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.

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.

Or Maybe Not: privatization bill coming soon

Okay, maybe I got carried away. Because I wrote to Representative Taylor after my last post, and asked him why he was giving the PLCB what they wanted, their "False Dawn Initiative," the "alternative to privatization." I was despondent. Then I got this response, and I feel all better. Check it out:

"At this time, Representative Turzai has not introduced his privatization bill. I fully expect this bill to be introduced within the next 10 days."

I almost forgot to read the rest of the letter. Here we go, people, here we go. Are you ready to do something? Are you ready to write your reps (and copy Taylor and Turzai and the Governor), are you ready to go to Harrisburg? Are you ready to take part in a civil disobedience demonstration against the unAmerican Pennsylvania booze sale monopoly law that could get you fined or even taken to jail? More to come.

Taylor Privatization Letter June 23

A response from the opposition

As noted earlier, I received some lengthy comments about Rep. Turzai's plan that, although presented as "neither for or against," seem pretty clearly posed to cast a bad light on privatization. No matter: I have always posted comments that are in opposition...but these were just too long, so I asked if it would be all right to copy them into a full post. Permission came (late last week, but hey, it was the weekend, and today was my birthday; I had other things that were more fun to do), so here it is, unedited and -- for now -- without comment, except to point out that Rep. Turzai's bill is only a proposal, and not the only way privatization can happen (so a problem with Turzai's bill is not necessarily a problem with privatization)...and that I apologize that this is so long. It is -- of course! -- "Anonymous." Here we go...

I have dissected HB 2350, Turzai's proposal of privatization. I have a few points I do want to bring to everyone's attention. I am disclosing that I am neither for or against any of these, but wanted to make light of "additional" changes that will be happening. The original bill will be in standard format, the changes will be capitalized unless otherwise indicated.

Point 1:

“Section 211. Enforcement. There is created within the Pennsylvania State Police a Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement. The Enforcement Bureau AND MUNICIPAL POLICE DEPARTMENTS shall be responsible for enforcing this act and any regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. Officers and investigators assigned to the bureau OR A MUNICIPAL POLICE DEPARTMENT shall have the power and their duty shall be... to investigate.”

This includes both already established licensees such as restaurants, and also new Privatized Liquor Stores. Currently the way the situation works is that a municipality police force can respond to a call at the bar, give them civil citations, and are then reviewed by the Liquor Board to determine if the offenses were localized, or if they violated the liquor code. If any violations of the liquor code are found, the BLCE will conduct an investigation to make a citation which is held pending against a license when renewal time comes around. This new passage gives authority to the municipalities to determine if the liquor code has been violated. Currently, the liquor board can only object to the Renewal of a license based upon investigations by BLCE (with respect to murder/drug), with reference to local citations. The process would not change, but the Board may not be able to justify the refusal of a renewal with the chance that the evidence could be tainted or incorrectly collected if training is not done well. This could mean a costly price for training for the municipality officers (which may come from local funding), as well as oversight of these municipalities. The cost and or ramifications of this should be factored into consideration. We saw this in Philadelphia when the Philadelphia police did not register the complaints of a murder by a licensee, and with no adjudicated evidence, the board was legally unable to refuse the renewal. Now these very same officers will be in charge of determining whether or not a citation justifies an abuse of the liquor code.

Point 2: (All new addition)

“Section 305-A: Discontinuance of wholesale operations by the board and initial franchises. (b)(1)(4)(i-iii) No Applicant may hold more than 5% of franchises within the Commonwealth, and no more than 10% of the Franchises in any one county which has ten or more franchises, and no more than 1 franchise in any once county which has fewer than 10 franchises.”

A point to consider with this is that the "Purchasing Power" the state currently has will be gone. The state will be moving from one (albeit controversial) wholesaler to 100 (305-A(b)-Board shall establish 100 Franchises...granting authority to deliver liquor. I have no stats to support whether or not this will affect the pricing, as we may go from 1 bulk purchaser to 100. There is also a limit to the number of wholesalers within a county, in that there would not be one wholesaler who would be able to operate in more than 5 counties (or 5 in one county) (Pennsylvania has 67).

Point 3: (All New addition)

“Section 310-A Physical Limitations a(1) The premises of each wine and spirits store shall... (allow) the sale of liquor and permitted merchandise.”
In many other states, liquor stores also sell cigarettes, memorabilia, and many other items to supplement their earnings. Such items as wine screws and glasses would be permitted, but other items such as cigarettes/t-shirts, etc would not be permitted. Any struggling store would not be permitted to sell anything other than alcohol and alcohol related (necessary) items. Additionally, no more than 30% of sales can come from non-alcoholic beverages.

Point 4

“Section 313-A (All New Addition)(a) Sale of State Store Inventory. An awarded franchise and license shall grant the successful bidder the opportunity to bid upon the remaining inventory.(B) Schedule of closure. The board shall develop a schedule of closure for State stores, Under no circumstances hall any state store remain open for retail sales beyond 18 months.”

This section states that 1 bidder will be awarded the ability to purchase all remaining stock. Some stores will continue to be open for up to 18 months, resulting in a period of competition between the state and private business.

Point 5

“Section 317-A (All New Addition) (d)(2) Wine and Spirits store licensees may sell wine or spirits between 8am and 11pm on any day except Sunday.(e) Age Limitations - An employee of a wine and spirits store licensee shall be 21 years of age or older.”

While most State Stores are not open on Sundays, there are a few that currently do operate (in the past few years some are authorized to be open on Sundays.) This bill will renew the old statute, and no privatized store will be permitted to be open to the public on Sundays once again. The second clause here will limit the privatized store in their hiring process. Currently through the lcb a person must be 18 years of age (similar to a waitress that serves alcohol.) By having a lower age requirement, wages can often be lower since many of the current employees are part time (intermittent) college students. Based on the new law, this "temporary" work force will not be permitted to be employed by the new stores.

Point 6

“Section 342-A (All new addition) (a) Tax on retail sales of wine and liquor. A tax of 6% is imposed on each retail sale of wine and liquor for on-premises and off-premises consumption by a licensee to an unlicensed person.”

“Section 448 (New addition) A tax of 6% is imposed on each retail sale of malt or brewed beverages for on-premises consumption.”

and

“Section 401 (all New Addition) (b)... New tax rates (to be collected by manufacturer and/or importer)
$3.50/G wines<17%
$4/g wines>17%
$4.50g sparking wine
$5/g Liquor >17%
$6.50 17%>Liquor<55%
$7g Liquor>55%”

On the first point here, currently when you go to a wine and spirits store, you pay 6% sales tax, 18% emergency flood tax, and 30% mark up. What you do not pay is 6% sales tax on prepared drinks when you go to a bar or restaurant (at least, you are not supposed to be charged.) I was unable to find in the bill whether or not the 18% tax is being repealed, so if it is, please indicate the section for me. But add up the total costs here. 6% sales tax/18% flood tax + private store mark up. Then add the second tax of 6% for any on-premise sale and citizens may end up paying more (and in restaurant/bar) twice for the same alcohol. Furthermore, according to section 448, malt beverages for on-premise consumption would also be subjected to a 6% sales tax.

Previously to the best of my knowledge, licensees (restaurants) would pay the sales tax on the liquor from the state store or distributor, but were not permitted to charge sales tax on the poured drink. So in essence, if the 18% flood tax is not lifted, then by privatization (according to this bill) we as consumer's will be paying an ADDITIONAL 6% tax on alcohol (if you drink both in restaurants and at home.)

As for section 401 with the manufacturer tax. I was unable to find the current rates, however as this is new language in the bill and I could not find prior language, I am assuming here that this is also an increase.Based off this, the only savings that Pennsylvania citizens would see would be if the Retailer was willing to have a profit margin smaller than 30% (or in the case of licensee restaurants, 24%, and with diminished buying power (again, this is arguable and I am not taking sides), we may actually see a rise in prices instead of a decrease.

Again, please correct me with the passage if this is incorrect.

Point 7

“Section 491 (added information) (e) 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) WINE AND SPIRITS STORE selected by the resident.”

While this does not address direct shipping inter-commonwealth, it does lay to rest the argument of "why can't I get wine shipped to my house." Even under privatization, you will still need to pick up your alcohol at a liquor store, sign for it, and pay all applicable taxes. There will not be direct shipping. Again, I was unable to find the language that deals with inter-commonwealth, and I am unsure if this is meant to cover both instate and out of state transactions.

Point 8: (all new addition)
“Section 495 (c.1) In addition to the requirements of subsection (b) and (c), a wine and spirits store licensee, or the servant, agent, or employee of the wine and spirits store licensee, shall use swipe identification card technology to verify the age of any person who appears to be under 30 years of age.”

Currently, I believe most if not all state stores use this practice. This will not change under privatization. This can be seen as both a prevention of under age sales, or as a hurdle to stores that may feel looking at an ID is good enough. I would imagine that BLCE and now municipalities will be monitoring these systems and signatures more closely.
This will also mean that by law these stores will be required to card everyone who appears to be under 30, and scan their ID, even if they are a daily patron.

I just wanted to bring these few things up to those that read your blog, and to yourself. While you may still hold the premise that privatization is good for the act of privatization itself, it may not pan out the way most people expect. Any savings to the consumer may be a wash with the added sales taxes and manufacturing taxes, inability to hire "temporary" workforce college kids, and Sunday sales (where currently available) will be a thing of the past.

Again, if you find anything incorrect with my reporting please let me know. I will not take offense to corrections if you can find the information.

And that's that. As I said: unedited, and again, this refers to Rep. Turzai's proposal for privatization, which has not yet been through the sausage-grinder. Feel free to comment, or not.