Almighty Liquor Code gets bent for the DNC

It's real and it's happening: the Democratic National Convention got the liquor code exemptions it wanted (and it's in place for any future "national event," which apparently must be a political convention). The details were reported by Angela Couloumbis in this morning's Inquirer. 

What's the upshot? Well, the DNC will pay $5,000 -- once -- to the PLCB, and then proceed to grant the exemptions to whatever premises it wants, licensed or unlicensed. (I'd link to the application, but hey, they just shut it down. Sorry. The DNC is saying they will put out a list of exempted premises by week's end.)

The exemptions include staying open later than 2 AM, and that's the one everyone's fixated on. It's been reported that the licensed areas (existing licensees, bars, plazas, whatever the DNC wants) can stay open till 4, but the law doesn't actually stipulate that; it's up to the Board, who apparently have delegated all that to the DNC, who have said '4 AM, please.' Pretty good spend of $5,000, really, to get licensing authority in Philly for four days.

And then there's this. (Quoting from the Inky story linked above, and as usual, emphasis is added.)

The reprieve also allows businesses to circumvent the costly requirement that all wine and liquor be purchased from the state-run wine and spirits stores, which automatically mark up products they sell and add various taxes.
Event organizers and others said much of the liquor used during conventions and other big events is donated. And during this year's Democratic convention, other states' delegations might want to host a reception featuring their hometown alcohol.

That's the one that hurts. It's a special exemption from having to get booze from the PLCB. They can bring it in without paying taxes, without paying the markup, without paying the bottle or handling fees, and of course, without having to deal with the ham-handed clowns at the PLCB. Because, you know: they want the stuff to actually be there when they need it. 

Why does it hurt? It's not the revenue, though God knows, we could use it, and the DNC's got plenty. It's the unvarnished unfairness of it. We have to put up with this antiquated, creaky, anti-customer monopoly 24/7/365...but when the politicians come to town, well, loosen up the laws for them, because they deserve a little normalcy, and we don't want them to go home and tell their friends how backwards and boneheaded and provincial Pennsylvania is compared to the modern liquor laws in, say, Indiana.

It also hurts because while the PLCB is crying that it's going to take MONTHS to deal with adding the permission for grocery stores with beer licenses to also sell up to four bottles of wine per transaction -- let me take a crack at it, it ain't THAT hard -- this shit got done in a matter of days. DAYS. And bringing in booze that's not coming through the PLCB certainly seems like a bigger deal. Unless it's for your buddies. 

This is the Legislature admitting that our liquor system sucks. And this is the Legislature admitting that they don't have the guts to put an end to it. Instead, they're nibbling around the edges, and hoping like hell that we'll take our miserable 4-bottles-of-wine-in-selected-stores and go away. 

Don't be a dumb animal. Don't put up with what we have. We ARE all equal, and we ALL deserve to be free of the State Store System. PRIVATIZE.

Chuck McIlhinney gives it to us again

Senator Chuck McIlhinney, the current Chairman of the Senate Law and Justice Committee (the Senate committee responsible for liquor laws, among others), again proves that there isn't a law he won't muck up. As far as any "Justice" for the citizens goes, the very idea eludes him.

He has not only sent the "National Event License" bill (HB 1196) out of his committee to the full Senate (which then immediately approved it by a shameful 50-0 vote), he braggingly explained it to reporters like this: "Bring your booze, have it at your party, enjoy yourself responsibly, and then go home." (This ignores the fact that ordinary Pennsylvanians have not been allowed to do that for well over 50 years.) Having proven time after time that he doesn't have the stones to admit that the Pennsylvania liquor monopoly is a joke nationwide, he instead tries to hide the abomination we all have to live and deal with by doing special favors, bending the rules for political reasons. 

I live by these words....you should too.

When you start treating those who govern differently than those they govern, there is a problem. It's called entitlement. And it's not so much that he thinks he and his fellow politicians are entitled but that the almost 13 million citizens of the Commonwealth aren't. That we don't deserve to be freed from the idiocy of the PLCB and their little fiefdom of incompetence, but that those who in some way, some how, can or may give him an imaginary pat on the back or "contribution," shouldn't have their party spoiled by the state monopoly's crap booze selection and non-existent licensee service.

Or in his words "....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" Except that if it isn't in the stores now it has to be ordered by SLO, which means that it is at least half paid for already! The PLCB won't be "stuck" with anything since they have half the money already and still can sell the product.  What kind of idiot in charge of PLCB legislation doesn't know how the PLCB works?


If screwing the public out of private liquor and wine sales with his propaganda show-trial "public hearings"* wasn't bad enough, he now thinks that flaunting his incredibly bad decision-making is something the public wants to see and hear about. Is Chuck a  tool of anti-privatization? A tool of the beer distributors? A secret tool of the Democrats? Or maybe...just a tool.

We need less unfair Law and a lot more Justice from you and your committee, Senator.



*Which strangely enough, didn't have any members of the actual public involved.  No citizens that didn't have interest groups or businesses behind them were invited, and only a token few of those that were in favor of privatization, even though we comprise a majority of the people.