6 Reasons to Keep The State Stores - Does it still hold up?

Marc Stier, a Philadelphia-based full-time progressive political activist, published six reasons why we should keep the State Stores five years ago. I thought I'd take a look at those reasons and how well they hold up today.

1. Poor regulation

"First, in an ideal world we could count on government regulation of private liquor stores to control the sale of alcohol. That’s important, because alcohol abuse remains a major public health hazard. But in the real world, regulation fails when it is carried out by those who hate government. And academic studies show that states that control the sale and distribution of alcohol have lower levels of problem drinking, drunk driving, and the violence and death that go along with them."

In an ideal world we could count on the government to control the sale of alcohol, Stier says, then makes the self-evident observation that the world isn't ideal. It never has been, it never will be. And what does "regulation fails when it is carried out by those who hate government" even mean? The state's liquor regulations are carried out by PLCB employees and BLCE cops: are they known for hating government? Doubtful.

So we're left with our non-ideal world, where the PLCB simply isn't very good at all at control or regulation. Pennsylvania has higher levels of DUI, underage DUI, DUI fatalities, underage DUI fatalities, binge drinking, and underage binge drinking overall than the states on our borders; the non-control states. So while academic studies (set in the ideal world, apparently) may show that states that control the sale and distribution of alcohol have lower levels of problem drinking, the reality is Pennsylvania, where the alcohol problems are in the stubborn middle, despite control.

2. Union organization

"Second, in an ideal world, the workforce in privately owned liquor stores would be able to form a union simply by securing the support of a majority of workers.
But in the real world, laws created and implemented by Republicans have made union organization in the private sector almost impossible. So I stand with currently unionized employees of the state stores."

Hung by that real world again. Stier didn't know that laws (and regulatory interpretation) would change to allow supermarkets to buy restaurant licenses and start selling beer and wine. And what happened? The majority of licenses purchased were by grocery stores which are already heavily unionized, most by the same union that the State Store workers already belong to. Guess union organization in the private sector isn't impossible after all.

3. Tax revenues

"Third, in an ideal world, businesses, including those that sell alcohol, would be taxed at reasonable rates, wouldn’t get to keep 1 percent of the sales tax to cover costs of collection they no longer have, and would pay all the taxes they owe.
In the real world, because we don’t have to worry about those problems, the wine and spirits stores generate more revenues for education, health care and other public needs than private stores would."

As we've always said, in the real world, the world we actually live in, tax collection problems are not a liquor store problem, they are a department of revenue problem. And having an average number of liquor stores for a state our size (about 2,400, compared to the 600 the PLCB manages to keep open...most days) will generate more tax revenue just due to the extra convenience. And don't forget the hundreds of millions of dollars that won't be going out of state to buy things that the bureaucrats in Harrisburg have decided we don't need or want. (BTW, if Stier thinks that in an ideal world alcohol would be taxed at reasonable rates...does he think the real world rates aren't reasonable? Because that's something we'd agree on.)

4. Wage disparity

"Fourth, in an ideal world, our governor and general assembly would be working to increase wages for working people and the middle class. But in the real world, the Republicans are attacking public sector workers and privatizing public services mainly to drive wages in the private sector down. So I stand against a proposal that is likely to make income even more unequal in our state."

In the real world, there would be LESS wage disparity. There wouldn't be the artificially large difference between a stock clerk in a grocery store and a stock clerk in a state-run monopoly liquor store (who are both represented by the same union...how's that work?). Also, I don't in any way consider the PLCB a service. It limits selection, never leads in new products, severely limits locations, and generally prevents entrepreneurs from providing the services consumers want. The PLCB stops job creation and is a drag on the economy, being well over a billion dollars in debt.

5. Discrimination protections

"Fifth, in an ideal world, the state would protect worker from discrimination by private businesses, including new private liquor stores. But in the real world, LGBTQ workers are only protected from discrimination by organized labor."

Simply not true..."in the real world." Again, Stier's pessimism (and drama) has undercut his positions, as the real world moved on and changed for the better. Workplace protections are provided by state law or regulation. Union agreements do not over-rule written law.

6. Corporate influence

"Sixth, in an ideal world, elections and public policy would be determined by the number of people on each side,  not by campaign contributions given by each side."

We strongly agree! Because by this measure, the PLCB should have been gone ages ago, since for decades the majority of people polled wanted private liquor stores. And we all know who gave more money to politicians -- those against privatization, even though it was against what the people wanted.


So what does this all mean?  In 2018 -- in the real world -- there are no reasons to keep the antiquated, anti-consumer jobs program called the PLCB.

Privatize.

Vox Populi

Newspapers are the voice of the people, even now, in the age of the Internet. There are left-leaning ones, right-leaning ones, moderate ones, and some that seem to just wander about the center. But in Pennsylvania, right or left, they all seem to be in favor of liquor privatization.

The State Store clerks and their union bosses will tell you that it is because of the advertising dollars that newspapers will get from liquor ads; it's all about the money. But if you look at the Sunday New York Times, in the largest media market in the country, how much liquor advertising do you actually see? Usually under a quarter of a page. How much do they think The Somerset Daily American is going to get in advertising column inches? Makes for good sound bites, though, and helps you forget that for the clerks and the union bosses...it's all about the money.

I wonder how the "liberal media" is somehow controlled by the right on just this one subject, don't you? They know and have known that the people overall want a private liquor system. There has never been a scientific poll showing otherwise, including all the polls the newspapers have done themselves. The first complaints published about the PLCB were shortly after it started, saying there was a lack of selection and convenience. 82 years later, nothing has changed.

So here's the challenge. What newspaper is actually in favor of keeping the state stores? Are there any, besides the Raging Chicken Press?  (I'm not making that up and it isn't a print newspaper either.) Perhaps a few union and progressive blogs, but even some of them are in favor.

Here are just some of the newspapers that have come out editorially, some numerous times, for privatization. Where is the list of newspapers against?

Bucks County Courier Times-Intelligencer
Butler Eagle
Express Times (Bethlehem)
Lebanon Daily News
Philadelphia Inquirer
Pittsburgh Post Gazette
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Scranton Times Tribune
Somerset Daily American
The Altoona Mirror
The Citizens Voice (Wilkes-Barre)
The Courier Express  (DuBois)
The Delaware Daily Times
The Observer Reporter (Washington/Greene Counties)
The Patriot News (Harrisburg)
The Pocono Record
The Pottstown Mercury
The Reading Eagle
The Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre)
The Tribune-Democrat (Johnstown)
Williamsport Sun-Gazette
York Daily Record

All parts of the state, all sizes of towns and cities, all in favor of what the people want. 3,000 clerks should not control the wants of a state of 12.7 million.

Privatize. Make this the year it happens.

Play "Who's the Dummy - PLCB supporters edition"

So much happening lately.  First you have the Governor trying to rewrite two centuries of economic theory by proclaiming that competition would raise prices. Then he told us that privatization would raise prices if taxes were raised...because we all know private stores set their own taxes.

Plenty of stupid, but wait, there's more! Not to be outdone, the brain trust at the ISSU (Independent State Store Union) came up with this gem: "Limited competition negatively impacts convenience." (They called it a "disaster," too.) I gotta ask: if limited competition has a negative impact on convenience, what does NO competition -- like with the PLCB -- do?  Don't forget, this is the union of the managers. We're not nuts about the service level at the State Stores, but you almost have to cut the workers some slack if this is what they have to deal with every day.

Proving that the ISSU doesn't have a lock on stupid, the UFCW (United Food and Commercial Workers) comes up with this gem: privatization will cause a loss of selection and higher prices...and somehow, at the same time, increase drinking. Sounds like they've fully embraced Wolfonomics. As everyone knows, the Governor thinks -- all things being equal -- increased prices result in more sales. It's a cornerstone of Wolfonomics, the corollary to Wolf's dramatic new theory that competition leads to higher prices. Forbes presented a brilliant exposition of Wolfonomics recently: "Opponents Of Private Liquor Sales Claim State Monopolies Serve Customers Better." Take a moment to read it, it's quite good. (I'm talking to you, Governor Wolf.)

While there can be no excuse for such idiocy in a government office or organizational headquarters, it does bleed down to some of the common folk.  Internet newspaper comment columns are full of people who know the PLCB made $550 million in "profit" (some think they made $1 billion in profits!), apparently believing that taxes will disappear if sales are privatized, and that other taxes will automatically go up to make up for these mysteriously disappearing booze taxes. (Tip to you: the booze taxes aren't going anywhere. Not a chance.) There are self-styled economists who don't know that revenue isn't the same as profit, and that neither of them include taxes. There are folks who think that every privately employed liquor store salesperson is or will be on welfare, and that nobody will be hired even if the amount of stores double, triple, or even quadruple.

I especially love the ones who say they don't drink, and then proceed to tell us that the PLCB can get you anything you need...and you shouldn't complain, the implication (sometimes openly stated) being that if you do complain, you're an alcoholic. Or they tell us that the State Stores have the best prices in the country, or that we are safer because of the State Stores, when in fact we are barely mediocre in that respect.

Other favorites are this one woman who didn't want privatization because there wouldn't be any Mom & Pop stores so it was better to keep the PLCB...which has no Mom & Pop stores.  Kinda makes your brain hurt, don't it? One gentleman told me that Walmart will get all the licenses, all 14,000, because it is payback for supporting Republicans. (The facts are that the only free-spending "special interests" in this fight are the unions, and they just got their 'payback' from Wolf's veto. The retailers and the producers/importers are staying out of it, because they know the PLCB will retaliate if privatization doesn't pass.) Can't forget the guy who knew there are 18 states exactly like PA for alcohol sales. I don't think he gets out much. Nothing wrong with having an educated opinion, but you gotta laugh at some of these.

Of course, the real oddballs are in the legislature, but you can read about them everywhere.

Until the next time -- keep buying out of state!

Amazing: PLCB apologist

Phillywinefinder.com is a well-known supporter of the PLCB's wine "program." PWF is a frequent commenter on Philly bulletin boards, where he supports the Chairman's Selections, the Premiere Collection stores, and the PLCB's website; he even has a list of "Philly Wine Rules" to lay out his manifesto (mind you, I'm assuming PWF is a "he," because that's how most wine types in the area refer to him). They are both expected -- Buy Chairman's Selection Wine, Shop at Premium Collection Stores, Use the PLCB Web Site...I mean, duh -- and jaw-dropping: Pay Attention to Temperature and Light in Storage and Serving (translation: the PLCB is dumb enough to keep wine in hot storage and sunlight), Don't Expect the State Store Employees to be Robert Parker and Jancis Robinson (no problem, I don't), and then this bombshell: Cultivate Friends and Family in Other States, which is to say, drink good wines when you're in New Jersey and, what the hell, break the law and bring them home to Pennsylvania. I do it, sure, but I don't really expect to hear that kind of advice from someone who says

We dare you to follow these tips and strategies and see if you don't stop shaking your fists with rage at the PLCB and instead become a convert and frequent shopper of the Wine and Spirits Stores of PA!

Okay, I will, since I don't apparently have to actually buy things there to be a 'convert!' Honestly, these are the kinds of contortions you have to go through to find something good to say about the PLCB's State Store System. It's like finding something good to say about the case law: um...less light damage?

Odd strategies aside, that's not what I wanted to talk about today. No, instead it's about the opening paragraph on that Philly Wine Rules page.

There's one thing that almost all booze swilling Philadelphians (because if you hate the PLCB, you must be a booze swiller) seem to agree on: they all hate the archaic liquor laws and monopolistic system of alcohol distribution administered by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB). (Yup. He's got that part right.)  Articles, editorials, blogs (Ah. That one would be me), forum posts, and more have nothing but curses and condemnation for the vile agency and its hated rules and retail monopoly. (Actually, that's not true. I have Reasons, and I have said good things about the PLCB. I like the online product catalog, for instance.) Hatred runs so deep that even when the agency tries to do something right (like remodeling the stores or improving customer service) they get slammed (I said nothing about remodeling the stores, and I said the way they went about improving customer service was ethically questionable; as it turned out, the State Auditor General agreed with me). Anyone who tries to defend the PLCB gets called a shill, because, so the thinking goes, no rational person could defend such a dreadfully awful regime without having some kind of vested interest at stake. (Given that most people who do defend the PLCB are either current or retired members of the system, or Wendell W. Young IV, the president of the union that represents the State Store System clerks...I'd say they mostly are shills.)

Well. Someone has a problem. First, I do not think PWF is a shill. He has said on many occasions that he is not related to the PLCB in any way, and I choose to believe him. I'm actually somewhat refreshed to see someone arguing for the PLCB that isn't a shill. That said, PWF's arguments almost all revolve around the Chairman's Selection program and the 'find anything anywhere in the state' website...and when pressed, he simply replies that people can always go across the border.

I can't discuss the Chairman's Selection program; I'll admit that I don't know enough about wine. I've been told by wine lovers that it's gone downhill since Jonathan Newman left, and that it is a dumping ground for old wines and wines that didn't sell elsewhere. I do not know if that is true. I do buy some CS wines myself, and have not generally been disappointed.

(I also buy some of the lowball wines the PLCB has, like the Rex Goliath Cab...then when I tried to buy it at my local store -- good old 0909 -- I couldn't find it, and the clerk I asked about it just shrugged, said, 'I guess we don't have any,' and started talking to another customer without offering to check backstock or telling me there was none. Hard to believe, right? Well...I DID find four bottles in Verona, PA, and the clerk there was great. On the register; I found it myself.)

But the website? Please. It's only possible because it's a statewide monopoly. It's like the case law "protecting" beer; if that's the best you can offer me, I'll take my chances with all the other benefits of privatization!

And running across the border? Break the monopoly, and the State Store System will be a money loser, I guarantee. Because more stores open on the border all the time -- a huge Roger Wilco just opened at the far side of the Burlington Bristol bridge -- and if people aren't worried about getting caught, they'll stream over there. The fact is, it's against the law. You can't argue in favor of a legal monopoly by saying you just skirt it whenever it becomes inconvenient; what about the poor bastards in Scranton, or State College?

The system is archaic and monopolistic. That's why we want to do away with it. And if I'm just cursing and condemning...what's this, PWF's latest tweet?

"cheap way to bash #PLCB: pick obscure #wine and whine that PLCB doesn't have it when in fact very few states offer it anyway."

A cheap shot, but proof he's rattled. Anyway, fella...I don't need to do that. The PLCB's all target, all the time! The wine kiosks: HA! Even when they work, they're ridiculous. The courtesy contract: ethically challenged and exposed the basic problems with the state-owned retail system. The bottle charge increase: it's on! It's off! It's on! The beer registration raids: enforcement left looking like idiots because the PLCB's registration list was stuffed full of errors. Jonathan Newman, the best thing that happened to the PLCB in years: driven off by the political hackery that has always dominated the PLCB. Joe "CEO" Conti: a patronage plum offered to a politician who wasn't savvy enough to dodge the right way on the pay increase. And on, and on, and on.

Are there good wines for sale at the State Store System? Of course there are; there are so many wines it would be hard to miss. Would a private system offer more choice? Absolutely, because it would offer me the choice to go somewhere else.