What Might Privatization Look Like?

The future is as clear as vodka...

Two years later...I haven't given up, but I'll admit that the pandemic re-ordered my priorities. I've got [THE RAGING FEAR] my concerns under control now, and I'm starting to think about other stuff again. Like privatization. 

There's talk of using a state constitutional amendment to get rid of The Police-Enforced Monopoly that is the State Store System. This tells me two things. One, Republican legislators are tired of Democratic bullshit about this issue, and they're going nuclear. And two, that Republican legislators have stopped thinking clearly. 

Demolition of the PLCB, amendment-style!

It's my strong opinion that this would be the bluntest of instruments to achieve the goal of privatization of booze sales in the state. An amendment would not have the detail necessary to do this well, and would leave open all kinds of maneuvering room for backroom deals of the type I'm pretty sure we all know would happen. 

What kinds of deals? How about minimum square footage requirements, like they included in Washington State's privatization deal? The "reason" is that they're 'saving' us from 'a liquor store on every corner,' but it's really a deal for big-money donors like chain grocery and liquor stores to get a new oligopoly on retail liquor stores, trading a shitty monopoly for a still-limited oligopoly. We don't want that, believe me. 

Or they'll boost taxes to "make up for the shortfall" from the loss of the PLCB "profits." Once again, like Washington State's privatization deal, this is wrongheaded, and will lose us the greatest benefit of privatization: competition. It will put PA liquor stores (and bars, and restaurants) firmly behind neighboring states' stores on price, leading to even more border bleed. 

Because you know that the hated Police-Enforced Monopoly will not go away. We'll still be forced to buy booze in PA. Bullshit on that. Bullshit!

Okay, calm down, Lew. The constitutional amendment idea is not a good one, despite the Democrats forcing consideration of such extreme measures by their bullheaded intransigence on this issue. We need to come up with some way to make this an attractively bipartisan issue. 

Some of the problem is that the lazy legislature acquiesced when the PLCB put the supermarket safety valve in place, and didn't do the right thing: create a separate grocery/deli/c-store/gas station license for retail off-premise sales. That led to supermarket and c-store chains buying R-licenses at insanely inflated prices (over $500,000 in some instances), and now — shocker! — those businesses are dead-set against any move toward such a license. Great. 

But that's a whole other post, and I will get to that, and soon. I'm back on this. 

Time to take over the world, Pinky!

Meanwhile...What do I want to see in privatization? All open to tweaking, but...

First, and non-negotiable: the PLCB ceases to exist except as a regulatory agency...if needed. No state stores, no state wholesale. They've proven that they cannot run this fairly or honestly. They're done. As a regulatory agency, their operations must be made more transparent, and their power to "interpret" state laws and regulations to the point of nullification must end. 

Second, very important: learn from Washington State's mistakes. And they made plenty of them. A study panel should look at what Washington did, and what Alberta did, and come up with recommendations to make sure that we do better. Ask consumers in those places, too. 

Those two are huge, big picture things. Here are more direct things. 

1. Allow ALL R and Hotel licensees -- bars, restaurants, hotels -- to sell any type of alcohol beverage to any legal customer for on-premise consumption. With the purchase of an additional Off-license permit (for a reasonable annual fee to the state), they would be allowed to sell full bottles/cans to go. No more limits, no more "step outside and you can buy another" bullshit. Licenses increased to one per 500 adults in a county. Licenses become non-transferable five years after passage, which should end the ridiculous secondary market in paper.

2. Beer Distributors become all-alcohol stores with off-premise sales. Beer distributors MAY dispense draft beer in sealed (have to work on that definition) to-go containers. Number of licenses is increased to one per 500 adults in a county. License is non-transferable, starting five years after passage.

3. Create a new license for grocery stores, convenience stores, drugstores, and gas stations. Takeout ONLY, no on-premise consumption. Number of licenses are not limited, pay a reasonable annual fee to the state (with allowance for review after five or ten years), and are not transferable. License holders MAY also buy or retain a separate R-license for on-premise consumption if they want. 

4. Open up wholesale. Beer wholesalers may add all other alcohol. New wholesalers allowed, reasonable annual permit, non-transferable. 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. This may need tinkering; for instance, are multi-state wholesalers allowed to operate in the state? We may want to say no to that, or we may not. 

5. Pennsylvania citizens AND licensees may buy and sell from out of state. Period. This has gone on for way too long. If the state can't tax and regulate booze in a manner consistent with neighboring states, that's too damned bad. Look at it as incentive to do better. 

6. Sales tax to be applied at wholesale (or producer) level. Convert the Johnstown Flood Tax from a tax on price to a flat gallonage tax, like the rest of the country, and peg it to current national average. If that means less revenue, screw 'em. 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?

7. Rip out the old Liquor Code and start over. Aim for simple, understandable laws that ruin as few businesses as possible, but changes them where they are unfair, or not in the public interest. For instance, booze wholesale should emulate food wholesale: competition allowed, exclusivity as something that suppliers would pay for. The Code is currently open to way too much interpretation and confusion, and that has to end. 

8. Perhaps the most important is this: when this is done, when it's being written and decided upon, it must be 100% transparent. There must be citizen and industry representation on whatever task force does this rewriting of the Liquor Code, and regular reports must be presented; weekly, if necessary. There's too much money at stake to do otherwise, and we've already seen that it causes corruption. Obviously, I volunteer. Seriously, there should be representatives from all sides: wholesale and retail booze business (but only one each), consumers (one or two), anti-alcohol types (gotta be fair), the UFCW (no, really, it's only fair), and politicians. Maybe more stakeholders, that's just a first cut, but there must be representation and openness. 

These 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. And of course...nothing's set in stone, and politics is the art of the possible. 

It's about time, it's long past time, that the consumers, the voters, had a large say in how this gets done. 

Privatization. Yesterday, today, forever.

Time for a Change.org

With the State Stores closed, and the PLCB's website essentially non-functional -- 

With restaurants and bars across the state reduced to take-out business --

With the PLCB refusing to service any but the largest accounts (while the Wolf Administration tells Pennsylvania that we should look to the private market to meet the demand caused by the closed State Stores...while denying that market the right to sell spirits)

With thousands of businesses on the brink of failure, tens of thousands of people unemployed -- 

Someone has to do something. 

Why not you? Sign this Change.org petition, asking Governor Wolf and the Legislature (or the PLCB, why not?) to immediately allow the sale of wine and spirits to-go (or local delivery) by all licensees, including beer distributors, through the end of 2020. Give them a chance to make the money that will allow them to stay open, employing some people, and giving others hope for re-employment when the crisis ends.

Buddy, can you spare a signature? 

Before you say, 'Oh, those Change.org petitions don't change anything,' last week a petition just like this one succeeded in getting the government of Ontario to allow restaurants to sell wine and beer to go. We can do that here, just as quickly, just as easily.

Until then, Pennsylvanians will continue to cross the borders, spreading the disease. Those taxes will be lost to the state, where they could help pay unemployment benefits, while the PLCB flounders, trying to serve the whole state from three warehouses with a patched-up website (while the wholesalers who service the PLCB's operations have their offers to help rejected), literally filling only hundreds of orders out of hundreds of thousands of attempts to place an order. 

Is this a total solution? No.
Will this save every restaurant, every bar? No.
Will it adequately compensate every beer distributor for the damage to their business? No.

Is it better than what the State's doing now?  Hell yeah. 

Over 11,000 people have signed as of April 14. This is not a fringe position. 

Please. Sign the petition and share it. Thank you.

Allow Pennsylvania licensees to sell spirits for take-out & delivery thru 12/31/20

Why Is The PLCB Lowering Spirits Instead of Selling Them?

Philadelphia

The PLCB shut down the State Store System of Stores because of the COVID-19 pandemic. They are the ONLY control state to do so (other than Utah, temporarily, because of an earthquake that happened concurrently). Liquor stores remain open in other states (because a lot of them sell booze in grocery stores, you know, like normal people do); beer distributors were literally classified as "life essential" by Governor Wolf in yesterday's shut-down-the-state order; and of course, as we pointed out recently, we were told by the state that we didn't need the State Store System of Stores because "Individuals can still buy wine and beer at grocery stores with PLCB licenses."

Wilkes-Barre

We have encouraged the State to leave the stores closed. The Distilled Spirits Council of the US and American Distilled Spirits Association has pointed out that the current instruction leaves the citizens unable to buy spirits (a completely legal product in Pennsylvania and the United States), and suggested the state at least temporarily allow the sale of spirits at the grocery stores and beer distributors that remain open...somewhat heroically, and I'm not kidding about that.

Allentown (the sawdust is a nice touch)

I've been talking to wine and spirits wholesalers who work with the PLCB to supply their warehouses. They're ready, willing, and able to supply spirits to the grocery stores, convenience stores, and beer distributors that are already open and selling. What's more, they're also ready to supply the restaurants and bars who are eager to do take-out beer and wine and spirits sales, just to keep their people employed, to literally keep their businesses from failing. Not closing temporarily: failing. The wholesalers know that they can find drivers to do the work. The PLCB has said they could do this (click the link, and scroll down to the 7th paragraph), but have never shown a bit of initiative toward action on it.

Williamsport

Has there been any indication that the PLCB is even considering any of this? At least the legislature has decided to come back to work remotely and get something done, but you have to believe this isn't going to be high on their list -- and I'm not suggesting it should be. But as we saw when the Board decided that it could simply "interpret" the hated Case Law right out of existence by declaring a six-pack to equal a case, the courts give the PLCB very broad latitude indeed on "interpretation" of The Almighty Liquor Code (had we mentioned that the PLCB has its own courts?). They could easily rule on all of this stuff, and let the Legislature catch up.

Also Philly

No. The Board, the Governor, the Department of Community and Economic Development have done nothing about this, none of the really easy steps that would take some of the stress off businesses, and extend some fairness to the folks in the spirits production chain (who also need gainful employment), and let those of us who might want a whiskey sour or Bloody Mary (or quarantini, which is apparently a thing) buy a bottle or two.

What are they doing?

Harrisburg

They're boarding up State Stores as a precaution against looting. 

In a state where the last large scale riots were over fifty years ago, the PLCB decided to raise public morale with this amazing display of optimistic trust. Because nothing says "it may be rough, but we're going to get through this together" like boarding up your store...in Williamsport. 

This lack of leadership, lack of understanding, lack of common good sense is just another example of what an awful mistake having this all-too-independent state agency in charge of retail stores has been. The Legislature should, in the spare ten minutes it would take, use this opportunity to say, 'Okay, that's enough. You had your chance, more than enough chances, and that's it. Game over, PLCB. You're done.'

Even better? It really would only take ten minutes. The Legislature actually drew up plans back in 1987 to end the State Store System of Stores and those plans, never enacted, are still available online in the Pennsylvania Code...ready to roll.

Here's the plan; your predecessors already did the work for you. Literally all you should have to do is change the dates and vote.

Because all the PLCB is going to do in this crisis is protect themselves. Apparently they think Pennsylvania is France. We deserve a lot better than this.

Paris

Why Not Leave Them Closed?

We have a tremendous opportunity before us. We must not waver. We must not hesitate.

The State Stores could easily be closed by June.

Let me explain. 

I have a tremendous idea!!

By now, you all must know that Governor Wolf has declared that the State Store System of Stores is CLOSED, nominally because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Shut down as of 9 PM on St. Patrick's Day, of all inane coincidences. What's more, the PLCB's FWGS website is no longer delivering booze to your door (you know, because they never really wanted to anyway), AND the licensee "service centers" are also closed (all the bars are closed anyway, except for takeout food and beer, two things with which the PLCB is entirely uninterested).

Wow. And as I was writing this earlier, Wolf issued a proclamation (link will download a PDF of the letter) shutting down ALL licensee operations that involve selling food or drink (of any kind) for consumption on premises. Take-out/to-go is still allowed, but one wonders for how long (see below). The only exception is for hotel room service.

Note: licensee operations only. Restaurants, lunch counters, etc. that are NOT licensed are still asked to voluntarily limit operation to take-out only. Wolf is doing this under the authority of The Almighty Liquor Code: "The PLCB, upon authorization from the Governor, has the authority under the Liquor Code (47 P.S. §4-462) to mandate the closure of licensed establishments in times of emergency."

Here's what you see when you go to Ye Olde Fine Wine Et Goode Spyrites site of Web:

Reaction has been mixed. There was an insane rush to the stores, people standing in line for half an hour, as if they were Fine Bottled Water and Good Toilet Paper Shops. People say, oh, you don't need booze (idiots). Or they say, booze is as necessary as groceries and medicine, which, if you really think that, then why didn't you tell your state rep that years ago and get it out of the state's incompetent control? Eh, another missed opportunity.

Back to today. Why did the governor close the State Stores, and not close beer distributors, not close the sales rooms of wineries, distilleries, or breweries (yes, and meaderies and cideries and kvasserei)? Simply because he could, most likely, and possibly because of union pressure. Naturally enough, why is not a question that's been asked of Wolf directly. It's much more important that we do 'flatten the curve' and get this damned virus under control. Believe me, that's absolutely true. Retail operations, particularly small ones, are going to take a whupping here, and that's going to be disastrous for the economy.

But that's not what we're here to talk about. It's about the opportunity to finally put an end to the ridiculous State Store System of Stores. 

Rahm Emanuel's famous quote was about the 2008 recession. He followed the famous part with this:

"This is an opportunity, what used to be long-term problems, be they in the health care area, energy area, education area, fiscal area, tax area, regulatory reform area, things that we have postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with."

Are the State Stores an immediate problem? Are they one that "must be dealt with"? Of course not. I'm not a fool. No one's livelihood or survival is threatened by the continued existence of this Relic of Repeal, this Fossil of Prohibition.

But it is definitely falls under "thing that we have postponed for too long," making this is a unique opportunity to deal with it. The State Stores will be closed for at least two weeks, probably more. And the Governor, a Democratic governor, has openly admitted that the State Stores are not necessary to serve the needs of the citizens of the state. 

He did? When did he say that? In the letter to Pennsylvania businesses (dated March 14) from Wolf's Secretaries of Health, and Community and Economic Development, there is a list of descriptions of "non-essential businesses" that are asked to close. At the end of that list, there are these bullet points:

NOTE: Liquor stores will begin an orderly closure. Individuals can still buy wine and beer at grocery stores with PLCB licenses
NOTE: Restaurants should stay open for carry-out and delivery only

You see? The State Stores can close because people can still buy wine at grocery stores and restaurants. Of course they can, and they do, in huge, growing amounts.

If the State would allow grocery stores (and beer distributors, and restaurants, and deli licenses, and private clubs) to sell spirits by the bottle -- and really, why not? It's all the same alcohol! -- we could just leave the State Stores closed. Never open them again.

It's not that hard. Have an auction, sell off the inventory, and have time for new businesses to get licenses and open with former State Store employees at the register (or at the helm, why not?).

At the very least, the Legislature should immediately adjust The Almighty Liquor Code to allow licensees -- grocery stores, bars, and beer distributors to add off-premise, take-out spirits sales. End this ridiculous prejudice against spirits. Let mom pick up a bottle of Bailey's at the Giant Eagle.

And do away with the stupid cafe requirements (because...we're only doing take-out now, and the world hasn't ended), and the childish "buy four bottles and step outside the door" limit. What ridiculous bullshit is that, anyway?

We could do this. It's just waiting to happen.

"...it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Clearly Governor Wolf is ready.

PRIVATIZE. And if we can't do that, take the spirits monopoly away from the State Stores. The grocery stores have earned it, beer distributors have earned it by staying open during the crisis...something the State Stores weren't prepared to do. 

The PLCB. A failure of an idea and the beginning of a fiefdom.

Sometime in December of 1933, then Pennsylvania Governor Gifford Pinchot sat down to write an editorial piece for the Rotarian magazine [you can read it, starting in page 12*]. He laid out his reasons for "The Pennsylvania Plan," his reasons why he felt that the government had to restrict alcohol for the citizens, because they couldn't control themselves. Let's look at the points he made in The Pennsylvania Plan, and see if Pennsylvania needed them then...and if we have any need of them now.

Pinchot said that Pennsylvania's liquor control legislation is dependent on five cardinal points.

1. The saloon must not be allowed to come back.
2. Liquor must be kept entirely out of Politics.
3. Judges must not be forced into Liquor politics.
4. Liquor must not be sold without restraint.
5. Bootlegging must be made unprofitable.

Ardent environmentalist; ardent prohibitionist

After a quick look, you might conclude that all of his points have failed except #4. (We do our own bootlegging these days, thanks to the big liquor stores on the New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland borders.) However, during the 85 years since Repeal, the meaning of the language in some of the points has changed.

Take point #1: saloons pre-Prohibition were in a large part controlled by the brewers. Prices were kept low, so demand was high. There were enticements like free food or snacks for those buying beer, which is why you see strangely detailed happy hour laws about how much food can be given away, and what kind. Bars were "tied" to the brewer that backed them; the only way you could get a Miller instead of a Bud, for instance, was to go to another bar. The corruption this caused, both in business and in politics from the free-flowing graft money produced, was one of the big drivers for Prohibition. 

That all changed with the three tier system in place in Pennsylvania (and most of the United States) today. That created three defined "tiers:" producer/brewer, wholesaler, and retailer, and forbid owners of one tier from owning businesses in the other two. No "tied houses." So did the saloon come back? Yes, but not in the same way, and that hasn't been all bad for the consumer. We'll call this point a draw.

In point #2, Pinchot was talking about patronage, the "spoils system," in which state jobs were handed out as political favors. He's already planning the huge jobs program of the State Store System of Stores. Point #2 meant that employees would be selected based on skills testing instead of loyalty testing; who they knew and the favors they could do. This was mostly true for the rank and file store workers, not so much for the managers, and not at all for the Board who have all been political hacks, cronies, and lawyerly hangers-on since day one.

He also thought that this new system would keep politicians from buying votes with booze, and thus fall under the control of distilleries and brewers. Did that work? Hard to say, because how people drank changed during the Depression. More drank at home after Repeal, because they could buy at a local store instead of having to go out to a speakeasy or club. This all changed again once the stores were unionized. Now the money flowed from union coffers into politician's pockets to buy votes to keep this archaic system alive. Although the jobs are still subject to civil service rules -- despite recent efforts to change this, under the guise of "improvement" -- overall this has failed.

Money, money, money, moooooney...

Point #3 is keeping the dollars, booze and votes away from judges and their decisions. Now we have judges working for the the PLCB...well, mostly 'working.'  I wonder what Gifford would say about that. This has worked, but largely because judges working on booze have been ring-fenced, as the British say.

Point #4 was probably true for the first 70 years of the State Store System of Stores -- ah, fond memories of the completely customer-unfriendly counter stores! -- but no longer. When the board that was put in place to control drinking is now advertising, having sales, sponsoring fests of various kinds, even trying to sell booze by robot! -- you can say that the restraint is limited at best.

Point 5 is pretty much irrelevant. As we said, bootlegging went from criminal enterprise to an everyday crime cheerfully "committed" by private citizens. Governor Pinchot thought that the state would be able to sell alcohol for less than the bootleggers, and they mostly did. But the power of the police-enforced monopoly and pure greed kept them from selling wine and spirits for less than the border states, which made them complicit in making criminals of everyday citizens.

Governor Pinchot was a leader in the Dry movement and was a teetotaler himself.  He really thought that his plan would have "support of the vast majority of the citizens of Pennsylvania."  But he never actually let the people decide, and as we all know, there has never been a single scientific poll that showed the citizens to be in favor of the State Store System of Stores.

Looking back to what was envisioned by Pinchot, you can see how corrupt the plan became over time. Millions of dollars were "...to be made available to school districts to help schools that were in danger of being closed." Even if we sucked out every penny possible from the PLCB now, it would only be about $90 for every taxpayer** this year. That's certainly not a rate the PLCB could keep up, and not really enough to notice in my almost $5,000 tax bill. Pinchot also suggested that if an item wasn't available the system "would have to get it." Still failing at that one 85 years later. And don't forget: there were THREE TIMES as many licenses available back then as now. Where did we go so wrong, Gifford? A commonwealth turns its thirsty eyes to you.

Unfortunately, not everything he proposed went...wrong. The Governor said that "Whisky will be sold by civil service employees with exactly the same amount of salesmanship as is displayed by an automatic postage stamp vending machine." Sure enough, that is exactly what we have in almost every transaction! He also said that there will be no artificial stimulation of the demand for liquor. No PLCB sponsoring a flower show trying to get women to drink, no staying open longer for hunting season, no bottle signings by third rate celebrities.

As a naturalist, Gifford Pinchot was probably second only to Teddy Roosevelt in public service. (He was the first professional forester in America.) His main fault was that he never actually wanted to know what the citizens thought of his Pennsylvania Plan, because he thought he knew what was best for the masses.

And that is the thing about the PLCB and the Almighty Liquor Code that has changed the least.



*If you get the chance, read the "Regulated Licenses, Retail Plan" by Frank J. Loesch on page 14.

** 10.1 M adults, 68.6% are homeowners, ~90% of them pay some property tax

How Long Does It Take?

Two weeks ago I posted about how the PLCB inventory accuracy rate is getting worse. As I mentioned then, I wrote them an email with the link to the story, explained what their mistakes were, and gave them the official government regulations that explain how to determine what spirits should be called. If I gave them any more help, I would have to fix the inventory myself.

Anyone with moderate typing skills could make these corrections in about three minutes. Two weeks should surely be enough time, even with supervisory oversight. Let's see how that worked out.

PLCB - third-rate data entry.

1. 510608 Berkshire Mountain Distillers Bourbon Whiskey - This one is pretty easy. If it's a bourbon, it's not a blend: it's a bourbon.
NOT FIXED: The PLCB still calls it a bourbon, but still categorizes it as a blend.

2. 153 Brixton Bourbon Whiskey Mash Destroyer - I could almost forgive this one, because it's a 'blend' of bourbon and rum; where do you put that? But they couldn't even get the name right! It isn't Brixton Bourbon Mash Destroyer, it's Brixton Mash Destroyer. Why do they constantly add words that aren't there? Put this in SPECIALTIES, but it's not BLENDED WHISKEY.
FIXED: While still in the Blended whiskey section they did fix the name and changed the description enough to show that at least an effort was made.

3. 31328 Clyde May's Bourbon Mash Whiskey - There is no Clyde May's "Bourbon Mash Whiskey." The Clyde May brand has a Straight Bourbon -- which is a bourbon -- and a "Alabama-style Whiskey" -- which is bourbon with apple added, which makes it SPECIALTIES -US, or WHISKEY...
FIXED: Amazingly, the PLCB not only corrected the description but put it in the correct category too.

4. 608012 Crater Lake Rye Reserve- Again, not blended. It's RYE. Pretty simple. Who's making mistakes this simple and stupid? Sorry/not sorry: there's no other way to describe that.
NOT FIXED: The PLCB didn't do anything.

5. 559141 George Dickel Whiskey Single Barrel - Reading comprehension and product knowledge required; no wonder the PLCB got it wrong.  If it is single barrel, what are you blending it with? Imagination? There should be a TENNESSEE WHISKEY category. Most other Tennessees are in WHISKEY, which is such a catch-all it's all but worthless.
TOSS UP: They didn't fix it...but they didn't keep the listing either. The item has disappeared.

6. 528555 Hooker's House Organic Rye Whiskey - There is no record of a "Hooker's House Organic Rye Whiskey" on the Internet...except connected to this mistaken PLCB record. Again, why are you adding words that aren't even there? In any case: RYE, not a blend. Okay?
NOT FIXED. Is two weeks just not enough time? This was one of the easy ones!

7. 34278 Jack Daniel's Sinatra Select Tennessee Whiskey 90 Proof - Given their track record, is anyone really surprised that there's a Jack Daniel's bottling on this list? I've been mentioning this particular one for a few years now. Jack Daniel doesn't make blended whiskey, but that doesn't stop the PLCB from getting it wrong for the past 3 years.
NOT FIXED: Was there any doubt the PLCB would continue to screw up this entry? It is part of their DNA to have at least one Jack Daniel's product wrong.

8. 504228 Jim Beam Eight Star Kentucky Whiskey 8 Year Old - They almost got this one right: it is a blend! But as I mentioned over a year ago...it is not 8 years old. Where is that on this very simple label? Nowhere that I can see.
FIXED! I wonder who had to read the label and make the command decision that it doesn't say 8 years old.

9. 446 Wigle Phil's Shadow Rye Whiskey Finished in Maple Syrup Barrels - Not a blend. Again, at the very least, a RYE.
NOT FIXED: Not one of the three ryes on the list were fixed. Does Rye confuse the PLCB?

It's ONLY been two weeks!

Pretty weak track record. Two weeks, ten whole work days, and only three entries fixed, four if you want to be generous. I guess none of the managers are the "hands on" type, and not very good motivators. Typical PLCB.

There are undoubtedly THOUSANDS of bad entries in the PLCB inventory; I haven't even looked at the wines. If they can't fix even half of a small sub-group when given all the information...imagine how badly they are doing when they have to find out and correct these things through their own means.

This access to 'all the wine and spirits in the entire system' is supposedly one of the advantages of the State Store System of Stores. You don't have to chase supply and price through hundreds of individual stores, like in those terribly disorganized "free" states. If the database is so badly disorganized that you can't find what you're looking for...where's the advantage?

There is none. Privatize now.

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.

Success and Failure

Quiz time boys and girls!  We are going to look at how to do things, and how to do things right. A tale of two (or more) control states. Record your answers and see how you did (some questions have more than one correct answer, but here's a tip: Pennsylvania is never the winning choice).

1.) This control state never had the FBI investigate their senior management in the last 20 years.
Pennsylvania did, and the investigation is ongoing.

2.) This state didn't have have senior management plead guilty to graft
Pennsylvania did.

3.) Pennsylvania spent $4 million (with an out-of-state marketing firm) to rename the State Stores. (Again!)
This state didn't.

4.) This state has people specifically travel to it for great booze prices.
Pennsylvania has people specifically leave it for great booze prices.

5.) This state " aggressively pursues a strategy that provides you with the best possible value."
Pennsylvania? Too lazy to try (and proud of it!).

6.) This state sells a 1.75L bottle of Jack Daniel's regularly for the same price Pennsylvania advertises as a "sale price." (And their sale price is $12 less than Pennsylvania's regular price!)

7.) Pennsylvania has the most liquor border bleed per capita in the U.S.
This state has the most reverse booze border bleed per capita in the U.S.

8.) This state won an award for being innovative in liquor and wine ordering (in control states).
Pennsylvania came in third...over a year later.

9.) Pennsylvania has one liquor store for every 21,000 residents.
This state has 20% more stores per capita.

10.) This state has 2 stores over 20,000 square feet in retail space, and a third that is over 33,000 square feet is being built.
Pennsylvania has one store in the entire state over 15,000 square feet. (And is a much, much larger state, with just under ten times the population of the other state.)

11.) The full time employees of this state generate 3 times the sales of the full time employees of Pennsylvania's State Store System.
The PLCB ended the last fiscal year almost $240 million in the hole.

Did you write down your answers? Let's see how you did!

1.) You could pick any other control state except North Carolina.
2.) Yup, any other control state except North Carolina.
3.) Any other control state.
4.) New Hampshire is famously New England's liquor store of choice.
5.) New Hampshire again.
6.) New Hampshire (as of 6/20/2016 PA regular price is $46.95, sale price $42.95. New Hampshire regular price is $42.99 and their sale price is $34.99. If you buy six, it's almost worth the trip!)
7.) Pennsylvania loses a huge amount of revenue to border bleed, while New Hampshire, with a population of about 12% of the Commonwealth, sells over 250% as much wine and spirits per capita (it ain't consumption, either: they have a slightly lower DUI rate). Over half of New Hampshire Liquor and Wine Outlet customers are from out of state.
8.) New Hampshire: innovative, Pennsylvania: wine kiosks and cost overruns.
9.) New Hampshire (1,350,000 residents / 79 stores) v. Pennsylvania (12.750,000 residents / 605 stores): not even close, New Hampshire wins again!
10.) New Hampshire: getting the picture?
11.) New Hampshire wins again: $647,000,000 in sales with only 305 full time employees = $2,131,000 per employee (right, over 2 million per employee). Pennsylvania? With $2,340,000,000 in sales and a bloated 3,100 full time employees, that's only $755,000 per employee. Sad.

Which state is a success and which is a failure? See, it's not even about Pennsylvania being a control state, it's about Pennsylvania being a lousy control state! If the Pennsylvania State Stores ran as well as the New Hampshire Liquor and Wine Outlets (er...and the taxes were similarly reasonable), this blog would never have started.

When you can't even do wrong right...time to give up. Privatize, because you will never "modernize" to the same level as New Hampshire. (Mostly because by the time the PLCB got there, New Hampshire would be 30 years ahead again.)

How the PLCB Sells the High End: Badly

All throughout the Pennsylvania State Store System there are pockets of unwanted, unsold products that costs thousands of dollars. They aren't sold because some cube rat in Harrisburg estimated the market wrong, they were sent to some place that doesn't have the demographics to support luxury or niche products (or the sales savvy to match them to the appropriate buyers), or most likely the PLCB didn't have a clue on pricing and thought that since they were the only seller that people would pay three times as much to get these collector level bottles.

Case in point: The case of Chateau Ausone 2003 sitting at Store #3625 in Lancaster County, located midway between the sprawling metropolis of Columbia and Lancaster itself. Just across the street from the Sunoco and  walking distance from the Dutch Apple Dinner Theater (I'm not making this up). Average housing price is $210,000, about 10% more than the U.S. average. Not the place you would expect to find a $36,000 case of wine.  That's right: $3,000 per bottle, plus 6% sales tax. The Amish must be living large.

HEY NOW! LET'S DELIVER THAT WINE TO JAKE NOW ONCE!

While Store #3625 is a "Premium Collection" store, one has to wonder why these bottles aren't in Center City Philadelphia, or someplace in Chester County, or even on-line (where the PLCB usually puts booze it doesn't understand), or at least someplace that they could be stored properly. But they're sitting out in the land of scrapple and shoo-fly pies, getting older.

You might be saying to yourself, "Well, it's expensive, sure, but maybe they got a good deal on that case." Nope, not even close. You can go east across the border and save $1,005 PER BOTTLE! Hell, you could pay someone $500 to go get it for you, and still save money! Or drive into New York and get it yourself: you'll pay even more in taxes, but you'll still save a hefty $1,775 PER BOTTLE. As I reported back in February, the PLCB doesn't even attempt to get the best prices; they sure blew it in this case.

People who buy $3,000 bottles of wine don't generally get to the point where they can buy $3,000 bottles of wine by wasting money at the PLCB. Think about it: for the cost of a nice dinner and a night in the city, you could spend a few hundred extra and get TWO bottles in New York. Or you could visit the Dutch Apple and cap off your day by spending far too much at the State Store for one bottle. The PLCB counts on us being stupid. Stupid enough to keep putting up with this. (Stupid enough to not leave the state and break the law, but that's another story.)

Then there are the eleven bottles of Chateau la Mission Haut Brion Rouge 2010 ($1,197 a pop), sitting at one and one store only in Sewickley. It does look like they managed to sell one, so maybe it is a long term thing...except the PLCB doesn't do long term things. If it doesn't sell, it will go on sale and then go on clearance. Even then it won't be as good a price as the under-$600 per bottle (delivered!) you can find in other states. The PLCB probably won't make a dime on those bottles, but that's okay: they don't have to. Being a state-owned monopoly means never having to make a profit.

So on what do we blame things like this? Overly ambitions (or easily swayed) wine buyers? Untrained sellers? Overpriced products? Why not just wrap it all up and say: the State Store System.

Privatization is the only real Modernization. We deserve it.