Why PA won't lose money privatizing

There are two conflicting arguments proponents of the State Stores use to say we shouldn't privatize. The first is the old "liquor store on every corner" lie, trying to scare us with images of urban decay, and the second is that prices will go up (because you know, like how competition always makes prices go up) and selection will go down. The selection part is just laughable, since we all know what the private sector can provide. If somebody wants it, the private sector will provide it: that is just how free markets work, as shown by everything else you purchase. If you don't believe it, think about how many different candy bars and single-serving drinks the average Sheetz offers.

That leaves "but we'll have too many stores," although nobody can define what the right amount of stores are except for the free market - stores that fill customer needs will survive, and if they don't, they won't. What does that mean for the state?  It means that it will collect more license fees, more business taxes, more sales taxes, and more excise tax and of course, more people will have to be working because all those stores don't exist since they can't all be current existing stores. So according to the pro-State Store folks, using their weak logic, amounts collected have to be greater than the current amount because more is being sold at a higher price.

We know sales will go up because they have elsewhere. PA isn't going to be special in that regard.  Will they go up 44% like the favorite CDC report the UFCW uses - doubtful since they haven't anywhere else. Will they eventually get up to the national norm? Probably, if they open more stores than the relatively small amount called for in HB 466 or Senator Wagner's proposed bill.

In the only recent example of privatization of a control state, total sales in Washington went up about 15%; 8-9% internally and 7% went out of the state, the increase in border bleed. Adding 27% in new fees probably had a lot to do with the increase in border bleed, so the lesson for PA is don't do that. Let's pick a reasonable number for how much prices may go up -- say 5% -- and let's stick with a 15% increase in sales. I think that will be a little low since we will be privatizing both wine and spirits while Washington only did spirits but I'll stick with it since it is a real number. That means the total sales will be about $465 million more than they were last year, or an increase of about $116 million in just tax revenue not counting all the other stuff, or pretty much a zero net in terms of liquor revenue but a larger gain in overall economic activity.

Border bleed will probably stay close to what is is because greater convenience will cause people to buy locally and the slight price increase won't change the buying habits of too many. But then you have all the new employees working, delivering to bars and restaurants, more distributors with new warehouses, new superstores being built where none exist today. All of that adds to the economy too, and all of that is something the PLCB won't provide; can't provide.

There's a sub-argument that private stores can't survive on the wholesale and retail markup of 30% like the state stores do. Bullshit. The PLCB doesn't survive on only 30%, they currently have an effective 45.2% markup (Gross Revenue From Sales divided by COGS), and they get there with all sorts of hidden fees and charges generally unknown to the buying public while all the while saying the markup is only 30%. They lie. The 5% increase I mentioned above would move that to just over 50% and lots of businesses would love to have that or even the 45.2% effective rate the PLCB has now.

Now let's say - horror of horrors - that prices actually decline. Lower prices increase demand which means more workers are required to fill that demand, which means more product is being sold which means that more sales tax is being collected.  The excise tax collection will go up too. Lower prices will decrease border bleed as competition and convenience cause more people to buy locally; as it will be is easier and/or cheaper or both. That causes sales to rise even more. There might even be an increase in out of state buyers that come into PA to buy.  So where do we end up?  Ahead of where we are now that's for sure. Ahead in jobs, ahead in tax collection, ahead in license fees, ahead in business taxes, ahead in income taxes, ahead in paying less future pension debt, ahead in convenience and ahead in consumer satisfaction.

Don't listen to him Tim and Skip - he's talking that crazy talk!

So if all the other states surrounding us have higher prices, as numerous state store people say, then if PA prices rise we'll be normal, if prices go down and get close to what most people believe are the better prices in New Jersey and Maryland, we'll be normal. And if we get the state out of the liquor business, we'll be normal like most states.

I vote for normality, not monopoly. Dump the system and move Pennsylvania back to normal.

Fact Check, what the UFCW says, What Rep Turzai says

Below is the list that the UFCW 1776 calls "Twenty of Turzai's Lies" You can read the list here.  Not anywhere near as many as I've documented from Wendell Young IV (which nobody has refuted as of yet) but enough to see who is spinning more. I'll take them one at a time

Who is spinning more?

 01: Turzai: The PLCB has been operating in the red for the past 10 years.
      UFCW: The PLCB’s net profit for the past 10 years is almost $1 billion total

There are three ways to look at this.. The first is if everything the PLCB collects is a tax because tax is defined as "a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc." so what ever isn't specified as the Johnstown Flood Tax or Sales tax can be thought of as a use tax and not profit.

The second is that to have a profit a business has to list all liabilities and since the PLCB doesn't (not listing the over $600+ million in pension liability or $50+ million in medical for just two examples) it is questionable if a profit is made.

The third is that the PLCB as a business that is not responsible for any liabilities because the taxpayer, not the PLCB will cover them and therefore does make a profit. I'll call this one a tie

02:Turzai: The Fiscal Note for House Bill 790 said it would bring over $1 billion in upfront revenue.
    UFCW: Turzai’s own Fiscal Note says there would be at most $137.5 million in upfront revenue.

OK, there is one fiscal note listed by for HB 790 PN 1291. and it specifically says "A total of $1,123,000,000 is estimated to be generated from one-time license fees" The Rep. Turzai fiscal note does say $137.5 million. so the question is - what time period is "upfront" ?  Upfront is usually thought of as before something happens so does the money start counting before the beginning of privatization or before the end of the state stores?  This one is a tie.

03: Turzai:There is going to be an auctioning off of 1,200 wine and spirits licenses.
      UFCW: There is not one mention of auctioning licenses in House Bill 790 or his current legislation House Bill 466

This one goes to the UFCW, there is no mention of auctions in HB 466

04: Tuzai : When West Virginia went to the private sector they saw an increase in revenue.
      UFCW: West Virginia lost millions and has never financially recovered since privatizing.

Try as I might I could not find anything on line from the state of West Virgina that listed revenues from over 30 years ago when they privatized retail sales. Without verifiable information I can't make a call on this one. However, as a side note, Iowa which also privatized retail a few years later reported making more money. (1)  I have to toss this out for lack of information.

05: Turzai: There will be no increase in unemployment compensation and all PLCB jobs will be absorbed in the private sector. 
      UFCW: The Public Financial Management study states 2,302 full-time equivalent employees will lose their jobs and cost more than $64 million in unemployment costs over four years.

Since everyplace that has fully privatized has tripled employment in the industry jobs will be created, far more than are lost. If the offset is enough to make a zero balance after some of those new jobs will be filled by people already supposedly trained is a question I don't have enough information to answer. This one is a tie also.

06:Turzai: There will be open dialogue and everyone will be at the table to discuss issues.
     UFCW: There hasn’t been a House hearing on liquor privatization since 2011.

This one is tough because it is an opinion.  If you are a citizen of the state and don't know anything about the issue already I question your ability to govern the rest of us.  If you are a legislator then there is no excuse what so ever not to educate yourself. More hearings will not bring anything new to the table. THe UFCW is still using documents and statistics from as far back as 2006 so that isn't going to change. The question is if the state should sell a retail product or not.  Once you have decided that then questions like "should we have pretty stores" or "add 1,000 more "R" licenses" come into play but not before. I know that both caucuses will be meeting on this issue so I'm in agreement that everyone can discuss the issues. Rep Turzai gets this one.

07:Turzai:The PLCB produces no profit.
     UFCW: The PLCB’s net profit was $123 million alone in the last fiscal year.

This is just a rewording of #1 and the result is the same- a tie.

08: Turzai:There will not be any lost revenue.
      UFCW: Both the Fiscal Note to HB 790 and PFM show revenue gaps that need to be made up.

The fiscal note to HB 790 does say that because of the increased discount to licensees, going from 10 to 14% will reduce income it is the same proposal mentioned in some modernization plans so what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The PFM report also shows revenue gaps but self admittedly accounts for a zero balance of the over $200 million in inventory, the sales jump as private stores ramp up before divestiture and the $200 million in other assets which can be sold although for not anywhere near the inventory value. Add to that, the complete lack of accounting for economic churn increased employment and peripheral employees will bring and the increase in sales greater access will bring it does raise questions if there will be any lost revenue in total. Since neither side can provide concrete evidence either way this one is a tie.

09: Turzai: There will not be a complete proliferation of alcohol.
      UFCW: Under Rep. Turzai’s proposal, spirits outlets will triple, including in urban areas.

Even after tripling the amount of liquor stores the state will still be well below the average for a population of 12 million - about 33% less. Since the beer distributors will get first call on licenses and they already sell alcohol where ever they are - urban or rural that aspect is a red herring.  Community zoning should take care of the additional licenses past the initial 1200. Who knows better about what the needs of the community are - Harrisburg or the people who live there? Rep Turzai takes this one.

10:Turzai:No other state taxes liquor like Pennsylvania. 
     UFCW: Almost every state has a liquor tax, as well as retail and wholesale markups.

This one will go on a technicality. No other state does tax like Pennsylvania,  We don't have a liquor tax, we have a temporary tax that is to be used to help people from a 1936 flood.  Now what it turned into and what it is used for may be like a liquor tax that other states have - it isn't. The Johnstown Flood Tax is not part of the Liquor Code. Rep Turzai wins this one too.

11: Turzai: There will be new business taxes.
      UFCW: Turzai’s proposal heavily favors existing retailers, meaning no new business tax.

Another iffy one. Obviously if a business increases sales volume there is new business tax but if there physically aren't any or many new businesses then the number of businesses being taxed doesn't increase. Pure semantics. A tie at best or completely rejected at worst

12: Turzai:There is significant border bleed.
      UFCW: Turzai cites an unknown statistic, but in reality border bleed is minimal and there is reverse border bleed into Pennsylvania.

I'm sorry, but when the PLCB itself commissions a study on border bleed and shows that there is hundreds of millions of dollars leaving the state that indicates a significant problem Rep Turzai gets this one hands down.

Wendell Young IV star of Say Anything

13:Turzai: The public supports privatization at a 70-75% approval rating and there is widespread support for his plan.
     UFCW: No poll shows this claim. Instead, recent polls show support going the other way. Also, dozens of groups oppose House Bill 790 from last session.

This gets a bit tricky. The primary question is if the state should sell a retail product.  Given that there are 40 years of scientific polls that say the citizens do not want the state store system and some of them are in the 70% range and there has never been a poll saying they want to keep the state store system over a private system that indicates there is widespread approval for privatization.  Later polls give a third option of modernization which is a dependent option and not a primary option. You have to agree that the state should sell a retail product before you can choose how they sell it.

What dozens of groups believe or not has no bearing on what scientific polls say. To believe otherwise is to succumb to "We know better than you what is good for you"  The majority of citizens want a private system as Rep Turzai says.

14:Turzai:Beer distributors will do well under his proposal.
     UFCW: The Malt Beverage Distributors Association opposes Turzai’s plan.

It is true that the MBDA opposes this plan it is also true that they represent less than half of all beer distributors. Their disapproval does not negate if some beer distributors will do well or if most will do well or if any do well.  It has no real bearing since how well an individual distributor will do is dependent on how hard he works at his business and not his membership in the MBDA. Another that is a tie at best

15:Turzai:There are only 3,500 employees at the PLCB we need to worry about. 
     UFCW: There are more than 5,000 employees at the PLCB and mostly all will lose their job

According to the state itself there are 3,074 full time employees and 1,519 part time employees as of 1/15/15.  This doesn't count any seasonal employees which may push the total over 5,000 but would also be stretching the truth a bit. Since the UFCW continually uses the PFM report I'll use it too and it says that between 2,436 - 2,678 Full Time Equivalents or 3,210 total employees  would be unemployed depending how the PLCB retail and wholesale was disassembled.

Now you can make a case for people won't be working in the same state job but a number will still be working for the state. Rep Turzai has the facts on his side for this one but semantics are with the UFCW - they get it.

16: Turzai: Operational costs have increased by 70% at the PLCB over the past decade.
      UFCW: Operational expenses have only grown at a 1.7% compound annual growth rate in the last five years.

I've a mind to throw this one out.  Answering a question with a statement that doesn't match the question is just not being honest.  According to the FY 2005 Audit by the Auditor General operational costs were $289,810,000 and in 2014 were $424,478,913 which is a 45.6% growth so Rep Turzai is wrong.  However. the 2010 Operational costs were $381,801,000 which comes out to a 2.15% compound annual growth rate to 2014 so the UFCW is wrong too.I didn't include COGS in my operation computations because the PLCB has no real control over that but if I did then operation costs from 2005-2014 would have gone up 56%  and the compounded annualized rate would be 2.79% I'm not counting this for either side.

17: Turzai: Private wholesalers sell to the PLCB wholesale system currently. There is a duplicate system in PA.
      UFCW: Producers sell to the PLCB wholesale. There is no duplicate system.

There is a duplicate system.  While for major items the PLCB may go directly to the producer, for the vast majority of items available in the system they go through a private distributor. This is easy to see because every SLO item has a vendor code and that code is not the Wild Turkey Distillery or the Conundrum winery, it is a distributor. and since SLO items outnumber in stock items by at least 4 to 1 there is a duplicate system. Rep Turzai is correct

That is the end of the list, why they called it 20 lies and then only listed 17 is a question you'll have to ask the UFCW.  I've always said they weren't very good with math.

The totals are
Rep Turzai - 6
UFCW - 2
Tie - 6
Tossed out - 3

Who do YOU believe?


(1)Privatization was deemed successful from a revenue standpoint, with profits increasing by $125 million over the first 11 years of privatization compared to estimates under State control of the stores. At the time of the 10-year review, the conclusion was that most of the increase in profits was the result of eliminating the state stores and the costs associated with them. PFM report pg 111

Wendell Young Lies And I Can Prove It.... Again.

Wendell W. Young IV, president of Local 1776 of the UFCW (the union that represents the State Store System clerks (whether they want it or not)), sent a letter to the York Daily Record recently stating that doing what the majority of people want -- privatizing liquor and wine sales in Pennsylvania — would cost the state a fortune. Just to make sure everybody knew he was lying he said the same things again on February 11 after the new privatization legislation was announced. As I have done numerous times previously, I will prove that he lies and will say anything to prove his point. His letter is even more proof of that.

About the only true thing Wendell "My Daddy Was President Too" Young says is at the beginning, when he states the PLCB makes a "profit." That so-called profit (really an unspent use tax) is less than 0.4% percent of the state budget; less than Governor Wolf has asked the state agencies to save. That sounds like a good point for the PLCB. But can you really say you're making a profit when you owe over $600 million as your part of  the pension debt, or over $50 million in medical coverage charges? These costs are conveniently left out of the PLCB's accounting; real businesses have to make a profit without such bookkeeping magic.

Oh, yeah, baby, it's gonna be terrible. Trust me.

It goes downhill from there for The Man With the Silver Haircut. Young tries to tell us that losing the state monopoly would cause catastrophe, "Selling off this asset to big chain retailers, grocery and convenience stores would be a financial disaster for the state," he blusters. "Thousands of family-sustaining jobs would be lost and hundreds of millions in state revenue would vanish." Scary stuff, but how true is it? 

Not very. First, the Legislature decides how many licenses there will be, and how many licenses any particular business can own. For instance, Maryland doesn't have liquor in grocery stores (to be fair, there are four exceptions; four, in the entire state, which is about how many gas stations sell beer in PA, where that's, you know, supposedly against the law). There's a lot of "big chain" fear taken care of, and it's an easy fix, all you have to do is put license limitations on ownership...say between three and ten licenses per person or business entity, so there will still be some real superstores in PA, but also plenty of licenses for smaller enterprises.

Next, every place that has privatized has increased employment. In Washington State, the most recent to go to full privatization, category employment tripled under full privatization. The Washington State Office Of Financial Management report on Liquor Privatization (see that? Wendell gives you bluster and fear, we give you reported facts) from this past January says employment in the industry has increased 91%. That's just direct retail jobs; it doesn't count secondary jobs like transportation and warehousing, for example, which are not to be overlooked: warehousing jobs for just two distributors totaled more than the entire previous WALCB workforce  It isn't "spin," or "mythical," as Young claims; it is reported fact and it can happen here without obstructionists like Young and his troops. What the State Store System has done is cost us thousands of new jobs.

What else does he have wrong? Windy Wendy likes to keep quoting the report Governor Corbett commissioned back in 2011, even though it represents assumptions that are no longer valid; it doesn't match HB790 (the privatization bill that actually passed the House in 2013), any other proposal the Legislature has considered since then, or the real world examples of Washington or the province of Alberta (which privatized back in the early 1990s).

Still, if he's talking about it, we have to address it, and it's pretty easy. The UFCW's President For Life claims that the "transition costs" of privatization as laid out in the PFM report would be $1.4 billion over 5 years. That sounds expensive! What he leaves out is the part that says Operational and Transition Costs (page 180). The Operational part — keeping the state stores running while they're being phased out — is almost $1.2 Billion  While I have my doubts that Young actually knows what transition costs are, that same report shows that keeping the PLCB will cost OVER $2.2 Billion. Why? Because Operational costs will be higher since they won't be phased out. Is he dumb? Or deceitful?

If you're not scared yet, try this Wendell Wowser: "hundreds of millions in state revenue would vanish." Really? How's that? Just because the PLCB isn't collecting the Johnstown Flood Emergency Tax doesn't mean it won't be collected. In fact, it could be done at the wholesale level to make it easier, as Alberta did (and like Pennsylvania does with beer). Washington has increased their tax collection more over the last two years than we have, even though they have half the population, and only privatized liquor, not beer or wine (sales were already private). Not only that, they lowered their beer tax by almost 300% and still increased tax collections. (These numbers which can be found on the Washington State Department of Revenue website for taxes and the Washington State Liquor Control Board for fees: Google it.) The revenue ain't gonna vanish.

It's a record-breaking year!

Then he gets to the main course of his Dinner of Deceit. He boasts about how the PLCB "set new records for sales and profits" in each of the past four years. Check the Pinocchiometer: whoa, the nose grows! Sales records? Sure! It would be news if the police-enforced monopoly didn't increase sales. It has nothing to do with the job the PLCB is doing. Gross revenue increased every year back when the state had counter stores too. When you have a captive population that grows and the price of the product goes up, of course revenue from sales goes up every year. But profits? No, sorry. Operational income went down in FY 2014 compared to FY 2013. In fact, it has gone down in eight of the past fifteen years on a year to year basis (according to the PLCB's own financial reports; not all of them are still available on the PLCB website, but I have them if you need copies)...even though every year had "record sales."

Then the Big Man In Harrisburg starts beating his favorite (broken) drum: the majority of the people don't even want private liquor sales! He says that either "modernization" or leaving the System as it is is what the people really want. Modernization is a false choice. The question is not whether the people should shop at pretty state stores, but if the state should be selling a retail product at all. Given the choice of keeping the state store system or having a private system the citizens have always chosen the private system in every single scientific poll, every single time. There has never been a poll that shows the people want the state store system — ever.

In honor of Presidents Day, let me paraphrase Abraham Lincoln to remind you of this Wendell

You can fool all the people some of the time,
and some of the people all the time,
but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
And you can't fool us at all.

Let's tell some truths instead of Wendell's bold-faced lies.

We are not safer because of the State Stores. Look at the DUI stats and the alcohol related incidents compared to our border states. Alberta has over double the amount of liquor stores of Pennsylvania (1,361 vs 605), with about one-third of the population — a lot higher "outlet density," to use the bugaboo term of anti-alcohol types — yet they have a DUI fatality rate that is 40% lower than ours. Washington's DUI fatality rate has gone down faster since privatization (and it started lower that PA's to begin with).

We are not better served. One only has to go to State Line Liquors, Joe Canal's, Roger Wilco, Total Wine, Shop Rite Liquors, and a host of others to see that (and you'll also see the hundreds of satisfied Pennsylvania shoppers who have taken privatization into their own hands).

We are not satisfied with a system that mainly benefits the people who work there, with a system that owes over $600 million in pension costs, with a system that thinks bureaucrats in Harrisburg should decide what wine and spirits we should be allowed to buy, with a system that punishes people for having the desire to buy things not provided by the state, or with a system that is corrupt, ill-managed, non-responsive and generally incompetent.


We deserve better. After 80 years, it is far too late for the PLCB to try and show they can deliver that. 80 years shows that they can't.

Privatization is the ultimate modernization.

The Union Scheme to keep PA in debt

(Another chapter in the continuing Wendell Young IV lies and I can prove it series)

On January 29th, the two unions that represent the State Store System clerks sent out a letter that, among other things, seemed to guarantee that 'modernization' will make $185 million MORE in its first year.

Let's look at the modernization scheme point by point.

They start off well with "Remove Sunday Sales Limitation on Store Openings and Hours of Operation" This actually makes sense, so when the system is privatized private store owners will be able to decide their own hours within the legal time span. 

Things start to go downhill with the second item. "Pricing/Customer Relations Management: Allows the PLCB to use best retail pricing practices to secure the very best price for the customer."  So for 80 years they really haven't been trying to get the best prices for the consumer? Then why should we believe that will change?

Item three is even more incredible. "Right Locating Fine Wine and Good Spirits Stores"  In other words, putting the stores where the people are. It took them this long to figure that out? Perhaps the Store in a Store (or One Stop Shop, as the PLCB calls it) is what they mean. That has only been around for 34 years and has not gone anywhere.  The high point was sixteen stores; it hasn't gone above that yet. It seems that most—and I mean thousands of stores—don't want the PLCB with them. After the Wine Kiosk Fiasco, it's no surprise.

The forth item "Expedited Review of PLCB Leases by the Department of General Services" makes sense until you realize that they have had 80 years to get the proper locations of state stores. You can't blame it all on the DGS. The PLCB should know where they want to put stores YEARS in advance and work toward doing that. That is how real business runs.

Item five is a bit revised since last year; "Direct Shipment of Wine and Spirits: Permits Pennsylvania residents to receive shipments of wine and spirits in Pennsylvania and also permit the PLCB to ship out of state." Spirits were added to this proposal. Not sure how other states will take to a different state agency shipping to their residents, but if our legislature is an example, it won't happen. It has only been a decade since Granholm and this may fix it...depending on how many wineries and distilleries sign up and pay for licenses. The current direct wine shipping program has less than 25, so for that to improve, some things will have to change. It isn't that wineries don't want to ship to PA, it is that they don't want to deal with the PLCB. That makes millions of us.

The sixth item is Lottery sales, and that makes sense also, even more so in a private system.

Item seven sounds good but..."Consortium Product Buying: Allows the PLCB to take the lead in joining some of the other 18 control states, like Michigan, Virginia, Ohio and New Hampshire, in buying product unified fashion to help secure the very best price for the PA consumer on the PLCB store shelf."  Real businesses save money by buying in bulk, and then doing the distribution of products themselves. They buy direct from the manufacturers. With the 3 tier system in place in many states this wouldn't be allowed. It would also force all the states involved to use the same distributor which may violate current distribution agreements. I can see this being a hornet's nest but hey, based on the past PLCB track record of business decisions... Keep in mind, it would only affect spirits; these other states don't "control" wine sales.

Now we come to the hook inside all this shining bait, the item that will lock the PLCB into the state budget for decades. DEBT.

The Unions think that: "Monetizing the incremental revenue gains of the agency would allow the state to secure a bond. Securing a bond on increased profits as a result of modernization – not the tax revenue - is very attractive to investors, since the agency has continued to deliver increased revenue annually to the State Treasury, during good and bad economic times. The risk is low and potential for reward high."

This means that the amount the Governor could ask for would have to be locked in, since additional profits (if any) would be used to finance the debt and couldn't be used for anything else. Rather than being discretionary, based on what the Governor thinks the needs of the Commonwealth are, it would be up to the PLCB to set the upper limit based on their needs and debt payment  So let us look at the statement "...the agency has continued to deliver increased revenue annually to the State Treasury." Remember, this isn't taxes, so any increase there doesn't count.

Using 1999 as a starting point, in the next 15 years from FY 2000 through FY 2014 inclusive, Operating Income has gone down eight times and gone up seven compared to the year before, and the amount sent to the General Fund has remain unchanged four times, gone down four times, and only gone up seven times. All with record sales every year. So the Union wants to put the taxpayers on the hook for an agency that DOES NOT deliver increased revenue annually, in an arrangement that makes the continuation of the State Store System a necessity under the terms of the bond. This is not about debt, or monetization: this is about shutting down all talk of privatization.

With the increased PLCB share of the pension obligations well over $600 million, the Unions think that increasing the Debt using future earnings (if any) is the way to keep the state store system.tied to the government. This isn't for the good of Pennsylvanians but only for the good of the state store clerks.

We are not safer, we are not better served and we are not satisfied. Privatize.

Wendell Young and his minions lie and I can prove it Part 4

WWY4 still loves ya, baby.

Another in a continuing (as long as Wendell W. Young IV is around) series about the BS that he propagates.

On the United Food and Commercial Workers Chapter 1776 webpage, the Union -- under the leadership of President for Life Wendell Young IV -- says that in 2007, PA had the lowest death rate in the country associated with alcohol consumption. Although their link doesn't work (go ahead, click it, ours does), they are actually correct about this....for 2007.  By 2009 Pennsylvania's rate had increased over 25% (Page 87 in the report) and by 2012 had gone up even more (Table 19, Page 78), resulting in a rate 30.8% higher than the 2007 figures the union likes to use. If you imply that the union-run, state liquor stores are responsible for the low rate, then aren't they also responsible for the higher rate?

Just to make things worse for Wendell, of the states with lower rates than PA for the past seven years, two of them are New Jersey and Maryland. (Damn those free privately-run states right on our border...that so many Pennsylvanians use.) You know what all this means? When Wendell or any of his underlings say that PA has the lowest death rate associated with alcohol consumption and they don't add "back in 2007", they are lying.

As president of the PA Wine And Spirits Council, Wendell clearly stands behind the statement when their webpage (which hasn't been updated since 2011; way to stay on top of things, Wendell) says that "State Police investigators have found just two instances in the past six years of wine and spirits shop employees selling alcohol to minors." The only problem (as we pointed out to the state's journalists and legislators back in early 2011) is that the State Police doesn't check the stores for underage sales. NOT AT ALL. So if they "investigated," it was only because somebody else caught them. If you really think that only two underage people bought liquor in a state store from 2004 to 2010, then I have a very nice deal on the Ben Franklin bridge for you: stop by Philly and have a look!

Amazing riverside views, and for you, I have a GREAT cash price: today only!

The BS continues with the statement that "Pennsylvania has the 7th lowest rate of youth drinking and binge drinking in the nation." No links or proof are offered but it certainly doesn't agree with the numbers from Responsibility.org (page 11) which has PA at a tie for 24th place barely making it into the top half of states with New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Ohio all doing better.
In fact, let's look at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration report on Underage Binge Alcohol Use. The picture doesn't get much better. Based on the National Survey of  Drug Use and Health it divided the country into 468 substate regions.  Pennsylvania was divided into 15 of these substate groups. Of those 15 - 13 were higher for binge drinking then the Mean or Median values placing the state firmly in the upper half for worst underage binge drinking and not 7th best as claimed by Fearless Leader.

So there is another one; Wendell lying about safety of children, which he does with some regularity. Have you seen those stupid UFCW commercials that the entire nation laughed at?
When you make a statement that can't be proven, then you aren't spinning, you aren't being misheard, you aren't being taken out of context. You are lying.
 
I'm sure that the first few months of next year, once the legislature reconvenes, will provide Mr. Young with more time to practice his lies, which is fine. I'll be watching and waiting with the truth.

Remember to write your Representatives and Senators and tell them we want the state out of the alcohol business.  Send a note to Governor-elect Wolf too (or Tweet to him @wolfforpa), so he knows this won't go away.