I guess I'm on the official Enemies list

Look who I found poking around one of my accounts.

Glad to know they care enough to send the top dog.

An update: 
Ms Diehl has figured out how to poke around anonymously and now that same "Who's viewed your profile" looks like this:

PLCB's "Secret Plan" front-page news? Really?

Lead story in today's Philadelphia Inquirer:LCB offers modernizing ideas to counter privatizing.

The "secret plan" that the Commonwealth Foundation leaked last month came out in the open yesterday -- minus the blatant 'future profits' bond issue scheme -- and for some reason, the Inky decided that this was the most important story of the day. Odd choice, made even odder when the reporter -- Angela Couloumbis -- apparently seemed to think that the PLCB's ideas for transforming the agency through a series of legislative changes were great stuff. There wasn't a negative word in the whole story, and Chairman Jake Corman's beautiful wind-up question was lost:

“I hear you saying that you want to be more like a private business. That begs the question of why not just privatize like 31 other states,” Appropriations Committee Chairman Jake Corman, R-Centre, told agency officials as they wrapped up their appearance.

Couloumbis paraphrased that as 

And while Sen. Jake Corman (R., Centre), who chairs the committee, wondered whether Pennsylvania should fall in line with 31 other states and privatize wine and liquor sales, he acknowledged: "I don't have people knocking down my door for privatization."

Well, honestly, no one's going to knock down any doors for privatization. This issue is most important to licensees; most of whom I've talked to would purely love to have private stores that would deliver to their bars and restaurants, and actually know something about wines, spirits, and business, and they're not going to chance rubbing the PLCB the wrong way; not happening. To us, well, I'd like to see privatization, but I'm not going to Harrisburg to demand it. (Write? You bet. Call? Sure, if it will help! And you should too!)

But more importantly, when a legislator says "That begs the question," it's more substantive than...wondering. "That begs the question" is the legislative, legal equivalent of "Well, duh." Corman's response is just like my response to the PLCB's wowser statements about how convenient the wine kiosks are: Really? Convenient? Compared to picking a bottle off the shelf? Get serious.

Compare this story to this one in the Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader. "Again and again, legislators grilled liquor board members on how the agency operates, on their efforts to make the LCB more consumer friendly and whether a privatized system would result in increased access to alcohol by minors." (Both stories missed this one, which I got at Statehouse News.com: "State Sen. Lloyd Smucker, R-Lancaster, said many of the PLCB’s requests would double as arguments in favor of privatization.“Those decisions are perhaps best left for business. It can be more nimble with decisions to be made in reaction to market conditions,” said Smucker.)

Meanwhile, Couloumbis just repeats everything PJ Stapleton suggested -- longer Sunday hours at more stores, exemption from civil service rules, change the mark-up, and direct shipment of wine (and good though that would be...what the hell's it got to do with the PLCB's so-called business model?) -- while adding slurp-slurp-"I love the union!" quotes like this:

Sen. Jim Ferlo (D., Allegheny) called the agency "a great public asset" and said privatizing would be financially "foolhardy." This year, the agency is kicking $105 million just in profits into the state treasury, he and others noted.

There have been pro-PLCB editorials in Pennsylvania newspapers over the past 6 months, I'll admit that. But has anyone else noticed that every single one of them was written either by a current or retired State Store employee, a union official (I'm looking at you, Wendell W. Young IV), or a Democrat (and therefore presumably pro-organized labor) legislator? I haven't seen a single one written by anyone else.

This story misses the point. Stapleton's suggestions are desperate attempts to pass the blame to the Legislature and hammer down all the nails that are sticking up: too few stores (longer Sunday hours, more open on Sunday); crappy wine selection (you can get it yourself, we don't care!), prices too high (it is not cheaper in New Jersey; we changed the mark-up and lowered the price! (for a year...till you forget all about privatization...)), and unhelpful, untrained clerks (deep-six the civil service rules so we can hire wine-savvy people...for a year...till you forget all about privatization).

People! We've seen this before!  When Newman took over as chairman, people hated the state stores. He made some small changes, gave us some deals on some good wines, and we forgot about privatization... And what happened? Same Shit, Different Governor: Rendell created a $150K job out of nowhere to run the liquor stores (apparently because PJ Stapleton was tired of being asked questions about wine) and gave it to an out-of-work legislator...and the system immediately began sliding back into the craphole Newman had started to winch it out of.

But the truth is, Stapleton's right about one thing. The real problem is The Almighty Liquor Code. It stipulates this moronic system, and if Stapleton wants to keep his plum job (why not? It's found money), and save all the union jobs, changing the code is the way to go. My question: is it simpler to change it Stapleton's way...or to cut the State Store System out entirely. Chop-chop!

Or another thought: How about we leave the State Store System in place, as is...and simply add an equal number of private liquor store licenses, and a number of private wholesalers. The State Stores can't buy booze from the private wholesalers; the private stores can't buy booze from the state. Bars and restaurants can buy from whoever they want. It's cheaper and more certain than doing endless studies; it's empirical. We just let it run in parallel for five years.

Does anyone doubt the outcome?

"There is no such wine."

David Falchek blogs about wine ("Empty Bottles") for the Scranton Times-Tribune, and does a nice job. He also...doesn't think much of the PLCB and the State's monopoly on booze sales. Read this classic tale of just what I'm talking about when I say that the State Store System doesn't exist to serve the citizens or to "protect" them through "control." It exists to serve the State and the employees; it exists to take your money.

Joe "CEO" Conti weeps for his threatened empire

Philadelphia Daily News political columnist John Baer writes on Representative Turzai's privatization plan here, and it's a good one. His first reaction to Turzai's idea: "I'll drink to that." It gets better from there.

Baer talks to Joe "CEO" Conti at the end of the piece. It's too good, too delicious not to quote Conti's "Why me, Lord, why me?" cri de couer...so I will.

Also, CEO Joe Conti tells me that past studies say that over time the LCB provides the state more money than a private system promises. He adds, "The board and our agency work diligently to increase the revenue we return to taxpayers, and we let the Legislature and the governor deliberate over privatization." 

As if you could stop them! And let's not forget that you're fleecing the taxpayers to get that 'revenue' in the first place. But I like Baer's response to Conti's "and we let the Legislature and the governor deliberate over privatization" line:

"I hope they do - if not this year, then soon."

Yeah. That's about all this Repeal-era relic deserves.

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.

Big anti-PLCB piece in Philadelphia Weekly

The issue of Philadelphia Weekly that came out yesterday features a lengthy anti-PLCB screed by Tom Cowell; nice work. (There was a good editorial on the wine kiosks the day before in the Lebanon Daily News, too.) The blog got some mention (bottom of page 2), but much much more importantly, Cowell had clearly been reading it and getting ideas: the number of stores compared to Chicago, how relatively little money we actually get from a complete monopoly on booze sales, the stupidity of the rebranding scheme, the way the PLCB is really just the tool of the legislature.

Which is exactly why this blog is here, to inspire thought and action. Cowell took it and ran with it, talked to union head Wendell Young, found some more issues (the patronage inherent in the State Store System, for example), and got a new crowd of folks stirred up. I'm very happy to see it happen.

Keep spreading the word. PRIVATIZE IT NOW!

(And if you feel like supporting me in the comments to this piece...feel free, but remember to keep it on track: it's all about abolishing the PLCB and rewriting The Almighty Liquor Code!)

Conti Speaks!

Interesting interview with Joe "CEO" Conti on the new Grub Street Philadelphia site. Kirsten Henri asked him about the "wine boutique" concept, and gets some answers that just leave you slack-jawed. For instance, the boutiques are "picked" by putting ads in local newspapers, and waiting for replies, a charmingly innocent way of making sure you get the response you want while remaining "courtesy contract legal." And a great exchange here:

Conti: ...we weren't looking to partner with restaurants, we were looking to partner with high-end gourmet food stores.

Henri: Maybe it's confusing because your first partner, Jose Garces, is known for being a restaurateur, not a grocer. [Score!]

Conti: Jose basically was doing this market in the Western Union building. When he heard we were placing boutiques, he called us.

Clearly Garces reads the real estate ads in the local papers; what, in the "Monopoly Opportunities for Advantage Available" section?

But this is my favorite:

Henri: Are you surprised some restaurateurs are bent out of shape?

Conti: How can I be diplomatic here? [I assume this means, "How can I insult your intelligence and get away with it?"] I'm from a restaurant family. I like to tease I'm a bartender by birth. My father was president of the National Restaurant Association. [This, BTW, is essentially Conti's self-stated qualification for his current position: heredity.] Yes, I was surprised. It's a very old-fashioned, parochial view of the restaurant market. Decades ago we realized the hospitality industry survives best when there are a number of options for the consumer.

Didja see that last line? "...the hospitality industry survives best when there are a number of options for the consumer." Guess that doesn't apply to retail wine and spirits sales!

These ridiculous ideas only point up how ill-suited state-owned monopoly booze sales are to modern commerce. These "boutiques" are clearly an unfair advantage to stores that are selected on the basis of personal choice by unelected, unregulated bureaucrats. The wine kiosks are a bumbling circumvention of supermarket sales.

Stop making it so hard! Privatization would fix all of this, increase jobs, continue the collection of taxes, and put an end to the embarrassing parade of corrup -- er, "the appearance of a possible conflict of interest." The Legislature needs to put an end to this farce, and now would be a great time.

PLCB's 'CEO' Conti and Chairman Stapleton on PCN Call-In tonight

Got questions about the PLCB? Want to know why your favorite wine (or bourbon, Sam) has disappeared? Curious about SLO? Jealous of the towns that have beer sales at their Wegmans or Sheetz? Can't figure out why we have the case law, or why beer is sold in private stores but not wine and liquor? Want to know why the PLCB is training their clerks to be polite? Want to ask Joe 'CEO' Conti just what it is he does? Would you like to hear them defend their very existence?

Itch for knowledge no longer. Both 'CEO' Conti and PLCB Chairman PJ Stapleton will be on PCN-TV tonight on the Call-In show for an hour, at 7 PM. I'd urge you to watch this. If you do call in a question, please be civil. I'd hate to have Chuck Ardo think you were criticizing them for curing cancer.

This should be fun.

"If the LCB were to find a cure for cancer..."

Either Governor Rendell or his press secretary, Chuck Ardo, apparently thinks people like me -- and maybe you -- are just anti-PLCB cranks. Check this out from that Pittsburgh Post-Gazette piece on the courtesy contract controversy:

Such criticism was to be expected from longtime critics of the PLCB, countered Chuck Ardo, a spokesman for Mr. Rendell. "The LCB decided their retail staff needed some training to ensure courteous service," he said. "If the LCB were to find a cure for cancer they would find a reason to criticize it."

"Cure for cancer"? In light of what's been going on lately, it seems more likely that someone at the LCB's brother-in-law would be peddling Laetrile, Chuck, and yeah, I'd criticize that.

In fact, even your own boss criticized the courtesy contract controversy...at least, until someone got to him and, er, pointed out the facts. Check it out, and how Chuck spun it right around (emphasis added, cuz I wouldn't want you to miss the important stuff...):

Mr. Rendell, when asked about the customer service training contract at a news conference, said it was the first he'd heard of it -- and of the relationship between the consulting firm's president and an PLCB manager. "If it's true, it's something that should be corrected," Mr. Rendell said.

But the governor made that comment before he had all the information about the contract, Mr. Ardo said. "He is not calling for the contract to be rebid," said Mr. Ardo. "He answered instinctively [because] the way the question was asked it seemed there might be a problem, but once the details unfolded it was clear there is no problem."

Clear? You bet! It's clear to me that Rendell's "instinctive" response to hearing about a fairly large state contract being let to the husband of a high-ranking agency manager was that it was "something that should be corrected." How much more information do you need? That it's "in compliance" with the state's Adverse Interest Act, according to LCB spokesman Nick Hays? Yeah, that's a tough standard. Check out the Post-Gazette's careful, damning parsing of that:

Hays said the contract was "in compliance" with the state's Adverse Interest Act, which among other things prohibits state employees from influencing contracts in which they have an interest.
The act also prohibits state employees from having an "adverse interest" in any contract with the state agency that employs them. The act defines that interest as being "a stockholder, partner, member, agent, representative or employee" of a company seeking such a contract. Hays said Susanne Hobart does not do any work for her husband's firm.

Let me get this straight. Is this coming from the same state agency that recently required an investor in Philadelphia brewpub Earth Bread + Brewery to sell his investment to his wife (because he was also an investor in another small Pennsylvania brewery, which might influence the managers of EB+B to buy beer from that brewery), and then further required his wife to sign an affadavit that her husband would never profit from her investment? Really?

Did they require Mrs. Hobart to sign a similar affadavit? They're married. The state's "Adverse Interest Act" doesn't cover that? I guess that's one of the "details" Chuck was talking about.

The Gov should follow his instincts more often.

One the Inquirer did print

Although the Inky didn't print my 'privatize the PLCB' letter you see below, they did print this one today, which brings up a beautiful point I've made here before. Maybe mine was too long...

Selling a monopoly
With the state trying to balance its budget in these difficult economic times, I would like to know why my tax dollars are being spent on radio advertising campaigns for the wine and spirit liquor stores in Pennsylvania. A monopoly in the marketplace, such as the Liquor Control Board, has no need to solicit for customers. By the way, this state-controlled business should be privatized.

Brenda Webster
Norristown

Go, Brenda! If you see letters like this in your local paper, send me a link. I'll get 'em up here.

(BTW, now that the blog's living and breathing again...I've got my regular reader from the State government in Harrisburg again. Good to have you back, hope you're taking notes! The word for today is privatize.)

Spread the Word!

We've got a good roll started here, but we need to roll it bigger. The blog is already getting 20% of the daily hits I get on my longer-established beer and whiskey blog, Seen Through a Glass, after only two months. But we need a lot more if we're going to get a significant number of people torqued about the PLCB.

I'm asking for your help to Spread the Word about the PLCB Abolition Movement. Pennsylvania doesn't need this outdated system, Pennsylvania doesn't deserve it. We need to get as many Pennsylvanians as possible to realize that. Getting rid of the PLCB is not about "saving a few dollars on alcohol," or selling fancy mail-order wines to elites, or putting bureaucrats and State Store clerks out of work, or selling booze to kids, or any of the things that will be brought up to oppose us. It is about free enterprise, about dignity, about common sense, about the 21st Century, about convenience, about getting government out of an enterprise it should never have been involved with in the first place.

Tell people about this blog. (Believe me, I don't make a dime on this, getting more readers will not make me more money because I get none now; if anything, the time spent on it costs me money.) Tell them about the Reasons you read here. Write e-mails: to your paper, to your state reps, to your friends. Get mad. Think of more Reasons and send them to me. Spread the Word, and we can get this State off the dime and moving out of post-Repeal thinking.

Control is not the norm. We are Americans; we are Pennsylvanians. That shouldn't be a reason for excuses, it should be a reason for pride, and for action. The PLCB robs you of money, of choice, of respect, and of dignity. Why do we put up with that? Yes, it's "only booze," but booze has been around a lot longer than the PLCB. We don't need them to control how we buy wine, we don't need them to control what spirits we choose. Spread the Word.

"Pennsylvania's Most Popular 'Whine'"

I don't want to infringe on any copyrighted material, so I'm not copying/posting it here, but you have got to take a look at this editorial cartoon from Rob Rogers at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette about the PLCB. I saw it in this morning's Inquirer where they ran it as the main editorial cartoon. Pittsburgh's press has been running some very critical reporting on the PLCB; bravo! Now the Inky picked this up... Are we getting a wave here, a rising tide?