The funny thing is, the calls are from the DEMOCRATIC leadership of the state. Specifically Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot (D), whose office is in charge of liquor regulation for the state. Unlike the Democrats here in PA who would never say something like “The county’s monopoly is bad for consumers, bad for small businesses and for our local economy” about the PLCB, the Comptroller is not only saying that, but saying it out loud and producing these anti-control broadsheets:
Of course the Union (who else?) opposes any talk of privatization saying that privatization would not create real competition.
"Under Maryland state law, two wholesalers may not distribute the same product in the same market at the same time. There is always one approved, designated wholesale distributor in a given market for each brand or product. Private liquor will have its own liquor monopoly."
So there won't be competition when Smirnoff is in direct competition with the other 40 brands of vodka in their price range? Somebody needs to go back to school and take some Econ classes. Competition will hold except at the very ends of the bell curve where there is no suitable substitute for the product you want: like a 60 year old bottle of Glenfiddich Scotch or a half-liter bottle of MD 20/20. That's true for the majority of states and countries, and is considered the norm so it really isn't pertinent to the privatization argument.
Of course, this ignores the indisputable fact that there is NO COMPETITION at all, be it real or fake, in Montgomery County now.
We here at the blog wish you the best of luck, Mr.Franchot! May you show our legislature the way to satisfying the consumer and ridding us of the archaic system now in place.
20 comments:
Why are the Democrats in the opposite boat from where they are in Pennsylvania?
Good question! Why can the Democrats in Maryland understand simple math and economics?
I must assume the UFCW 1776 is absent from these Maryland stores... am I right?
Nope, the Montgomery county stores are unionized.
According to PA House member liquor privatization is dead until the next budget fight. Oh well.
Rather have that than Mcilhinney's Big Leap Sideways. If privatization is dead, "modernization" better be dead too.
I'm not sure who you talked to but the leadership said next year which starts in a week and the budget planning starts then too.
North Carolina is similar to Maryland in that alcohol laws vary WILDLY from county to county (yet it isn't even that big a state). Virginia is similar to NC in having ABC stores but counties have little or no authority over those. Strangely though Virginia requires wines made in VA to be sold at either wineries or VA ABC stores.
As for the big leap sideways, modernization, etc it really is a crock of bull! Let me get this straight: the plan is to let supermarkets sell wine? There's no way that will be an improvement over the current situation in PA. The one-stop shops of the last decade are a massive failure. They were doomed to failure from the start because all of them are way smaller than a "big" state store but let's be honest, no state store comes close to matching the size of the supersized liquor stores outside PA, though to be totally fair those stores outside PA have to have a lot of space for beer and non-alcohol items.
I hope by leadership your not referring to Reed humouring Turzai. Right now the leadership scales are tipped 4.5 to .5 if you include the executive branch. But you must carry on. I suppose it's better than going back to doing nothing. Being even slightly more than that is better you know.
North Carolina is not anything like MD or any other state really. They have state wholesale but every country has its own liquor board for retail. Maryland does not have state wholesale and only one county that has a retail liquor board. I also disagree that VA is like NC except for the state wholesaling.
As for out of state superstores, there are some that carry more different types of wine and spirits than the entire state of PA stocks and that isn't count beer of cheese or cigars or mixers or snacks etc, etc.
I can understand your hoping, that is all you have so go for it. I don't include the executive branch seeing how ineffective that is lately but that wasn't part of the statement either. The person said House, I answered House. You, as has been the norm as of late, came up wrong again. Try this mnemonic next time RUCKER
Read
Understand the question
Consider the options
Know what you are talking about
Examine the facts of your answer
Reply
Now why don't you try to get on topic and tell us why Maryland Democrats are so far ahead of PA democrats when it comes to consumer freedom?
It's hard to argue against a premise that only exists on this page. In fact Del. Bill Frick (D) is the main driver and Franchot is only a supporter. Frick plans on introducing a bill to get the issue on a referendum because the Democrat support you speak of does not exist.
So why are these two teamed up? Franchot has refused to investigate complaints regarding a vendor he has connections to that overcharged the DLC for a large purchase of Capt. Morgan. As for Frick the money trail is even more obvious. This appeared in several Maryland newspapers;
"Questions have also been raised about the influence of the liquor industry on county and state officials. David Trone, co-owner of Total Wine and More, the huge Bethesda-based retailer, is a major contributor to Democrats, including Franchot. A study this year by the Center for Public Integrity found that alcohol distributors employed at least 315 registered lobbyists at the state level nationwide.
Opponents of Frick’s bill have also pointed out that his wife, Bethany Frick, is a national accounts vice president for international liquor giant Diageo, which makes Johnny Walker, Crown Royal and other major brands. The couple’s financial disclosure forms show holdings of at least $20,000 in Diageo North America stock.
MCGEO President Gino Renne called last week for an investigation by the state legislature’s Joint Committee on Legislative Ethics, contending that Frick would directly benefit from passage of his bill. State Sen. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Montgomery), chairman of the committee, declined to comment Friday, citing a policy of not discussing matters pending before the panel."
It seems the Mayland D's aren't as adept a funneling $$$ through dark money groups as are the Pa. R's!
Why the hell is Total Wine based in Bethesda? They started in Wilmington DE which is a really good place to headquarter a corporation.
There is a logical falicy of saying how many lobbyists are nationwide and implying that is bad for Maryland. How many Union lobbyists are there in comparison? No doubt there are some liquor lobbyists and one can question how effective they are after 80 years since the DLC is still around. Of course, maybe Democratic lobbyists are bad too "Lobbyists boost Senate Democrats http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/06/16/14924/lobbyists-boost-senate-democrats " Same group same message.
Yes Frick disclosed his holdings which pretty much means he isn't trying to hide it. I don't know if the holdings are stock options given to his wife, bought OTC or part of a fund. I know I have a few liquor stocks in my funds in the mix of everything else. It does matter when implying direct benefit since they wouldn't control fund investments.
Let's look at this with some logic. Diageo won't own any licenses and so can't increase business that way. If sales of Diageo products increase enough in one county to effect their stock prices then what is being said about the DLC is true and they are even more incompetent then the PLCB and would again prove how much the liquor/entertainment industry is being held back by Montgomery County’s government controlled monopoly. You can't have it both ways. If the DLC is doing such a great job and because of his position of oversight Frick is making money that would be bad. If the DLC is doing a crappy job then keeping the stock is costing him money. So the only way he will benefit is if the DLC is doing a crappy job, one so bad it has an effect on the price of the stock. Are you using that as your reason to keep the DLC?
You forgot to mention Roger Berliner (D-1)and tie him into all of this. Democrat, County Council member and for privatization. You must have something on him.
Also, if it is a referendum then it would be up to the voters to decide if his (their) holdings play any part. I know you don't like the people to decide things since that means you can't control it. As Leventhal (Montgomery County Council President) said he did not think voters should decide whether to privatize alcohol because they would not understand how it would affect the county." (http://thesentinel.com/mont/newsx/local/item/2820-council-members-unite-to-oppose-privatized-liquor-sales)
The premise is that there are some Democrats in MD who don't go lemming like as the party wishes. You see more Republicans breaking ranks in PA then Democrats even though significant if not the majority of their constituents want privatization. So the question remains, why are some MD Democrats more in favor of consumer freedom than PA Democrats?
Maryland is a Southern state. There's a long history of Southern Democrats being different than Northern Democrats, but Republicans have been pretty much the same on both sides of the border.
The Trones were beer distributors in PA before they opened their first liquor store in Claymont DE.
Maryland, while bordering the Mason Dixon line did not join the Confederacy and most who joined the service joined the Union army at the time. Certainly modern Baltimore and Montgomery county do not consider themselves "southern". I can't speak for the rest of the state as I don't get to the eastern shore or out to Frederick that often.
"Southern" and "Confederate" are not quite synonymous. Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri all were Union states but refused to let go of slavery until very late. I can agree with you about Baltimore (and Wilmington DE for that matter) not really being Southern but travel to rural MD or DE and I'm sure you will find people who consider themselves Southerners. And yes a lot of people in those states have a Southern accent. They also have a Southern identity that dates to a time before the Civil War.
Part of the Emancipation was that border states slaves were not freed in the proclamation. MD didn't refuse so much as they didn't have to make the decision. West Virginia is another matter. WVA fell into that position when they became a state in 1863. Missouri was because of the Kansas Missouri act of 1854 and the Missouri Compromise that the Emancipation didn't over-ride (to the best of my knowledge). Also, Missouri voted against succession in 1861. While a slave state Missouri also had the smallest percentage of slave population of any slave state.
I've always found Missouri to be interesting, a Union state that was basically occupied by Union Troops, a fairly large Confederate guerrilla movement in the interior, but a large portion of the surrounding population who supported escaped slaves along the Lane trail. Certainly one of the states that has its "southerness" dependent on where you are in the state. Springfield more so than Kansas City with St. Louis never really deciding what it was. However, it is a free state for wine and liquor so they must have done something right.
We are way off topic now so I'll stop.
Hey, the name Franchot rhymes with Pinchot, who was a Republican. Both Franchot and Pinchot seem like an enigma in their own way.
Post a Comment