizes that the system we have is not as it should be, and while we don't see eye-to-eye on the taxes -- though we're not 180 degrees opposed -- we agree on a lot about the state's dysfunctional liquor code.

As I said, we got into a discussion recently, and came to six points that we agreed on, and think should be in any Pennsylvania booze privatization bill. Note that there is nothing in here about the actual end of the State Stores -- except that point 1 covers that effectively; they won't survive the competition -- or the union, because that's up to the legislators. Jon posted them yesterday at Keystone Politics, and I realized that it was time to blow off the cobwebs here and get back in the game. Here are the six points. They're somewhat controversial...in Pennsylvania. In other states, they're ho-hum standard.

1. Let supermarkets sell beer, wine and liquor, effective immediately. -- In Portugal, they sell bottles of whiskey in coffee shops; you can buy beer in supermarkets in most of the states that border PA, you can buy champagne at convenience stores in Virginia...and yet, no one's rioting in the streets. What's the big deal?

2. Charge a flat fee to any business that wants to sell booze – no cap on licenses. -- Pennsylvania's licensing system is broken, it makes no sense for the state, and the artificial limits on licenses penalize areas that are experiencing growth. Liquor licenses sell for upward of $300,000 in some counties...and the State sees only a puny annual fee from that. Get smarter: charge what a license is worth, and charge it every year.

3. Tax volume, not value. -- Pennsylvania's hated Johnstown Flood Emergency Tax is not going away; the State gets revenue from that tax, and booze taxes are an unfortunate reality. But most other states have a gallonage tax, that is placed equally on wine and spirits by the "proof gallon," a measure of volume of alcohol, rather than the way Pennsylvania does it, which is by a percentage of the price. What Pennsylvania's tax does -- unintended consequences -- is make blotto booze (cheap wine, cheap vodka) even cheaper, while making better booze even more expensive. If we're taxing alcohol for some health or moral reason, the gallonage tax is more honest; if it's just about raising revenue...well, why not put an excise tax on everything and share the pain?

4. Allow Pennsylvanians to buy wine, spirits, or beer in other states, or through the mail/Internet from anywhere, without penalty. -- End the police-enforced monopoly. This is pretty simple. The only reason this unAmerican, anti-federal "stop you at the borders" law is even allowed is because of an overactive interpretation of the 21st Amendment. After all, I'm allowed to buy gas, food, books, clothing, whatever I want in New Jersey or Ohio; why not booze? We're American adults; we deserve to be treated that way.

5. Allow any authorized retailer to sell beer in any volume they desire, without fake restrictions. -- End the case law. Now. End all artificial restrictions on how little beer someone can buy in a single purchase, as well as how much. The case law and its tavern corollary, the "two sixpack" law, make no sense. They are there as a favor to business, not for any kind of health reason, and certainly not for the Pennsylvania consumer. Or the Pennsylvania voter. The Legislature has fiddled around for years over this simple change. Shut up and do it.

6. Open up the wholesale market to more competition. -- More wholesalers means more competition, which means better prices and service. Charging $100 million for a wholesaler license is not a way to get more wholesalers. End state-required exclusivity contracts for products; if a wholesaler and producer/importer want to enter into an exclusivity contract, that's up to them and their lawyers, but the State has no interest in mandating it. Another law that was written by the industry...and it's about time we got laws written for the consumers.

These six points will make me no friends in the industry. They completely upset the apple cart, and may ruin long-established family businesses. But they will create new businesses, and the solid family businesses will thrive and succeed...as long as big businesses, chain retailers, aren't allowed to write this privatization bill.

We get one shot at this. Get in touch with your Representative now, today! Tell them you want a better privatization bill. You want a fair privatization bill. You want them to work for you.

Retail Booze Privatization: why HB11 doesn't cut it

HB 11, a bill proposed by House Majority Leader Mike Turzai back in July, is still the standard bearer for privatization. Privatization currently has the support of Republican Governor Tom Corbett, who has majorities in both houses of the legislature (although the Senate Republicans are stalling, possibly trying to squeeze out a deal on a Marcellus Shale "tax"). To make things more likely, the PLCB has obligingly stumbled badly in the past two years with: 

• two contracts of questionable ethics and effectiveness – one for the wine kiosks, the other for 'courtesy' training
• the embarrassing public failure of the wine kiosks (and a clumsy attempt to cover up a strongly negative internal review of the idea)
• a disastrous install of a $66 million inventory system that led to a gross overbuy of inventory (which then had to be stored in trailers in summer heat) and a shutdown of licensee deliveries pickups (the PLCB doesn't deliver...what was I thinking?!) for a week
• a still-simmering corruption debacle at the Philadelphia warehouse in which over 20 employees were suspended (and another cover-up)
• a complete fiasco over beer registration raids on three Philadelphia bars that led to very uncomplimentary hearings on the subject
• a frustrating inability to promptly close nuisance bars
• and a baffling failure to turn significant 'profits' with a police-enforced monopoly on sales of wine and spirits

This is the time to strike on privatization, and as you know, I've been all for it. I've called for it, argued for it, howled for it. 

But unless substantial changes are made in HB11, I cannot support it. 

It is not a question of the perfect being the enemy of the good; this bill has fundamental flaws that are simply not in favor of the citizens of Pennsylvania. I believe that they will result in the replacement of an unresponsive public monopoly with a poor selection of goods…with an unresponsive private oligopoly with a poor selection of goods, and I cannot support that. We have one chance to get this right, because changing the laws again will be even tougher. Let's have a look.

First, and most important to me, HB 11 does nothing about the intolerable police-enforced monopoly. If it passes as is, Pennsylvanians are still forbidden by law to bring home a bottle of wine from New Jersey (or Maryland, or Delaware, or New York...). I've been assured directly by Representative Turzai that the police will no longer enforce this, but that's not good enough. You're a legislator; don't tell me the police won't enforce a despicably un-American law; change the law. When so much of the state's population lives in the tight pocket of the southeast, just across the bridges from huge liquor stores, to do anything else is simply ridiculous. Kill the monopoly, encourage competition. The only reason this is even faintly legal and constitutional is because of the overboard interpretation of rights granted to the states through the 21^st Amendment by federal courts; there is no such monopoly on any other goods. The police-enforced monopoly is insulting and intolerable. I cannot and will not support HB11 or any other privatization proposal that does not end it, and neither should you.

Second, the proposed wholesaler fees for exclusivity of brands pretty much guarantee a smaller selection of wine and spirits. Nathan Lutchansky (of the PLCB Users Group blog) has explained this in greater detail than I'd care to replicate; read it there. You'll soon realize that this is a non-starter. Why is this here? Well...maybe this is the reason (and Turzai's general counsel Jim Mann is extremely protective of the bill as written, BTW). Clean bill, please: do-over time.

Taxes are another issue: they're too high. Turzai has replaced the insulting “Johnstown Flood Emergency Tax” with a more rational gallonage tax, but it attempts to replicate the revenues from the onerous Johnstown tax – plus state sales tax, plus the PLCB's “profit” that goes to the state (not really "profit," but a somewhat arbitrary number set each year by the legislature; didja know that?) – by boosting it to crazy high levels...more than twice the taxes in neighboring states. Again, Lutchansky hasthe numbers on this; have a look (see his "Issue #2"). The taxes on wine and liquor simply do not have to be that high. They're unfair at those levels; why should I be paying so much more to fund state programs that benefit everyone just because I drink -- moderately!? Now's the time to make these taxes more equitable, instead of some of the highest in the nation (which is weird, because we have one of the lowest beer taxes...). Replace the revenue with a shale gas tax if you have to.

A huge problem: what about beer?  Why hesitate when we can fix some of the most egregious problems with a couple quick penstrokes (see below) Get rid of the insane case law, now! While we're at it, do away with ALL limitations on sales by licensees: “distributors” can sell anything from a single bottle to a keg, and so can taverns (and delis, and supermarkets with deli licenses), and fix the tax laws so that all retail outlets are on the same footing (right now, bars pay more taxes than distributors...say what?). Then, allow beer distributors to add wine and liquor to their licensed sales; allow the new wine/liquor licensees to sell beer. The artificial separation of sales is all about protecting business status quo; rewrite these laws for the benefit of Pennsylvanians, citizens, and voters for a change! Hell, if Joe "CEO" Conti can say “I'm for the people of Pennsylvania,” so can I!

1,250 licenses is simply not enough. If the number were doubled, to 2,500, we would still be under the national average per capita, and this would help address the issue of oligopoly (see below). It will also help address the red herring issue of rural retail access.

I don’t know enough about how the PLCB sells to licensees to complain about it, so I’ll tell you what a friend of mine, a licensee, said:

“My concerns are from a licensee’s point of view. I don't want to be forced to buy from one wholesaler that has a limited selection, makes it difficult to place special orders, and charges retail and sales tax on ‘wholesale purchases.’”

To tell the truth: I don’t even know what HB11 does to address these concerns. I do know that almost every licensee I've talked to who tries to keep a premium wine or spirits inventory finds the PLCB frustrating, and that almost every one is afraid to criticize them. I’d like to hear more about what HB11 has for licensees...I suspect it's not much.

The licensing scheme in HB11 is just that: a scheme. It’s easiest to quote from a licensee who emailed me about this:

“The huge issue I see with the bill is the emphasis on large (over 15,000sf) stores. Was this bill paid for by big retailers like Total Wines? Who the hell is the state to mandate the square footage of a private business? Many of the state stores are much smaller than this. As per the bill, over half of the roughly 1200 stores will need to be over 15,000sf! These large stores often have lots of bottles, but by necessity need to focus on industrial products, not small producers. How is this going to increase selection? We don't need bigger Absolut displays. We need many smaller stores run by entrepreneurs who find and offer cool products. This bill would be the equivalent of mandating that over 50% of all restaurants be more than, say, 5000sf in size. Can you imagine what Philly would be like? A lot more Ruby Tuesdays, a lot less anything good. This aspect of the bill nearly makes it pointless to have privatization!”

I agree. The “protections” against private monopolies could be made much more effective by simply dropping the maximum licenses owned by any one company/person to ten instead of forty. Problem solved. If that loses support from big chains, well, first, too damned bad; and second, it will gain support from the people who are concerned about big chains grabbing all the licenses, and throttling selection. Who are we more concerned about? What’s good for business -- ho ho ho, don't you worry, little voter! -- is good for citizens? Sorry, that’s how we wound up with 75 years of the case law!

Finally, let the results of Granholm flow, and again: favor Pennsylvania’s citizens, not business interests who’d rather see no direct shipping of wine (or spirits or beer) because it might cut into their sales (studies show it doesn’t). Make the taxes realistic, and let direct shipping happen.

Those are the issues I have with HB11. I’d like to see them addressed, or explained, before I solidly support this bill. I've been told that some such changes are under way, but HB11 shows no changes online. Until such time as a majority of these issues are addressed and the police-enforced monopoly is done away with, I do not support this bill, and I urge you to consider these points before you support it. We have paid -- Lord God, we've paid -- for the misguided morality of our Repeal-era legislators and Governor Gifford Pinchot. We've earned a better road to privatization; one that takes our concerns into account first.

Where are we going to get that? I hope that Governor Corbett is doing what I'm starting to think of as his Swan Routine: serene and quiet on the surface, paddling like hell out of sight under the water. From the way he's talked about HB11 after the PFM Report came out (more on that soon) -- "a place to start" -- I don't think he likes it any more than I do. So here's hoping he puts leverage on Representative Turzai (and Jim Mann), or better, puts out his own version of a privatization bill that actually writes privatization for citizens.

Some wholesaler stuff

I've been hearing a lot of -- well, a lot of crap from anti-privatization interests (which pretty much means PLCB bureaucrats, UFCW members, Democrat legislators, a couple social conservative Republican legislators, and...no, actually, that's about it) about how the wholesaling's going to be terrible under privatization (and if HB11 stays the way it is, it may well be, but that can -- and better! -- change before it's voted on), and how big stores are going to crush mom and pops and leave us with no choice (like we have a lot now). 

This ignores, of course, what actually happens in states where private liquor sales are the norm -- like New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts -- and all kinds of stores thrive and the selection's just fine; real good, in fact, at many stores. Not all, but you don't have a great selection of groceries at every store that sells groceries, right? There's selection, there's specialization, there's price, and there's convenience to be considered.

Anyway, I was thinking about this when I saw this interview with Michael Binstein in Shanken News Daily [full disclosure: my major client, Malt Advocate, is owned by M.Shanken Communications...for what that's worth], the owner of the big Binny's chain of booze stores in Illinois. They have 25 stores, and the selection is tremendous; love going there when I'm in Chicagoland. 

I saw some pertinent stuff that I wanted to share.  Please notice: Binstein is bullish about expanding, not keeping a cap on his number of stores. He sees competition, and meets it (without the help of the state police). And he sees opportunity for wholesalers who want to work hard, and for small retailers. This is a smart guy, who knows the market, and is successful in it. Probably ought to give what he's saying some consideration.

This is not the whole interview.

SND: In the last four years, you’ve expanded from 19 stores to 25 stores, mostly through acquisition during a very difficult economy. Has your investment paid off? Binstein: The honest answer is that the investment is paying off. Time is the ultimate test, and one needs a certain amount of humility. But there’s not a single acquisition, store opening or expansion of our model that I would take back.
SND: How big a player are you in the greater Chicago market? Binstein: I’m told we’re the largest independent in the Midwest, and certainly the largest independent in Illinois.
SND: Who do you consider to be your biggest competitor in your market? Binstein: This is going to sound like a cliché, but I think anyone and everyone who holds a liquor license is competition, and there are tens of thousands of people who do. Convenience should not be underestimated. We may have the selection, we may have the best price, but with gasoline nearing $5 a gallon, people have to make tough decisions. Every player at every trade channel has a contribution to make. So there’s not a competitor that I minimize.
SND: Do you have any plans to expand to other states? Binstein: We’re keeping an open mind. We certainly have looked, and there are opportunities. But there are so many places within our market, so many communities and areas where we still think we could open a store. I think we’d like to finish Illinois before moving on.
SND: How are your relations currently with major suppliers?
Binstein: They can get very ideological—if not theological—about pricing. I think a bottle of wine, or liquor or beer, is like all commodities. It’s no different from selling soybeans, corn or wheat. It has a price, and it’s based on supply and demand, and it ebbs and flows in every market. Just as the corn, soybean or wheat broker or farmer can’t get too ideological or theological about what a bushel should cost, the same goes for our business. One of the oxymorons in our business is something called price integrity, when suppliers believe something should cost $20 or $30 and they don’t really care what the customer thinks it should cost. I think that’s a very myopic, unprogressive way of looking at business. This is not a very popular thing to say.
SND: How about wholesalers?
Binstein: There are bad retailers and there are bad wholesalers. There are lazy retailers and there are lazy wholesalers. I’ll leave it at that, but I will say that I think wholesalers have an opportunity, a very unique opportunity, to make themselves even more indispensable in this era of consolidation, because suppliers are looking for foster parents. Suppliers are no longer the primary caretakers of a brand. They may actually possess the birth certificate for the brand, but they need other people to nurture, raise and educate the brand. The suppliers have gotten away from brand-building, and now it falls more and more to the wholesaler and retailer to build those brands and fill that void.
SND: Are there still opportunities for small entrepreneurs in beverage alcohol retailing? Can a small, single-unit store survive and thrive in today’s climate?
Binstein: Absolutely. There’s never an opportunity to overcharge and under-deliver. As long as we’re not using code language to ask the question, “Is it still okay to work at outrageous margins and not give people the selection they deserve?” There should have never been that opportunity, and there isn’t that opportunity now. There’s room for the Davids and the Goliaths. And they both need each other.

Is the PLCB on the ropes?

The efforts for privatization have gotten two major boosts recently (and yes, I am keeping track; it's just been really busy in my job, the money-making part of my booze-centered life -- my apologies for not keeping up here). One was related to the misbegotten wine kiosks (which I did predict would be a "public relations disaster for the PLCB", though that didn't take much brainpower), and I'll talk about that in a separate post; the other was a far-flying boomerang that came back and caught the PLCB in the back of the head.

Jonathan Newman, in favor of privatization

The boomerang, first: former PLCB Chairman Jonathan Newman, the Chairman for whom the original "Chairman's Selection" was named (because it was his program, and he picked the wines...ask PJ Stapleton how many of the "Chairman's Selections" he's selected), who brought the PLCB further into the 20th century (yes, while working in the 21st century, I know) than any other person, who was
Wine Enthusiast's 2003 Man of the Year because of his work at the PLCB, who resigned when Governor Rendell appointed* Joe Conti as "CEO" of the PLCB... Newman came out strongly in favor of privatization this past Tuesday. At a hastily-arranged press conference at The Wine School in Philadelphia, Newman was introduced by PA House Speaker Mike Turzai and stated his support for privatization of the State Stores. (Happily, "hastily-arranged" also meant that the speakers weren't harassed by scripted questions and chants from UFCW members and union president Wendell W. Young IV.)

I was there, and Newman sat me down at a table with Speaker Turzai, and we talked. Chances sound better than I'd been hoping; it looks like the votes are there for privatization in the House, the Senate is going to take more work. You may have heard that Senate Pro Tem Joe Scarnati questioned the need to privatize the State Stores right now. That came up, and while Turzai had nothing to say, others in the room nodded wisely when I brought up the Marcellus Swap Theory: is Scarnati signaling that he will support privatization if other legislators will support a Marcellus Shale tax/fee of some kind? I believe that's what's going on, and I say, that's a deal I'm willing to support.

I'm not nuts about Turzai's bill, and if some changes aren't made, I can't support it; I'm hopeful that it will get better. I did take the opportunity to ask if the bill takes away the Police-Enforced Monopoly. It does not, but Turzai said the Monopoly is not enforced (though he did admit that there are occasional instances when it is...usually having to do with personal issues with a local cop in a border town), and would not be enforced. I don't like that, I'd much rather see it formally done away with. That's one of the things I'll be pushing for. More to come on that, but about Newman...

The UFCW has, of course, already tried to tar Newman with doing this because of possible financial gain. First, Newman is doing this for the same reason we all are: the PLCB State Stores suck, and they've sucked more since Newman left. The PLCB has stepped in crap -- ethically, managerially -- so may times since Conti took over that it's hard not to link him to it. Second, if Newman stands to make some money off this -- he does have a wine wholesaling company -- well, so what? That's what private enterprise is all about! Of course he'll support it. Only the Union thinks making money is a problem. The Union thinks that the State should be collecting all profits, apparently. That is ridiculous, and one more reason we should privatize.

More soon. Things are rolling, and we've got to get loud in support -- and in making this a good bill.

*Rendell says he "hired" Conti, but that implies a regular hiring process applied to this $150,000 a year job, which it didn't -- which is why Newman resigned.