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.

And now...video

Here's the story on Action News. I especially liked this part:

Authorities stress if Hartranft thinks any of the confiscated beer is registered all he has to do is show them the paperwork. "We would happy to have for them to come down, show us they are registered. If they are they can sign the property record and take custody of them," explained Sgt. La Torre.

That would be the same Sgt. La Torre quoted in the Daily News today, I suppose.

State Police Sgt. William N. La Torre, commanding officer of the Philadelphia office of the Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement, said that he was not aware of any beers that had been mistakenly confiscated.
La Torre said that the beer would be kept in a secured location, as evidence, until the case is resolved, probably in six to eight months. If an administrative-law judge finds that the bars possessed unregistered brands, the State Police typically would seek a forfeiture order to destroy the beer, he said. Depending on the temperature of the storage location, some of the beer will likely turn sour in that period.
Maida said that the couple's attorney had told them that they have until 6 p.m. tonight to compile evidence to prove that the confiscated beer is properly registered.

And if they don't get the evidence by...oh, by two hours ago, they can't get the beer. The Sgt. La Torre on the TV, some time later on than the newspaper interview, sounds like a much more conciliatory man. I reckon he don't need a weatherman...

Senator Rafferty Comes Out Swinging

I have no time to blog about this -- working feverishly on PA Breweries 4 -- but big news yesterday in Harrisburg: State Senator John C. Rafferty (Montgomery-R) held a "rally" for reforming PA's beer laws, the main aim being to allow six-pack sales in grocery stores, convenience stores, and distributors. Read about it here, here (one of Karen Heller's best columns), and most of all here, in Rafferty's own talking points memo (this is a PDF, just to warn you). I'll be back to talk about this when I'm done with the book.

Two things, though. First, thanks to Stan Sheetz, CEO of the PA-based convenience store chain, for really pushing this issue. Second, to the distributors and six-pack store owners and employees who stand to face competition and possibly job losses from this issue: this day was bound to come. Instead of burning your time, money, and customer goodwill by fighting it in courts or the press, step up and compete. Cooperate to get the best possible bill for yourselves. Here's a plan: go for the package store system they have in Massachusetts. Instead of just "fixing" beer sales, do away with the State Store System and make beer distributors eligible to be "all-alcohol" stores, and that's where people buy their booze, from private stores, supplied by privately-owned wholesalers or directly from the suppliers. How's that sound? Radical, hey?

Double-posted to Seen Through A Glass.

"More proof: State should exit liquor business"

That's a quote from the Harrisburg Patriot-News editorial page. They're citing a study from the Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Analysis (full text of the study is here, and it's worth a read), a libertarian-leaning PA think tank, that found...well, essentially found what I was saying here, and then backed it up with facts and citations. They found that Pennsylvania's "control" of liquor and wine sales had no social benefit for the state.

Here's what the summary of the study says (all emphasis (except as noted) added by me, cuz that's what I do):

...arguments might be made for state control as a means of achieving some desired social outcome. In Pennsylvania's case, advocates claim that the social goals of reducing alcohol consumption, underage drinking, and alcohol-related traffic deaths justify controlling wholesale and retail alcohol markets.
Evidence from 48 states over time shows no link between market controls and these social goals [their emphasis]. Divestiture of Pennsylvania's state liquor stores would represent a financial windfall to the state, while posing no threat to public safety, as it would not result in the social ills many opponents of privatization fear.

Now. If all that's true, and it certainly would seem to be -- they've compared it the best way possible, looking at other states with similar and different regulations -- why do we keep the State Store System? It's not about protecting you from yourself. It's about the money -- oh, sorry, I mean the revenue. (Because the State doesn't take your money, they enhance the revenue flow.) And we already knew that. So if we're going to make the same (or better) in taxes under privatization, and there's no horrible effects of drinking too much under privatization lurking, and privatization could make the state a huge windfall and create a lot of jobs...what the hell are we waiting for?

As the editorial concludes: "It is no longer 1933. It is time for the state to get out of the liquor control business."

In New York: State Liquor Authority told to "Shape up!"

And in other states, part 1:

New York's Senate just confirmed Dennis Rosen as the new State Liquor Authority chairman, and in the process, Rosen was warned that he was expeceted to "shape up the agency." The job (which pays $120,800) is responsible for licensing and enforcement. Senators noted -- correctly! -- that the SLA's performance must improve "because it is so critical to the state's economy." The senators were distressed that liquor license applications were taking months to be processed: up to four months in Buffalo, as much as 11 months in NYC. Ridiculous! Anti-business!

Corrupt, too. "The Inspector General's Office raided the Harlem office of the SLA this spring. Law enforcement officials claimed officers there were taking illegal payments from outsiders to expedite applications."There is no one agency that has caused more pain or caused more loss of jobs than the State Liquor Authority," said Sen. George Maziarz, R-Niagara County. He has called for aboloshing [sic] the SLA. Scott Wexler, executive director of the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association, said the SLA may be impossible to fix. [Wow, does that sound familiar?]

(Digested from the Albany Times Union)