How to Lie Spin like the House Democratic Caucus

Way back on May 17th of this year, which qualifies as ancient history in political terms, I wrote to the Pennsylvania House Democratic Caucus to ask them if they would vote for a bill that gives special treatment to the Democratic National convention above that of the citizens of the state; in other words, the proposal to allow bars in Philly hosting DNC events to bring booze in through non-PLCB channels. Their reply:

"I fully expect the caucus to be fully against any relaxation of PA liquor laws while the Democratic Convention is in Philly. You need to treat all visitors as you do the citizens."

Bill must be from Pennsylvania; who knew?

Well...someone must have forgotten to tell the members in the House Appropriations Committee, since every Democratic member voted for it.

Given a second chance, the bill was then voted on by the House Liquor Control Committee. No Democrat voted against it, but there were four who chose not to vote at all; a clear vote of conscience (or else they were at lunch).

And Vote Number Three, the House Rules Committee? Once again, all the Democrats voted for it.

The last chance to actually do what the Caucus "fully expected" that they would do was the full vote of the House. And again, EVERY Democrat voted for it. At least 41 Republicans voted against. Either the Democratic Caucus has no influence on the Democrats, or they didn't know what they were talking about or flat-out lied, or they thought they had an out.

Because while the DNC will get special treatment, it's okay, because now it is a "National Event License" (that the PLCB makes money off of), instead of just special treatment for the Democrats. Only guess who are the only groups that qualify: the Republican National Convention, or the Democratic National Convention! Section 408.17 page 6 line 25: National Event Permit.--(a) Upon  application of the chief executive of a national political party conducting its national convention in this Commonwealth..."  I guess the Libertarians or the Greens could apply, but I don't know if the PLCB would consider them national parties. Probably not.

In any case, instead of trying to slide a one time special use bill that places the political class temporarily above the citizens, they decided to say screw it, let's make it a law that officially places the political class above the citizens any time we want. Now the Republicans are at fault too, although they didn't vote like herd animals to make you second class citizens in your own state. So when election time comes around remember who officially thinks they are better than you are...and who thinks that they represent you.

Breaking News: PLCB signs new ethics pledge...again

I swear I won't take any more graft ever again and I really mean it this time.. Sincerely, the PLCB

After beating out everyone in Harrisburg except the Turnpike Commission for disgraced employees, the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) unanimously voted on Friday to close loopholes in its code of conduct to prohibit employees from accepting any and all gifts from vendors or contractors. The move was to support Gov. Tom Wolf’s recently signed executive order that banned state employes from accepting gifts. PLCB employees were already prohibited from accepting alcoholic beverages offered by vendors or contractors, but there were exceptions that were not covered, such as T-shirts, pens, and other gifts.


"The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board already had one of the most restrictive codes of conduct in Pennsylvania state government, but these modifications make it even stronger,” PLCB Chairman Joseph "Skip" Brion said.  "No longer will vendors be able to give out 5,000 pens to senior management and get away with it like before. Outfitting our families for the next 3 generations with t-shirts will no longer be accepted, and will force the PLCB to revert back to the time when cash was the only acceptable form of coercion, just like in Grandpa's day!"

PLCB board member Tim "Rex" Holden fully agreed with the Chairnan's statements when caught during one of the board's 22 exhausting work days for this year. When asked what was in the box marked "Bic" this reporter saw him pushing under his desk with his foot, he replied it was "official PLCB business."

Member Mike "Sparky" Negra declined to comment on why the little league team he sponsors suddenly changed their name to the "Captain Morgan Spiced Rum Pirates," saying it was a personal decision not involving board policy or procedures; he noted that his other grandson is playing for the Erie Fireballs and his granddaughter was an American Honey cheerleader.

Pennsylvania citizens can now rest easy knowing that PLCB management, unlike before, now knows that taking graft of any kind is no longer acceptable and has signed a pledge saying so just like they did previously and that big liquor can no longer push the board into deciding what product to sell or brands to feature. [leave this out of the final copy - editor]

PLCB Executive Director John Metzger added, "Look, it's simple.  The longer we can keep unqualified people at the top doing things they perhaps shouldn't be doing — like golf weekends, pointless rebranding campaigns, wine kiosks, or what have you — the more we can promise we're gonna fix things, and the more window dressing we can put out to look like we are. This pledge is just one of those steps." 


Yeah, this is satire, but really, over the long run, nothing significant changes at the PLCB — everything remains the same (and hats off to the Philadelphia Inquirer for recognizing that in today's lead editorial). The only way fix that is to Privatize - the Ultimate Modernization.

The PLCB value to PA.

A fairly short look at another reason the PLCB is bad for consumers.

First we have to understand what "value" is. Value is not something defined by any organization but by the individual who decides to buy "X" instead of "Y." Does that $10 bottle of wine have more 'value' to you as an individual at this time then that NY Strip Steak? This time it may, next time it may not, depending on the scarcity and availability of the item or suitable substitutes. Value is not solely price-driven either, since for every purchase the consumer considers what they won't or can't buy if they do get the product under current consideration; be it that steak or a new car. You can see this individual idea of value in people who may have expensive shore homes with little furniture, driving a 10 year old car; or the opposite, with people who have an expensive car, but live in a place that needs more than just a fresh coat of paint.

Society also places value on things. Roads, Schools, Police, etc., etc. It also places value on labor. Obviously some skills are worth more to society than others, so their value is higher, and thus the compensation received is higher. One can get an idea of how society values a profession by the compensation given within that geographic region. But in Pennsylvania, alcohol retail labor prices are not bound by market forces, and are therefore not reflective of the scarcity or societal subjective valuations of such work.

The presence of extreme unionization further shows the manner in which wages and benefits have been manipulated to unsustainable levels, and how the State creates dependent constituents who will support the government entity because they alone benefit from it. What emerges is a wage rate and level of benefits that are not found in any other retail industry, supported and defended by a large workforce of unionized bureaucrats, who will fight privatization at all costs in order to protect their artificially high wages and benefits.

These artificially high wages and benefits lure workers to the PLCB. In effect, the high compensation tells potential workers, "This is where you are needed, there is a scarcity of this kind of worker and because of that we value you greatly". However, this is false because they are not brought about by market exchange and competition, but instead by government coercion, restrictions, and taxation. They mislead the worker, and draw them into the self-sustaining bureaucracy. If it were not for the PLCB with its artificially high compensation, these workers would've been drawn into other productive industries, where their wages would have indicated a true shortage/valuation of workers and would've been put to productive uses more highly valued by the consumer.

If you believe the PLCB is a worthwhile endeavor because it provides a revenue stream to the state, then these artificially high wages and benefits reduce that revenue stream, thus providing less benefit than if labor were priced at market rate . If you believe that the PLCB should not be selling retail or wholesale alcohol, then the artificially high wages and benefits cause prices to be higher than they otherwise would be along with limiting entrepreneurship, job creation, and competition . In either case the current labor structure is not optimum for the citizens except for the 0.04% of residents who work for the PLCB.

"No government enterprise can ever determine prices or costs or allocate factors or funds in a rational, welfare maximizing manner. No government enterprise can be established on a business basis even if the desire were present. Thus, any government operation injects a point of chaos into the economy, and since all markets are interconnected in the economy, every governmental activity disrupts and distorts pricing, the allocation of factors, consumption/investment ratios, etc." (Murray Rothbard - S.J. Hall Distinguished Professor of Economics, UNLV)

(I'd like to thank Joe Norton for his invaluable help with this article.)

$73,102 a year for taking a shower!

No the PLCB isn't coming clean that would take far more space to write then what is allowed here.

Imagine if the government paid you $73K a year to do something you know how to do.  Pretty good deal right?  Actually you would be underpaid by PLCB standards.  The 2 board members make that every year (the Chairman makes even more) for meeting 21 times in total (2013) with no, I mean NONE at all*, experience in the liquor or retail industry or any business the size of the PLCB and they meet for less time then you spend in the shower every year. Pretty sweet gig and a prime example of why the PLCB needs to be privatized. (* Board Member Bob Marcus did sell cars but that really isn’t the same thing)

Imagine if the mayor of Pittsburgh decided to come in only 21 days a year for a couple of hours. A fair analogy since the Board and the Mayor both have almost exactly the same amount of full time employees working for them. How much and how well would things get done?  One only has to look at the ineptness of the PLCB to answer that question. The difference being that the mayor pretty much only affects Pittsburgh while the PLCB affects all 12 million citizens.

Let business people make business decisions, they at least have experience and aren’t political hacks who need a job.  Also, you can count on them to be on the job most if not all days too working tirelessly to expand the business.  See my post about “40 years of nothing” to see how effective the board is on that business principle.

Privatization IS Modernization.  Accept nothing less.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corbett Officially Announces Support for Privatization of State Store System!

Big news today on the PLCB front: the front-runner in the Pennsylvania gubernatorial* race, Tom Corbett, announced yesterday that he supports "privatization of the state-run liquor store system." Here's the statement, from his campaign website:

“It is no secret that Pennsylvania and the next governor of this commonwealth will be faced with massive economic challenges left behind by the current administration.  As governor, I will present a plan for the privatization of the state liquor store system that helps to address the state’s need for additional funds, insures ongoing revenues and minimizes the impact on current workers,” said Corbett.  “Given the current economic climate in Pennsylvania, state government can no longer be in the liquor store business. We need to move our state out of the 19^thcentury and refocus state government on its core functions and services for our residents."   

Of course, presenting a plan and getting the Legislature to pass it are two different matters, but having push from the governor will help. We'll certainly do our best to fuel the debate. 

What about the Democratic candidate, "Danny Boy" Onorato? He's been against privatization in the past, and when asked about Corbett's new statement, responded through a spokesman (in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: that he 

"would "consider any proposal" but currently does not support the privatization of liquor stores. "The current system generates hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue to help balance the budget..." said Brian Herman. Mr. Onorato plans to make the state system more "consumer-friendly," but is looking elsewhere for savings, he said."

Actually, the current system generates under $200 million; the taxes on booze generate "hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue," and that would continue. It would almost certainly increase as we eliminated "cross-border bleed," the PLCB euphemism for "people going to NJ/MD/DE to buy booze instead of at the annoying State Store System."And I'd love to know how he "plans to make the state system more 'consumer-friendly,'" given the current level of arrogance at the agency; they told Fast Eddie to piss off, do you really think they're going to listen to some jumped-up county commissioner?

As I've said before: I wouldn't suggest that anyone vote based on this single issue. But if you're wavering on who to vote for -- and in this particular race, it's like deciding to vote for Mr. Avuncular or Rendell Lite -- here's one candidate who's taken a solid stand on an issue you probably care about.


*And isn't that a great word? Goobernatorial?

What the Winos are thinking

I have to assume this thread on PhiladelphiaSpeaks.com reflects what the wine-lovers are thinking. They don't like the PLCB, and who can blame them?

By the way, Keith Wallace is right: the two candidates for PA governor have different stands on the PLCB. Tom Corbett is not against reform of the PLCB and The State Store System; Dan "I Balanced Pittsburgh's Budget On The Backs of Drinkers" Onorato is dead-set against it. I do not encourage anyone to be a single-issue voter, least of all on this one; but if you need to make up your mind, factor it in, eh?



Apologies: I posted this over at the Session Beer Project blog first by mistake!

State Rep John Taylor: "a ridiculous use of enforcement manpower"

Last Thursday's raid on three Philly bars -- all owned by the same couple -- for "unregistered beer brands" has caught fire in the media. Hundreds of comments are swamping stories on the Daily News website, stories like the one today where Rep. John Taylor (whose 177th District is home to the Memphis Taproom, one of the bars raided) blasted the raids.

THE TOP Republican on the House Liquor Control Committee said yesterday that the State Police engaged in "a ridiculous use of enforcement manpower" last week when more than a dozen officers staged raids on three Philadelphia bars, suspected of selling beers not registered in Pennsylvania.
"I don't know why they would use that many people to track down an issue like this that could have been handled with a routine inspection," said state Rep. John Taylor, whose legislative district includes one of the bars, the Memphis Taproom, in Port Richmond.

Taylor puts his finger right on the problem. Here's what I said in a comment on Andy Crouch's Beerscribe blog:

Why is a “raid” necessary? Here’s an option: instead of five armed cops walking in on a lunch crowd and seizing beers, how about one bureaucrat comes by with a clipboard to see if unregistered beers are on the premises? If any resistance is offered, backup is a phone call away, and resistance won’t look good on the complaint. Find the unregistered beers and — here’s another thought — get the wholesaler on the line and arrange for payment of the fee and registration on the spot. Done, under the radar, no business disruption, the beer’s registered, the state’s happy, and it costs so much less than sending five cops (and looking like idiots in the press).

I remember having this same thought about ten years ago when I went to my first State College Micro Expo beer festival (a festival that was largely regulated to death, unfortunately). As I arrived about half an hour before the fest started, one of the fest organizers was being lectured -- hectored, really -- by a red-faced PLCB enforcement agent about unregistered beers at the festival. "There are unregistered beers at this festival," he shouted, "and they will not be served, or I will shut this thing down!" The organizer took care of it -- a pain in the ass, but what are you going to do? -- and later told me that the PLCB had first contacted him about the problem less than two days before.

And I thought to myself then...wouldn't it have been better all-round if instead of getting up in the guy's face like that, the PLCB agent had instead said, I understand there are some beers coming to the fest that are unregistered. Let me help you with the paperwork, you cut me a check, and we'll get that all squared away in time for the fest? No stress, no screaming, and the state...has revenue. Wow. Would that make sense? What am I missing?

Oh, and in case you were wondering? The PLCB went after the unregistered brands at the fest...because of an anonymous tip. Best guesses were that it was a local distributor (Zeno's certainly wouldn't have done it: they were making money hand-over-fist that day selling beer to happy geeks). Kinda makes you think that this "anonymous tip" thing should go away too.

PLCB to Phoenixville: Drop Dead

Great discussion ongoing in The Phoenixville News about the PLCB pulling the State Store out of town.

It starts here with local business (the Earth Mart) owner Lisa Longo asking why the PLCB closed the downtown Phoenixville State Store "without any notice or public hearings, no due diligence (to my knowledge, and I asked the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board spokesperson), no economic impact study, but the PCLB spokesperson told me it was "just business" and, because there was "no free parking" in Phoenixville. Really? Since when?"

Seriously, since when should a state agency be slamming shut a door for reasons that are "just business"? Why the hell is the State in this business to begin with?

The city follows up today with this piece from Henry Wagner, the borough council president. "I, together with the rest of Council, the Mayor and the CDC agree that the loss of the State Store would not be a positive step... The PLCB made this decision without speaking to any borough representatives."

Look, if this had been a privately-owned liquor store, okay, they can close up shop, no sweat. Maybe the town would have tried to keep them open; P-ville is trying to re-vitalize their downtown. But for a government agency to do it, after saying they would consult with the borough before moving? Your tax dollars at work: congratulations, Phoenixville, you've been screwed.

The State Store System continues in operation because it is a frickin' jobs program, and a great place for Governor Rendell to reward out-of-work legislators. If it's a jobs program...apparently they can't even do that right. Sell the whole thing, get the state out of this business, and realize the windfall.