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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Money from privatization rolls in out in Washington

Just sent this to the members of the Pennsylvania Senate Law and Justice Committee:

To the honorable chairmen and members of the Senate Law and Justice Committee,

Greetings. I've watched all three of the hearings your committee has held on privatization of the current state monopoly on wholesale and retail sale of wine and spirits. One concern that seemed to come up time and again was that of consistency of revenue. You were presented with a baffling array of projected numbers: how much the Commonwealth would lose under privatization, how much it would gain, the amount various other states have lost or gained by privatizing.

One number that seemed to have escaped notice, however, is this one: $78 million. That's the increase in revenue from spirits sales that the Washington State government has seen in the year since they privatized their state-owned monopoly. If you're interested, the details are here.

(Please note that the $425 million figure in this article includes the $38 million the state made from the auction of retail licenses; the $78 million increase is taxes only.)

So if you're thinking about how privatization will affect revenue, and if that important consideration has an effect on your vote, please remember that privatization -- if done correctly -- can indeed increase revenue. We don't need to speculate. Washington has provided us with a real world experiment, and the outcome shows the benefits of privatization.

Thank you, and I hope you will consider all angles of this issue. I have high hopes of a good outcome from your deliberations, as this is a very important issue for me.

Lew Bryson

Yeah, I know: Washington raised the fees/taxes/grab on liquor, and that may be some of the nut. Trust me: they know that too. But even with higher taxes/fees/blood money, the prices in Washington -- as you'll see if you read the piece linked above -- are still close to what they were before. Without the increases? Who knows how low they might have gone, but the fact is, what kept them down was competition.

The Case Law, The Case Law, The Case Law. What will it take?

Lots to talk about with the final McIlhinney Hearing taking place yesterday, but one thing comes to the top: so-called "package reform," which is Harrisburgese for "gently adjusting the Case Law."

Look, I have a radical idea for "package reform." Step aside from liquor privatization for the ten minutes it should take to accomplish this! Separate bill, NOW:

"The Case Law Was A Stupid Mistake And We're Sorry" Bill, being a bill to eliminate ALL volume restrictions on individual beer sales by licensed retailers immediately.

Fill in the details -- that's what all those lawyers they keep chained up in caves under the Capitol Building are for -- remove all references to case/sixpack restrictions on sales in the Liquor Code, put it to a vote. No deals, no delays, no trade-offs, no suck-ups. Done.

Over 80% of Pennsylvanians oppose the Case Law; and the Legislature's been diddling around with changing it since I moved back to Pennsylvania in 1991. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. Why do we keep voting for these idiots?

Don't just read this. Copy it, send it to your legislator, and ask them WHY they can't do this one simple thing. Will it piss off the tavern owners, because now beer distributors can sell sixpacks? Sure, some of them. Will it piss off the beer distributors, because now the supermarkets with tavern licenses can sell cases and kegs? Sure, some of them. Will it make the state's brewers happy? Probably, they'll likely sell more beer. Will it make almost every beer-drinking Pennsylvanian happy? HELL YEAH! Hmmm...will it make the beer wholesalers happy? Actually, I don't know, but...

Come on! It's not going to make everyone happy, but it's going to make literally millions of us beer drinkers overjoyed!

Historic Day

My fingers are crossed (okay, not literally...I am typing this), but it looks like the House Republicans have the votes to pass HB790, the privatization bill, this morning, or sometime today. I have not let up: sent out emails to southeast PA Republicans urging them to support the bill -- and their party, and their governor, and the majority of Pennsylvanians -- and vote in the affirmative. I would suggest you do the same.

Here's what I said:

Dear Representative XXX,

Today's the day! Privatization of the State Stores is coming down to the line. I sincerely hope that you are planning to vote with the Republican party and with your governor on this issue. They need your vote on HB790, as do the majority of Pennsylvanians who have supported privatizing the State Stores for decades. I strongly support privatization of the State Stores, and think the state's beer distributors are getting a pretty good deal in this bill. As amended, the bill has a lot of what I've wanted for years, and does it in a relatively gradual way.

You're not my direct representative; that's Frank Farry, here in the 142nd District, over in Bucks County. But on this issue, you're representing all of us. Please vote for HB790, and support Republican values in the PA House!

Sincerely, and thanks,

Lew Bryson

Feel free to use this text. Among others, I sent it to Representatives Barrar, Clymer, DiGirolamo, Farry, Miccarelli, and Petri, the Republicans who most needed bucking up. (I copied Corbett (governor@pa.gov) and Rep. Turzai (mturzai@pahousegop.com) on all those emails too, good idea for encouraging party support.) Um...didn't bother sending any to Democrats. This has become a party issue for them, and their discipline is striking. So it's about shoring up Republican votes.

Send those emails, please share this around, and let's get this over the line and on to the Senate!