Lies My Liquor Control Board Told Me

A nowhere near complete list of the bullshit the PLCB has fed and is still feeding the public.

1. Prior to Act 39, we couldn't negotiate prices.

There was and is nothing in the liquor code that prevented negotiating prices. In fact, all the Chairman's Selections prices are negotiated and have been since inception. In April of 2016, Elizabeth  Brassell, the Board's director of communications said as much: "You are correct that the Liquor Code does not indicate that prices can’t be negotiated or that the PLCB has any obligation to use manufacturers’ suggested retail prices. In fact, as you suggest, the PLCB’s buying power, as well as its discretion to list and delist products, allows for some price negotiation with vendors." Yet we've been told that this is a new power, granted by Act 39.

2. "And, as we’ve said all along, prices will increase for some items, when the supplier and PLCB agree that the market can bear the increase." Chairman Tim Holden.

And as we've said all along, "flexible pricing" means "higher pricing." Today will see the increase of prices on 422 items; prices that are going up because the PLCB alone wants them to go up.

3. "Because of cooperative and collaborative negotiations, we hope to reduce prices on dozens of items in the near future." Chairman Holden again, on October 28, 2016

Here it is over 10 months later and of the top ten selling spirits and top ten selling wines the only thing that has gone down in price are pints of Nikolai vodka....by 30 cents.  This can only mean one of two things. Either the PLCB failed to get any price decrease on the items they have the most leverage on; or the PLCB kept all the reductions in purchase price they did negotiate and put the screws to us, the consumers. The truth is, we don't know, because the PLCB refuses to release this information. So much for us being the "shareholders" in this state-owned "business."

4. The PLCB and the vendors view pricing information as proprietary. At least that is the reason given for no longer showing purchase and shelf prices on the board meeting minutes and why the PLCB refuses to let consumers know what 422 items are that went up in price.

Yet the PLCB listed pricing information for decades. Act 39 and 166 did not make that same information proprietary nor did they say that the public should no longer have access to that information.

5. Wine Kiosks - "This was not a faulty fiscal decision," PLCB Chairman Aug 17, 2011

Yes it was and so was trying to cover it up.

6. Under oath in front of the House Appropriations Committee in April this year, Board Member Micheal Negra said that the loss of 'the shackles' that had been on the PLCB with regard to product pricing "would deliver better revenues for the commonwealth and better product prices and availability for consumers."

Raising prices on 422 items does not provide better availability or prices for consumers. That's a no-brainer. Higher prices are not better prices. And availability? With under 620 stores in a state this size? Don't even talk about availability.

7. The PLCB operates at no cost to the citizens

We pay for everything with higher prices, less selection, inconvenience, pension debt, few stores, inept management at all levels, nepotism, graft, incompetence, anti-consumer practices and unqualified Boards just to name a few. You might as well try to tell us that the Legislature operates at no cost to the citizens.

8. In 1934 the PLCB said that stores would be located at "convenient places to serve the public."

Wow, that's a whopper that they've never gotten over. From a high of 756 stores, we now have shrunk to 604. To reach the national average -- the average -- the total would have to be 1,800. Having 200% less stores than average is not convenient.

9. We are going to run like a business.

A business is successful when it is run by people with experience in the industry, innovates, provides goods at a better price than it's competitors. Provides better service or other services than its competitors do and is convenient for the consumer. The PLCB does none of these well or at all.

"The PLCB is a cash cow!"

10. The PLCB is a cash cow.

The PLCB is $240 million in debt, had negative assets for three of the last seven fiscal years, and by their own admission saved $110 million every year for the past 4 years (through The Wonder Of Bailment!) but has nothing to show for it, limits jobs and job creation due to monopoly practices, spends more on advertising than education, and still only contributes about 0.3 percent of the total state budget.




Tell me again why we need the PLCB? We don't and never have, they do nothing for the state and only exist as a poorly run jobs program. Privatize.

Big PLCB Price Hike May Be Coming!

The PLCB is playing hardball with their suppliers, and it looks like part of the process is threats in the media. Check this out from a recent story at KDKA's CBS Pittsburgh site titled "Prices Of Best-Selling Wines & Spirits To Rise."

The PLCB’s Elizabeth Brassell says the suppliers have been told the price for their product is going to go up on the shelf, “unless our suppliers of those products offer us lower acquisition cost to avoid the retail price increases.”
Brassell says the price increases affect “the best-selling 150 brands of spirits and best-selling 150 brands of wine.” In other words, probably your favorites.

You know what we have to say about that, right? Welcome to Flexible Pricing...we told you so! You know why it's going to affect the 150 best sellers? Because those are the only PLCB products covered by Flexible Pricing! Everything else is still under the mandated markup. 

Here's what the PLCB thinks is going to happen. The PLCB is going to hammer the producers in negotiations! They'll balk at lowering prices, because they know the PLCB isn't going to lower the price on the shelf (because they promised to make a LOT off of this), the PLCB will make this childish "don't make us raise prices!" bid in the press, figuring the producers will lower prices, and then they can say "look, your prices stayed the same, we are HEROES!!" while sucking off all the difference to cover their spiraling operating costs and hold off privatization for another legislative cycle...and the producers will call their bluff, and give 'em nothing.

And the PLCB will just have to raise prices and look like the inexperienced amateurs they are, we'll get screwed, border bleed will explode, and maybe, maybe we'll finally tell our representatives to get rid of this moldy old piece of Prohibitionist crap.

The PLCB Act .39 Special, only one made.

And here's the beauty of it all. If I were the producers... I'd be saying "Screw them. Jack the prices, blame it on them, and maybe Pennsylvania will finally wake up and get rid of these idiots. This is our chance!" Run the long game, booze folks, run the long game, and help us dump these rubes.

Because you know what I'm going to do when the prices go up at the end of August? Hop in the car and go buy booze in Delaware. Why not come along? Let's dump these rubes!

Could Border Bleed Actually be $500 million?

Everybody thinks that border bleed — Pennsylvanians going "out of control" to buy booze in other states, spurning the State Store System...which is illegal — only happens on the southeastern border of the state*, when in reality it occurs across all of Pennsylvania's borders and for a number of reasons.

Why do Pennsylvanians break the law just to buy booze? Why, for everything from spur of the moment decisions to deliberate shopping for lower prices, more convenience, different products not carried by the state stores, or just plain better service that a non-monopoly store can only provide. A private store depends on pleasing their customers; a monopoly store knows you have nowhere else you can legally go.

Back in 2004 a study prepared for the Pennsylvania Food Merchants Association (long-time foes of the state liquor monopoly for perfectly self-interested reasons: they'd like to sell wine and spirits themselves, like stores in other states) determined that 29.4 percent of the Commonwealth's consumption of wine comes from cross-border sales, as well as 20.8 percent of distilled spirits. Has much changed since then?

Let's extrapolate, shall we? In 2004, there were about 640 state stores. Now we have 605, so convenience certainly didn't increase. 29.4% of wine sales would have been $248,460,768.80 in 2014 (Can't use current numbers, because over 11 weeks after the end of the fiscal year the PLCB still hasn't released them). 20.8% of spirits would result in $243,569,926.08, for a grand total of  $492,030,694.88.  Not quite $500 million, but then I'm using numbers from two years ago. I'll bet it would be over the threshold if the PLCB ever decides to let us know how they did last year.

In 2010, a study that was made by the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America, they found that 23.6% of wine sales were done out of state or just over $200 million for wine alone. Using the current ratio of wine to spirit spending that would mean $276 million spent for spirits or a total of $476 million in total border bleed (within 3.25% of the extrapolated 2004 numbers). Close enough for PLCB work, as they say.

The PLCB Neiman report of 2011 had it over $230 million and that was for just 8 of 67 counties and didn't sample any Maryland sales at all. As I pointed out in my report in February, that number is certainly well above $300 million now. Do the other 59 counties spend $150 million out of state? I can't prove it using just the Neiman report, but the other studies indicate they probably do.

Has anything changed since 2010-11? Is the economy more like 2004, or even better now?  Have gas prices come down somewhat? Do people travel more? Of course, the answer to all those questions is yes. The Neiman report showed that even during the recession people that shopped both PA and out of state stores spent more money out of state than in state in those counties and at almost all levels, but especially higher levels, than they spent at state stores. And they did it for the same reasons they always did:

Travel out of state for a broader selection and better price (Neiman report pg 28)

Go out of state to get better prices and stock up on personal supply (Neiman report pg 36)

Recapturing some of that $500 million potential through privatization means more jobs, more taxes collected, more businesses, more selection, more choice, and more benefit for the citizens by not having government interfere with retail. Painting your PA liquor jail cell and extending visiting hours (or selling the jail to some outside firm, Gov. Wolf's latest dim idea) might be better than what you have now but it isn't the same as being a customer in a free market.

Don't "modernize" it or lease it, and don't leave it as it is: NORMALIZE IT. 


*This is probably because Philadelphia-area citizens are so blatant about it; we just don't care at all.

Still waiting on the PLCB and their computers

Here is is 2 months and almost 2 weeks after the close of the fiscal year and still nothing from the wizards in Harrisburg about how well they did or didn't do. Maybe covering their butts from Federal charges is taking up their time....who knows?

But you know what really hurts? Other control states already have their numbers in. Let's look at New Hampshire and see how they did. With a population of only 1,327,000 they somehow sold $652,000,000 in wine and spirits (or just over $484 for every man, woman, and child in the state) and at prices that are usually lower than our State Stores. Pennsylvania has a population of  12.8 million and sold $2,240,563,426 worth of wine and spirits. or $175 per person (2014 numbers because, you know, we're still waiting...).

The expected response from our fine Liquor Corruption Board workers is that New Hampshire residents are all "chronic alcohol users,"  because that's what they always say when confronted with anything that shows the state stores up, be it better selection, more sales, better staff...whatever. Let me put forth a different theory. People go to New Hampshire to buy liquor; and they leave Pennsylvania to buy liquor. New Hampshire makes shopping worth the trip by having better prices, better stores, and a larger selection than nearby competition. The majority of that competition is in Massachusetts, right on the border and the largest state in New England; they also have substantially higher booze taxes than New Hampshire...which has none.

What does PA have? Certainly New York has more people, and higher sales taxes with liquor taxes being pretty close, but we don't see that influx to make any real change in the Corruption Board bottom line. Ohio and West Virginia are control states too, so not much difference there. Most of Maryland is a free state with higher sales tax, lower liquor excise tax and higher beer tax than PA but still draws people across the border because competition drives prices down.

Delaware, as we all know, has no sales tax so that makes them less expensive right off the bat. But they also have stores with far greater selection than anything in PA to draw people in too.

New Jersey has a higher sales tax but a lower liquor tax. Mostly people go because of the selection and prices, again due to competition. The large stores across the river -- Joe Canal's, Total Wine, Moore Brothers, Roger Wilco, etc. -- are not there because of people living in New Jersey. They are there because of the people from PA who find better price selection and service even if they have to pay a toll to get there.

$300 million leaves the state every year and it isn't going down.

Border bleed is real and large and Governor Wolf's proposal to raise the sales tax here is not going to help reduce it, Putting in baskets and changing the name of the state stores is not going to help reduce it, "modernizing" is not going to reduce it, thinking about raising the markup when private stores think about cutting costs is not going to reduce it, and having one store for every 21,000 residents is not going to reduce border bleed either.

Privatization will.

Take my database — please! Inventory idiocy continues.

I'm a Scotch guy, I collect it and I drink it, which means that I look at what the PLCB has to offer and if, by some freak chance, it is something I want, I compare the price to what it would cost me to buy out of state or have it shipped in. (Lots of places will ship to PA and I urge you to search them out.) Needless to say, I've not bought a collectible bottle from the State Store System in a decade. I still keep looking, and the way to look is through the system's website, either the PLCB product search, or the "Fine Wines and Good Spirits Store" (FWAGS). Wait, either? What's the difference? Come along on a search, and learn why the vaunted "convenience" of the monopoly's database of every single bottle of wine and spirits in the state!!! ...is not so convenient after all.

In my crosshairs this time was Highland Park. The online product catalog listed fourteen different Highland Park whiskies, one 'regular,' two 'Luxury,' and eleven SLO-only. Like the last time I looked for something, the "online exclusive" entry is listed as having no stock in the online product catalog. This probably makes sense to somebody at the PLCB but not to anyone with any real business experience. Where else would you be told, "Here is the catalog of everything we list — but don't believe the availability listings, you'd better go over there and check to be sure."

So let's go over to FWAGS and type in Highland Park. Up comes a page that says there are five online, five in-store and 28(!) available by SLO. Sure beats the 14 listed in the catalog. Maybe they haven't cleaned that part of the tens of thousands of bad entries the PLCB admits to having yet. So I look at what is available online. The first one says  Chieftain's Clynelish 14 Year Old, the second one is a Glenmorangie, the third one is another Glenmorangie, the fourth one is a  Mackinlay's...and finally the fifth one actually is a Highland Park. Well, that kinda sucked. 

Let's see what is listed as being in store. The first item listed is a GlenDronach; why, I don't know. The second item listed is the one Highland Park the PLCB actually stocks in some stores and the other three items are the Mackinlay's that were listed as an "Online exclusive!" that also happens to be available elsewhere in a store, and two different sizes of the same McClelland's. Why McClellend's would even show up in a search for Highland Park is another one of those PLCB mysteries that they have somewhat regularly.

I'm beginning to not have any faith that the 28 SLO items listed for Highland Park are really Highland Park. Surprise! I'm right. The entire first page has no Highland Park on it.  Jeez, how bad was this BEFORE they updated the search engine? On to page two where there are eleven Highland Park entries and three more that don't match the search criteria.  But wait, the online catalog says there are 14 and the FWAGS website only lists 13. Which one is missing?  Here it is: "Highland Park and Bowmore Distilleries Double Barrel Blended Scotch Whisky 10 Year Old 92 Proof"  Explain to me why that doesn't show up in a search for Highland Park, will ya? After some digging I did find it; somebody just decided that the name in the catalog wasn't to their liking so they changed it, thus guaranteeing nobody would be able to find it. Or buy it. Wonderful.

The PLCB uses Oracle for their database, which is not a dumb flat file system. Now, the people who program it might not be that swift, or the people above them may not know how or what to ask of the system, but that isn't Oracle's fault. Compare the somewhat worthless search for Highland Park at the FWAGS website with a retailer who has to compete and really provide customer service - Binnys in Chicago (notice they often have better prices too). Binny's doesn't have 24 wrong entries when you search but PA does. The first, last, and all the items are what you are searching for at Binny's, but not in PA — and this is after they claimed to have greatly improved the system. "Modernization" at its finest; a preview of what to expect if  they don't privatize. More lipstick on the PLCB pig.

I guess I was lucky that it wasn't on sale. The FWAGS website spits out a list by type and item number. Who the hell knows PLCB item numbers? How about a list by the alphabet that is actually easy to use instead of this item number idiocy? Just more proof that there isn't a warm body in the entire organization who knows squat about retail. Of course, that is what we have come to expect for the past 80 years so I don't know why I'm surprised.

Oh, and that bottle I was looking for? The PLCB does list it, but I was able to buy it overseas; even after paying international shipping it came to 23% less than the state store price*, and only took 10 days to get here, delivered to my door. Shorter than the 2-4 weeks for SLO, so as long as I had to wait anyway, I might as well save some money. Thanks for nothing, PLCB.

Like all other retail goods it pays to shop around....unless you visit the state stores that are all the same. You don't have to put up with this.  Write your legislators and tell them to support HB 466 so we can finally have what most of the country has - freedom of choice based on what we want and not what the unqualified in Harrisburg allow us to have.

Privatization is REAL modernization.








(* I know it is only a 700ml bottle instead of the 750ml here so the effective price is only 17.5% less but still....)

PLCB - We only like Veterans sometimes...depends on the place and time.

Unlike for far less important holidays, the PLCB doesn't know what the proper plan for Veteran's Day should be. From the 2014 PLCB Holiday schedule:

VETERANS’ DAY – Tuesday, November 11, 2014 
While most Fine Wine and Good Spirits stores will be open per their regularly scheduled hours, some will have alternate hours or remain closed on Veterans’ Day. Please call ahead.

Without Vets you wouldn't be open any other day.

Support your Veterans. Shop in states that allow you the freedom that they protected and not socialism of the state store system; and tell the new governor: abolish the State Stores, rewrite the Code.

PLCB competitive? Only when the wrong numbers are used.

I've been waiting to post this just in case the author or editors of the PG decided to post a retraction, correction, or even apology for publishing such a mistake-filled and incorrect article. Alas, no response to my emails to them and nothing in the paper itself. It looks like good journalism has fallen by the wayside at the PG, or at least when it comes to this piece.

The other day the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ran a story about how PA prices were competitive with those of Ohio and West Virginia, both alcohol control states as is PA. The story itself was filled with all sorts of errors that you can read about in the comments, but our trusty Union Representative said that it "Doesn't change a thing about the premise of the article which is absolutely true."

Oddly the PG says "The policy of post-gazette.com is to correct content mistakes in articles, blog posts and on social platforms as quickly as possible. Corrections to articles will be posted at the bottom of the articles. The text of those corrections will be displayed here."  Not like they have to stop the presses to print the correction on-line.  Isn't 4 days enough time to check a website?  Myself and others were able to check the prices in minutes not days. Based on their website list of corrections the PG has made any in a day shy of 2 months so maybe they aren't "as quick as possible" 

The story got me to thinking about why it might be true.  Ohio ranks as #11 in liquor taxes and PA is #15 with 36.2% lower taxes than Ohio according to the Tax Foundation so it really should be a surprise that prices are close. Add to the disparity that Ohio generally has a higher sales tax  (local and state) than PA and the difference should be even larger. What does Ohio do better than PA? More efficient, smaller bureaucracy, less graft, less bloated management, and maybe less child killing greed than the PLCB? They also have more convenience with wine and beer both sold by private businesses.

The real question shouldn't be if PA liquor prices are competitive with Ohio but why doesn't PA beat Ohio across the board?

The Numbers Game

The latest news is that the  PLCB hired an acting executive director to oversee operations.  This is the same guy that oversaw storing extra wine in trailers in the summer as the Director of Supply Chain. Maybe if the board worked more than 21 days a year (2013) they wouldn’t need a $150K babysitter.

NEWS FLASH! The Board is going to work 22 mostly half days in 2014.  That will surely improve things.

On to the reason of the post today.  I heard The Numbers Game by Thievery Corporation on the radio and that got me thinking about the PLCB and their numbers. Somehow Thievery Corporation and PLCB just meshed….weird how that is.

In 2008 and 2011 the PLCB did a survey about border bleed and buyers habits.  Seems like that time should be coming around again.  This time I have a suggestion for them.  Drive to New Jersey, ask nicely of the store owner or manager of Joe Canal’s or Moore Brothers if you can survey the people in their parking lot and then survey all of the PA plates you want, I’m certain you won’t have any problem finding a few hundred or more any day of the week. Who knows, one might be mine.  Do the same in Delaware with Total Wine and in Maryland. This way you get people who are actually buying not just saying they are buying to a survey taker.

Take all that info and then compare it to all those zip codes you bother the crap out of consumers to collect, add up what they spent with all the other out of state receipts and then tell us how bad the border bleed is. Some of your workers are frothing at the mouth on the internet saying how many Canadians, New Yorkers, Ohioans, Marylanders and West Virginians are coming by the bus and ship load to buy here in PA.  You have the numbers so tell us.  

I think since you never have said a word about positive border bleed it really is inconsequential no matter how good you say the stores are or how much you think the prices are competitive.  I think it is so bad as to be embarrassing compared to what leaves PA which is why you have never done it.  Here is your chance to strike a blow for socialist liquor control.  Prove to us how good it is or tell us what we already know – that the people really don’t like or want the state store system and would rather buy from a free market store than a government controlled store.  Maybe the new guy can take this ball and run with it. Just don’t wait too long, you don’t have that much time left.

Privatization IS Modernization and NOW is the time.

Oh PLCB - you got some splainin' to do!

Just like Ricky did with Lucy we Pennsylvanians wonder what the PLCB is doing some if not most of the time.  We hear from the PLCB and the unions that our prices in state are so great but that over $300 million a year is lost in border bleed.  Which makes one wonder if we have such good prices why isn't there a positive cash flow into the state instead of a negative cash flow out of the state? Maybe convenience, selection and service are the deciding factors not price.

Speaking of going out of state to buy liquor we have all heard how Washingtonians are going to Oregon border stores in greater number since privatization to take advantage of cheaper prices.  That is saying something when Oregon has the 2nd highest liquor taxes in the country but would Pennsylvanians also shop in Oregon if they had the chance? According to the Tax Foundation their liquor taxes are 315% of ours.  They are also a control state which means limited hours, selection in store and convenience just like here.  

This story from KNDO NBC 23 out of Yakima, WA shows the inside of an Oregon liquor store and at about 1:15 in the clip you can see some prices of what they have. The signage says these are everyday prices not sale items. I've done a comparison of those prices to PA prices to see how much less expensive we are since our tax rate is so much lower. This is what I found.

Seagram's Gin 1.75L PA $21.99 - OR $18.39 (PA 23% higher)
Seagram's Vodka 1.75 PA $21.99 - OR $17.39 (PA 27% higher)
Kahlua 1.75 PA $42.99 - OR $32.39 (PA 30% higher)
Wolfschmidt Vodka 1.75L PA $14.99 - OR $14.39 (PA 10.7% higher)
Baileys 750ml PA $25.49 - OR $21.99 (PA 21% higher)
Pinnacle Vodka 1.75L $23.99 - OR $21.99 (PA 14% higher)
Smirnoff Vodka 1.75L PA $25.99 - OR $19.99 (PA 29% higher)

Now I know what you are thinking.  Al, your numbers don't work out. Well - they do.  Oregon doesn't charge sales tax so PA prices are an additional 6% higher then just what the listed price differences would indicate.  So how does this state government controlled wholesale operation with 3 times the taxes sell for less?  As the header says, "PLCB - you got some splainin' to do!"

YES! Amended HB790 would end police-enforced monopoly!

Check out the sidebar list in Brad Bumsted's piece in this morning's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on the newly amended HB 790. It's got a lot of good stuff, but down at the bottom is this little nugget: Criminal penalties eliminated for bringing booze in from other states.

YES! That is the end of the Police-Enforced Monopoly, and that is something we've wanted for years. It is a component of true privatization; the recognition that "competition" is meaningless in an arena of full or partial monopoly. It is an end to the unAmerican restrictions on Pennsylvanians' booze-buying freedom, it is a gust of freeing air. It is a triumph for US, people: this is a topic WE made happen.

So...win this. YOU need to call or email -- or both -- YOUR representative this week -- especially if your rep is a Republican -- and tell them you WANT liquor store privatization, you WANT HB 790 to pass, and that this IS a voting booth priority for you. Pass the word, get your friends and family to send in support; this is one time we have to try to match the union. Get on it!

The House Republicans have given us a shot at booze freedom; we have to let them know we want it!

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.

"...bringing any alcoholic beverage into Pennsylvania is illegal..."

Well, I got my response. I recently wrote to the PLCB to ask them how a private citizen, who happened to be in another state and saw a nice bottle of wine for sale, and wanted to bring that bottle home to Pennsylvania, could do their duty to the Commonwealth, fill out a form, pay the taxes, or so on. How could we do the right thing in order to bring this into the State and be square, in other words?

After two weeks -- a relatively short time, considering it came from the PLCB's chief legal counsel -- I got my response this morning. I'd publish it here, only it came by e-mail in the form of a PDF image, which has so far resisted four different attempts to convert it to text. No problem; I've successfully uploaded it to Scribd, and you can see it below.

Please note, before we go any further, that they took pains to note that the State Police Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement enforces the liquor laws, and the PLCB issues legal opinions that are binding on licensees only. "Since you are not a Board licensee, the following is offered for your guidance and information only." Ah. Kinda like the fine print on the video poker machines that Pennsylvania seems completely unable to stamp out. Okay. With that said, let's see what their opinion is.

The third paragraph puts it pretty damned simply: "The general rule is that bringing any alcoholic beverage into Pennsylvania is illegal, with limited exceptions." You have to be "the Board, a manufacturer, or the holder of a sacramental wine license or of an importer license" to transport or possess any liquor or wine within the Commonwealth that has not been purchased from the State Store System or a state winery. "Accordingly, you cannot simply cross the border into a neighboring state, purchase a bottle of wine and return to Pennsylvania, as both the importation and possession of such wine would be illegal."

However...turns out that you can bring in up to one gallon free of tax and mark-up...from outside the United States. So, New Zealand is okay; New Jersey, no way. And if the Board requests it, you have to produce evidence of such travel, the receipt proving you actually bought the stuff there (and not, for example, in New Jersey), and "an affidavit indicating that the purchaser was allowed to bring the liquor in duty-free" (no instructions on who would issue such an affadavit...). And before you think this completely painless, "The Board assesses a service charge for this importation." Of course they do.

You can receive wine and liquor from outside the Commonwealth as a gift, "so long as the proper paperwork is submitted to and cleared by the Board." And you pay the service charges and mark-up, and by the way, you have to pay the taxes to the Department of Revenue, so you have to talk to them, too.

Feeling like Kafka yet? Remember that you do have the ability to purchase wine from outside the Commonwealth! You may purchase it online! And then have it shipped to one of the State Store System's stores (of your choosing!). There are a few conditions, of course: the wine cannot be one listed on the Board's Internet catalog; you'll have to sign an affidavit that you are 21 and purchasing the wine for your own "use;" and you can't get more than 9 liters in a month. Oh, and there's a shipping charge, a handling charge, the 18% Johnstown Flood Emergency Tax, and 6% sales tax (plus an additional 1% in Philadelphia or 2% in Allegheny County). Bet they get a lot of traffic on that one.

In short, they conclude, "...there is no proper protocol for crossing the border to purchase wine in another state and then bring it back to Pennsylvania." And that's pretty much it.

(The letter was copied to the Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement, to the Senior Director of the Office of Regulatory Affairs, the Director and Assistant Director of the Bureau of Licensing, and the Press Secretary. I'm not intimidated, I refuse to be.)

The beautiful thing is, they don't have to provide a proper protocol, or the reasoning for why that is not allowed. That's the responsibility of the Legislature, by way of The Almighty Liquor Code. Why is it that way? Because the State Store System and the PLCB were set up to be a total monopoly -- it's the Pennsylvania Liquore CONTROL Board, after all -- and you can't have a monopoly that leaks around the edges.

Oh, it does, of course; people bring booze into the State every day. You know it, I know it, the Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement, everyone knows it -- except the PLCB, apparently, as Joe "CEO" Conti continues to hold that this is a very minor problem. Sure it is. Which is why there are all those big liquor stores so close to the border in Delaware and Maryland, and why the out-of-state liquor stores run full-page ads in the Inquirer.

I am deeply offended by the very idea of this monopoly. I drive to visit my in-laws in New York and Virginia several times a year. I'm an American. What right does the State of Pennsylvania have to tell me where I can or cannot buy a bottle of liquor? If it's all about the taxes, why not make it easy for me to pay the damned things? No, instead, we're told that "bringing any alcoholic beverage into Pennsylvania is illegal." That's asinine!

Let me make this perfectly clear. I deeply appreciate the time that the lawyers at the PLCB took to write this response. I do; I have no doubt they know who I am and why I wanted to know, this site gets hits from the PLCB multiple times a week, but they responded, and they didn't mince words. I don't hold the PLCB or the BLCE responsible for this ridiculous situation.

I blame The Almighty Liquor Code and the Pennsylvania Legislature. For 75 years we have been under the patronizing thumb of this monopoly. We have no choice except theirs, we have no options but theirs, we have no way to change it or make it better. This is not the fault of the PLCB. Rather, the PLCB and all it stands for -- monopoly, conflict of interest, political patronage, lack of choice, lack of response -- is the fault of the continuing refusal of the Pennsylvania Legislature to lift this Stalinist, paternalistic, antiquated system from our shoulders. It's 2009: could we be allowed to buy a bottle of wine wherever we want? Is that so much to ask? Or do you vant to see our papers?

Read the full text of the PLCB's response on Scribd here

Following the Proper Protocol

People have asked, here and on Facebook, regarding those two folks who got busted in Sayre for bringing booze into PA...what IS the proper protocol for bringing alcoholic beverages into the state? Good question. So I asked the PLCB:

Good morning,
My friends and I have been discussing a news item from the Towanda Daily Review about two Pennsylvanians who were recently cited by the LCB for "purchasing alcoholic beverages out of state, and not following proper protocol for bringing alcoholic beverages into Pennsylvania."
We all live near the New Jersey or Delaware borders, and we were wondering: what IS the proper protocol? If we should find ourselves in a liquor store in New Jersey and see a bottle of wine that would be good with dinner, and bought it, and wanted to be legal and square with the Commonwealth, what should we do? Is there a form we can fill out to pay the taxes due? Or do we have to register our intent beforehand?
As you can imagine, there's quite a bit of this chain of thought going on in border areas. We'd like a solid answer so we can do the right thing.
Thanks!
-- Lew Bryson

When I get an answer...I'll share it here.

Update: "Please be advised that your inquiry has been assigned to a staff attorney for research and response." Okay. I'm waiting...