With all this "control", why isn't PA safer?
Converting PA to a private system will put a liquor store on every corner, have drunk drivers roaming the streets looking for victims and packs of wild drunken teens will trod over the desolate landscape. How do we know this? The state store clerks union tells us in letters to the editor, on-line comments and even senior officials spouting it as gospel.
The truth is none of that has happened in Washington State. Clerk representatives like to say that Washington State DUI citation data can't be believed because there were less troopers on the road to write tickets. Never mind that local police write the most tickets since there are thousands more of them than State Police. Or they say that DUI fatalities are going down everywhere which to me means that their dire predictions didn't come about since Washington State did see a decline in DUI fatalities. However, the amount of troopers on the road has little to do with DUI fatalities. People do not die and then try to hide the fact like they do with crashes.
2013 national data has not been released yet so we have to look at 2012 data. In 2012 17 states reported a decrease in DUI fatalities. Pa was not one of them. Pennsylvania's DUI fatalities increased 2,8% overall compared to 2011 and went up over 15% for under 21 drivers while Washington DUI fatalities decreased 7.6% overall and over 30% for under 21 drivers. Now an official representative of the UFCW has said that this represents "statistically insignificant numbers" so I have to wonder how many deaths it takes to be significant (statistically speaking) for him?
It is all because of beer the clerks say but beer is also private in Washington and since they had and continue to have the highest liquor taxes in the country that makes beer the choice for those on a budget....like teens. So since the PLCB is in charge of "control" via inspections, complaints, beer registration, and numerous other ways - are they not doing as good a job as the WSLCB? Would they do better if they only had to concentrate on regulation and not retail. One would hope.
Statewide statistics are not yet available for Pennsylvania for 2013 but they just came out for Washington and the data shows that alcohol impaired driver fatalities have gone down again, this time over 18% for the year. For the past 24 months, 18 of them since privatization, Washington State has decreased DUI fatalities by over 25% and PA has not.
Wake up Legislators. The PLCB is not the only, nor has it ever been, the best way to do things.
Privatization Is REAL Modernization.
Showing posts with label 2013. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2013. Show all posts
Friday, May 16, 2014
Thursday, August 22, 2013
The Circle Game
The Tribune-Review ran this piece today with this stunning headline (be prepared for a shocker):
Reform at Liquor Control Board awash in politics
Say it ain't so!
"A lot of people like that reform. Maybe we should get us some."
And where there's liquor, and politics, and a notable need for reform...there must be Joe "Da ex-CEO" Conti. In this case, it's his job: CEO of the PLCB. Given that the PLCB doesn't even have the required three members on the board (another ethics-challenged blast from the past: it's PJ "Call Me PJ" Stapleton's empty slot that hasn't been filled), and it doesn't look like they're going to be filled anytime soon (since the dysfunctional Senate is now ignoring the Governor's second nominee for the position), really? Why the hell do we need to start paying another political hack $156,700 a year?
Eventually, the piece comes around to privatization. "A proposal by Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware County, to phase out state stores and expand where beer, wine and liquor could be sold would recast the chief executive position as an “executive director."" I must have missed this proposal, but that doesn't surprise me; there was a lot going on behind the scenes.
So is this proposal still in play for the September session? It must be, since Senator Jim "Sheetz-Damning" Ferlo is still bad-mouthing it.
“I think the Pileggi model was to micromanage,” Ferlo said. “There's a way for the... Legislature to have oversight, and that's through our appropriations.”
Yeah, except you don't make appropriations for the PLCB, Senator; they have their own sources of revenue (and their own cops, and their own courts, and their own grievance system (it's on page 8)). They don't need you, which is why they ignore you and all of us...until we want privatization. And then they prostrate themselves and suddenly service and selection gets better...until the threat of privatization goes away.
Mark my words: if privatization fails in this legislative session, the State Stores will slowly slide back to Suckville. And then in 10 or 15 years, we'll go through this whole charade again, and someone will call for privatization, and service and selection at the State Stores will remarkably improve...till the proposal fails, and around it goes again. How long do you want to keep playing this stupid game?
PRIVATIZATION IS MODERNIZATION. Accept no substitutes.
Reform at Liquor Control Board awash in politics
Say it ain't so!
"A lot of people like that reform. Maybe we should get us some."
![]() |
| Thanx for the bux, suckers! |
Without it, supporters say, the agency loses a level of professional management and efficiency only possible with a full-time chief executive.It is to weep. Joe Conti, the embodiment of "professional management and efficiency." Well, look, if I have to remind you...just read the Litany of Conti here. Wow, just can't wait to get someone else in there to get things popping again!
Eventually, the piece comes around to privatization. "A proposal by Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware County, to phase out state stores and expand where beer, wine and liquor could be sold would recast the chief executive position as an “executive director."" I must have missed this proposal, but that doesn't surprise me; there was a lot going on behind the scenes.
![]() |
| Hey, Norm! What's up with that? |
So is this proposal still in play for the September session? It must be, since Senator Jim "Sheetz-Damning" Ferlo is still bad-mouthing it.
“I think the Pileggi model was to micromanage,” Ferlo said. “There's a way for the... Legislature to have oversight, and that's through our appropriations.”
Yeah, except you don't make appropriations for the PLCB, Senator; they have their own sources of revenue (and their own cops, and their own courts, and their own grievance system (it's on page 8)). They don't need you, which is why they ignore you and all of us...until we want privatization. And then they prostrate themselves and suddenly service and selection gets better...until the threat of privatization goes away.
Mark my words: if privatization fails in this legislative session, the State Stores will slowly slide back to Suckville. And then in 10 or 15 years, we'll go through this whole charade again, and someone will call for privatization, and service and selection at the State Stores will remarkably improve...till the proposal fails, and around it goes again. How long do you want to keep playing this stupid game?
PRIVATIZATION IS MODERNIZATION. Accept no substitutes.
Labels:
2013,
It Never Ends,
Joe Conti,
Senator Ferlo,
The Future
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
One Good Reason
I had an essay on why Pennsylvania should privatize the State Store System put up on WHYY's "Speak Easy" page today (yes, the irony of the name was not lost on me!). Last week, Marc Stier, a self-described "writer and activist" from Mt. Airy, had an essay posted there titled "6 reasons why we should keep the state wine and liquor stores." Not long after it went up, a few people asked me when i was going to write a rebuttal, and in pretty short order I had been connected with the editor of the site, Eric Walter. He told me what the guidelines were -- pretty simple: 700 words and no trash talking! -- and I wrote it on Sunday afternoon.
The gist? Well, in response to Stier's 6 reasons, I noted that the vaunted "control" that the PLCB exercises through the State Store System is meaningless in a state where all beer sales, and all by-the-drink sales (and even wine sales at the state's many wineries, and spirit sales at the state's distilleries) are done by private entities. As I said, "control" of only one segment of the market is no control at all. Tax revenue, as I've explained over and over, is a red herring; revenue would, at worst, be a wash. His other four points were really one: keep it because of the union jobs. I countered that the UFCW, the main union involved, has successfully organized in private businesses; the bulk of their members are in private businesses, so liquor sales do not have to be a state monopoly to allow union jobs. Pretty simple.
But my One Reason was even simpler: the Legislature should privatize because We The People, the ones who actually elect them in order to have them represent us, consistently poll in strong favor for privatization, and the Legislature has been persistently ignoring those wishes for 30 years or more. It's well past time for them do what we want.
As I say in the essay, "A poll that found people in favor of free lunch every Thursday wouldn't mean the state should mandate that. But Pennsylvanians only want to join the 42 other states where people don't rely on the decisions of bureaucrats to determine what wine and whisky they're allowed to buy." We're not really asking that much. Is it as important as gay rights, as the fracking debate, as spending on transportation infrastructure? No, definitely not. But there IS a bill in motion, so let's do it.
And let's keep it simple: privatize wholesale and retail wine and liquor. Sell beer and wine in the grocery stores (and drugstores, and big box stores, and convenience stores) for a reasonable license fee without all the different limits on single purchases. Let beer distributors upgrade to all-alcohol stores with a fairly simple and inexpensive license upgrade, then add about 500 more all-alcohol licenses. Or something else simple and fair; I'm not wedded to that. We don't have to make a "windfall" on this, and the more I hear about that, the angrier I get. More to come on that, but meanwhile...please read the essay, hit the Like button, and share it where you can. Thanks!
The gist? Well, in response to Stier's 6 reasons, I noted that the vaunted "control" that the PLCB exercises through the State Store System is meaningless in a state where all beer sales, and all by-the-drink sales (and even wine sales at the state's many wineries, and spirit sales at the state's distilleries) are done by private entities. As I said, "control" of only one segment of the market is no control at all. Tax revenue, as I've explained over and over, is a red herring; revenue would, at worst, be a wash. His other four points were really one: keep it because of the union jobs. I countered that the UFCW, the main union involved, has successfully organized in private businesses; the bulk of their members are in private businesses, so liquor sales do not have to be a state monopoly to allow union jobs. Pretty simple.
But my One Reason was even simpler: the Legislature should privatize because We The People, the ones who actually elect them in order to have them represent us, consistently poll in strong favor for privatization, and the Legislature has been persistently ignoring those wishes for 30 years or more. It's well past time for them do what we want.
As I say in the essay, "A poll that found people in favor of free lunch every Thursday wouldn't mean the state should mandate that. But Pennsylvanians only want to join the 42 other states where people don't rely on the decisions of bureaucrats to determine what wine and whisky they're allowed to buy." We're not really asking that much. Is it as important as gay rights, as the fracking debate, as spending on transportation infrastructure? No, definitely not. But there IS a bill in motion, so let's do it.
And let's keep it simple: privatize wholesale and retail wine and liquor. Sell beer and wine in the grocery stores (and drugstores, and big box stores, and convenience stores) for a reasonable license fee without all the different limits on single purchases. Let beer distributors upgrade to all-alcohol stores with a fairly simple and inexpensive license upgrade, then add about 500 more all-alcohol licenses. Or something else simple and fair; I'm not wedded to that. We don't have to make a "windfall" on this, and the more I hear about that, the angrier I get. More to come on that, but meanwhile...please read the essay, hit the Like button, and share it where you can. Thanks!
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Percolation and Progress
Things are popping in Harrisburg. Check out this headline on the Harrisburg Patriot-News website:
Still, one day at a time, do the work that's in front of you. That's getting a privatization bill out of Taylor's Liquor Control Committee in decent time and in decent shape, not gutted like last time. So...PLEASE send emails of support to as many of the members of the Liquor Control Committee as you can; you can find them here. Definitely thank Taylor for his support this time, and thank Representatives Kampf, Killion. Lawrence, Mustio, Reese, and Regan for co-sponsoring HB 790. And if you want, send an email to the 9 Democratic members of the committee, asking them why, if a majority of Democratic voters polled support privatization, not one Democratic legislator supports it.
Keep your fingers crossed, and your powder dry. But get on the email, and on the phones, because I guarantee you that the State Store unions are doing that, calling every week. Make yourself heard for a change!
Liquor privatization picking up speed in Pennsylvania as bill is introduced
House Bill 790 was introduced today, and will be moving through committee. According to the bill's primary sponsor, House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, the bill will move quickly. From the article above:“Because there is a lot of energy, a lot of enthusiasm … There is widespread agreement in our caucus,” Turzai said. He said the House Liquor Control Committee will take up the bill March 18, and he expects the House will vote on it later this month.You may recall that last year the privatization bill was shredded in committee by Rep. John Taylor. That's not how he's talking this time around, according to quotes in this article.
“It seems like we’re going to agree on most of it, but the speed of what we’re doing is really a big part of it,” Taylor said.Taylor wants to slow down the privatization process. Well...if that's what it takes, okay. As long as we avoid the pointless "modernization" the PLCB sycophants in the PA Senate are still gassing about. That tune may change when they find themselves with a passed privatization bill from the House with the Governor standing behind it. Impaired though Corbett may be, he's still the governor, and Senate Republicans will soon find themselves under the spotlight.
Still, one day at a time, do the work that's in front of you. That's getting a privatization bill out of Taylor's Liquor Control Committee in decent time and in decent shape, not gutted like last time. So...PLEASE send emails of support to as many of the members of the Liquor Control Committee as you can; you can find them here. Definitely thank Taylor for his support this time, and thank Representatives Kampf, Killion. Lawrence, Mustio, Reese, and Regan for co-sponsoring HB 790. And if you want, send an email to the 9 Democratic members of the committee, asking them why, if a majority of Democratic voters polled support privatization, not one Democratic legislator supports it.
Keep your fingers crossed, and your powder dry. But get on the email, and on the phones, because I guarantee you that the State Store unions are doing that, calling every week. Make yourself heard for a change!
Labels:
2013,
call to action,
HB790,
Rep. Taylor,
Rep. Turzai
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Is This A Look At What Our Privatization Will Look Like?
Governor Corbett has unveiled his plan for privatization, and it's radical in scope, going well beyond last year's mangled piece of legislative committee crap. The Commonwealth Foundation has a good precis of it here, and the Tribune-Review has a better one here, but they don't get all the gimpy little details that are one of my major problems with the Corbett plan.
Actually, before we get to the little things...let's get to the big one: the police-enforced monopoly is still there. For no apparent reason other than to screw with us, there's nothing in here about allowing Pennsylvanians to pick up a bottle of wine on their way home from Baltimore, or New York, or work, for the large number who commute across the Delaware. That's right. Big Daddy in Harrisburg is still going to tell you where you can buy your booze: only in Pennsylvania. Sorry, gotta be blunt: that's un-American bullshit. Laws that tell me I'm not allowed to buy a bottle of gin and bring it home? Don't insult us: FIX THIS!
Now, those little details... The Corbett Plan gets rid of the Case Law, but does it by breaking it up into a bunch of ridiculous NEW limits that are going to have you carrying a card to remind you what you can buy where. The Inquirer explained it like this last week.
Worst of all, you're compromising with a group that doesn't exist. The social conservatives and MADD don't want supermarkets and convenience stores to sell any wine or beer, so limiting it to half a case and six bottles won't make them any more likely to support this -- or, more aptly, acquiesce to it -- they will hate the whole idea, and still vote no. And if you succeed without them, we'll be stuck with a compromise that did nothing. Drop it.
Jon Geeting of Keystone Politics is passionately progressive and fully supports privatization; we've discussed it and come to large amounts of agreement. He's written some great stuff here and here, and here, where he argues that Corbett's plan is not radical enough, that it needs LESS regulation to open up MORE competition. (That's my kind of Progressive!) He's also in on a gallonage tax to replace the price-based Johnstown Flood Tax, which is another good idea: it makes cheap booze (also known as "wino fuel") more expensive, which would actually do something in the direction of, you know...control.
But I do like some things. Quite a bit, actually. Like this:
Actually, before we get to the little things...let's get to the big one: the police-enforced monopoly is still there. For no apparent reason other than to screw with us, there's nothing in here about allowing Pennsylvanians to pick up a bottle of wine on their way home from Baltimore, or New York, or work, for the large number who commute across the Delaware. That's right. Big Daddy in Harrisburg is still going to tell you where you can buy your booze: only in Pennsylvania. Sorry, gotta be blunt: that's un-American bullshit. Laws that tell me I'm not allowed to buy a bottle of gin and bring it home? Don't insult us: FIX THIS!
Now, those little details... The Corbett Plan gets rid of the Case Law, but does it by breaking it up into a bunch of ridiculous NEW limits that are going to have you carrying a card to remind you what you can buy where. The Inquirer explained it like this last week.
Under the plan, retail beer distributors, who now can only sell by the case or keg, could apply for a license to sell the alcohol trifecta: beer, wine, and liquor. Supermarkets could sell a customer up to two six-packs of beer, and up to six bottles of wine. Convenience stores and drugstores? A six-pack to go, no wine. Restaurants and taverns, which can now sell a customer no more than two six-packs of beer, could sell up to six bottles of wine. Big-box stores [Wal-Mart? Target? Home Depot?] would be allowed to sell beer by the case and up to six bottles of wine. In a nod to beer distributors, Corbett's plan would let them apply for "enhanced" licenses, allowing them - for the first time since Prohibition - to sell by the six-pack.Get all that? Doesn't it just make you want to ask WHY?! Governor, there is no good reason to put limits like this on retail. Just have a beer retail license, and a wine retail license, and allow stores to buy one, the other, or both. Done. And if I want to pay their prices, I go and buy as much or as little as I want. Don't make us do that foolish "buy two, step out, step back, buy two more" dance anymore, it's just ridiculous.
Worst of all, you're compromising with a group that doesn't exist. The social conservatives and MADD don't want supermarkets and convenience stores to sell any wine or beer, so limiting it to half a case and six bottles won't make them any more likely to support this -- or, more aptly, acquiesce to it -- they will hate the whole idea, and still vote no. And if you succeed without them, we'll be stuck with a compromise that did nothing. Drop it.
Jon Geeting of Keystone Politics is passionately progressive and fully supports privatization; we've discussed it and come to large amounts of agreement. He's written some great stuff here and here, and here, where he argues that Corbett's plan is not radical enough, that it needs LESS regulation to open up MORE competition. (That's my kind of Progressive!) He's also in on a gallonage tax to replace the price-based Johnstown Flood Tax, which is another good idea: it makes cheap booze (also known as "wino fuel") more expensive, which would actually do something in the direction of, you know...control.
But I do like some things. Quite a bit, actually. Like this:
- The State Stores go away, and the State is no longer the wholesaler! Which means we start to have a LOT more input on what's available for sale.
- Taxes don't change. So unlike Washington's greed-driven failure, our prices don't automatically go up (which would be blamed on privatization).
- Beer and wine sold in grocery stores. Look, I love my beer distributor. Actually, quite a few of them. Great guys, and they've supplied us with great beer. But...it's a LOT easier to buy beer and wine in the grocery store. Easy = good.
- Beer distributors can become all-alcohol stores. And I hope they do. Because I LOVE all-alc stores like Total Wine, and Canal's, and Bev-Mo, and Binny's. Huge selection, smart staff, great extras, full-on booze coolness. I like small specialty places like Park Avenue and Federal and Moore Bros., too: excellent service, the exclusive bottlings only they get. It will take an investment in space and stock and smarts...but it will be worth it.
- The number of licenses to sell off-premise spirits doubles. It could be a lot better, but double is pretty good. I'd like to see it double again, but for now...it's one hell of an improvement.
- Annual license fees. Because having the State issue the license and someone else make the money drives me crazy. It still costs the licensee, but the State gets it.
Friday, February 1, 2013
The New Proposal
Governor Corbett announced his plan for privatization on Wednesday. I want to see more details, but it goes a lot further than Turzai's flawed plan from last year. The 'unlimited' licenses for beer and wine sales alone are a huge boon for consumers, and SHOULD shut up the "all the licenses will go to big box stores, waaaahh!!!" crowd...though it won't, because they can't wait to cloud the issue.
Get the details. Get organized. Let the Governor know you support privatization, and let your legislators know, too. Tell them this is an important issue for you. Because I guarantee you, every State Store employee (and their families) is calling their representative every week to let them know it's an important issue for them, and filling them full of crap statements about jobs, and "profits," and safety, and morality, and all that jazz...all of which doesn't hold up to examination.
I'll lay it out -- I'm back on the job, now that the game is afoot -- and yeah, we'll talk about The Fall Of Conti, too, just for fun, since he's become a non-issue. Sorry to see him go, he was a real poster child for privatization.
Best shot we've had in decades. Make it happen. If you can, join our Facebook page. Thanks!
Get the details. Get organized. Let the Governor know you support privatization, and let your legislators know, too. Tell them this is an important issue for you. Because I guarantee you, every State Store employee (and their families) is calling their representative every week to let them know it's an important issue for them, and filling them full of crap statements about jobs, and "profits," and safety, and morality, and all that jazz...all of which doesn't hold up to examination.
I'll lay it out -- I'm back on the job, now that the game is afoot -- and yeah, we'll talk about The Fall Of Conti, too, just for fun, since he's become a non-issue. Sorry to see him go, he was a real poster child for privatization.
Best shot we've had in decades. Make it happen. If you can, join our Facebook page. Thanks!
Monday, October 8, 2012
Next year - why we need to get this right
Privatization is over for 2012. The unions shouted and chanted and wore their matching t-shirts while their president for life, Wendell W. Young, fourth of his line, told scary tales of "the possibility of liquor stores on every corner" if privatization went through, deliberately ignoring the ridiculously inadequate license caps legislators carefully included in every proposal. The social conservatives quietly pressed for more regulation on alcohol. And the fearful legislators, mindful of the campaign contributions of these two groups -- especially those of organized labor -- gutted the privatization proposal that was before them. Then majority leader Turzai's hamhanded politicking ruined any chance that it would go anywhere. So once again, the clear will of the majority of the Commonwealth's citizens was thwarted by a gutless government.
Well, maybe not so bad. After all, the voters of Washington went for a privatization scheme that raised their already high liquor taxes, which should be a caution to all Pennsylvanians who want privatization. That caution, of course, is to be very, very careful about the privatization you get. Because all we've been offered recently is a bill -- HB11 -- that obviously was written with large corporate interests very much in mind, and an amendment to it that was clearly designed to be impossible to pass, in a nod to the power of organized labor. These were not the privatization we wanted, and I'm glad they didn't pass.
I've already made some suggestions in that direction, and you can see them here. To sum up briefly:
1. Let supermarkets sell beer, wine and liquor, purchased from private wholesalers. This competition will likely kill the State Stores anyway.
2. Charge a flat fee to any business that wants to sell booze – no cap on licenses. This will actually make more money for the State, and make it easier for non-nuisance bars to thrive.
3. Tax volume, not value. The Johnstown Flood Emergency Tax makes cheap booze even cheaper, while making better booze even more expensive. Go to a gallonage tax, like almost every other state.
4. Allow Pennsylvanians to buy wine, spirits, or beer in other states, or through the mail/Internet from anywhere, without penalty. -- End the police-enforced monopoly.
5. Allow any authorized retailer to sell beer in any volume they desire, without fake restrictions. -- End the case law. Now. The Legislature has fiddled around for years over this simple change. Shut up and do it.
6. Open up the wholesale market to more competition. -- More wholesalers means more competition, which means better prices and service.
Start planning for next year. Ask your legislator now where they stand on privatization. Tell them that you're in favor of privatization, that you're in favor of doing away with all vestiges of the case law, and that you need to know if they're in favor of those two things...and if not, you want real good reasons why not. We need to be clear with the Legislature that this is an important issue for us, and that it will affect how we vote next month.
The PLCB has shown abundantly how riddled with incompetence it is, and now their corruption is coming to the surface as well. Their ludicrous "modernization, not privatization" campaign is pathetically self-serving. Here's a thought: how about someone in Harrisburg thinks about all of us and what we want instead of making another damn skeezy deal to get some other small group what they want?
This is far from over, though PJ Stapleton's early resignation is a welcome gift. The day after the election, remind Governor Corbett that he owes us privatization.
Well, maybe not so bad. After all, the voters of Washington went for a privatization scheme that raised their already high liquor taxes, which should be a caution to all Pennsylvanians who want privatization. That caution, of course, is to be very, very careful about the privatization you get. Because all we've been offered recently is a bill -- HB11 -- that obviously was written with large corporate interests very much in mind, and an amendment to it that was clearly designed to be impossible to pass, in a nod to the power of organized labor. These were not the privatization we wanted, and I'm glad they didn't pass.
I've already made some suggestions in that direction, and you can see them here. To sum up briefly:
1. Let supermarkets sell beer, wine and liquor, purchased from private wholesalers. This competition will likely kill the State Stores anyway.
2. Charge a flat fee to any business that wants to sell booze – no cap on licenses. This will actually make more money for the State, and make it easier for non-nuisance bars to thrive.
3. Tax volume, not value. The Johnstown Flood Emergency Tax makes cheap booze even cheaper, while making better booze even more expensive. Go to a gallonage tax, like almost every other state.
4. Allow Pennsylvanians to buy wine, spirits, or beer in other states, or through the mail/Internet from anywhere, without penalty. -- End the police-enforced monopoly.
5. Allow any authorized retailer to sell beer in any volume they desire, without fake restrictions. -- End the case law. Now. The Legislature has fiddled around for years over this simple change. Shut up and do it.
6. Open up the wholesale market to more competition. -- More wholesalers means more competition, which means better prices and service.
Start planning for next year. Ask your legislator now where they stand on privatization. Tell them that you're in favor of privatization, that you're in favor of doing away with all vestiges of the case law, and that you need to know if they're in favor of those two things...and if not, you want real good reasons why not. We need to be clear with the Legislature that this is an important issue for us, and that it will affect how we vote next month.
The PLCB has shown abundantly how riddled with incompetence it is, and now their corruption is coming to the surface as well. Their ludicrous "modernization, not privatization" campaign is pathetically self-serving. Here's a thought: how about someone in Harrisburg thinks about all of us and what we want instead of making another damn skeezy deal to get some other small group what they want?
This is far from over, though PJ Stapleton's early resignation is a welcome gift. The day after the election, remind Governor Corbett that he owes us privatization.
Labels:
2013,
call to action,
Governor Corbett,
plans,
Wendell W. Young IV
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

