Read Orwell, understand the PLCB

We all know some of the Orwellian things the PLCB does.* One can see Big Brother gone rampant in ideas like wine kiosks, or after 80 years wanting to get the "right people" (by getting out from under those pesky Civil Service rules). The Ministry of Love is all too apparent in the BLCE with anonymous tips to the beer registry control section. Then there is the Ministry of Truth, hard at work trying to put a positive spin on everything no matter how banal or counter-intuitive it is.

Of course, there is the PLCB's greatest fear...rats. People in the system who are not happy with the rewriting of history (Kiosks were innovative!) who talk to people like me. They send the Thought Police out in the guise of Business Managers to stalk them, and when they are found they are "reintegrated" before their release and ultimate execution - or so they wish. Firing is the best they can do. If a person somehow survives, the powers that be know that his heart is now filled with love for the Party PLCB, and will gladly make any statement to protect them.

They even have their own catchy little phrases:

MONOPOLY IS COMPETITION

CONTROL IS FREEDOM

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

LESS CONVENIENCE IS MORE

COMPETITION RAISES PRICES

TAXES ARE PROFIT

It didn't start with Wolf and the Ministry of Truth, of course. Recall Governor " Old Major" Pinchot saying they have to rebel against the evils of the Twenty-first Amendment and run the state their way, making liquor as difficult to procure as possible.** He knows FDR is a drunk and not doing a good job of running things. The three Drys in the state put together a plan where the people live under PLCBism. Where all clerks are equal (except for those that are more equal than others) and they will be looked upon with admiration for the job they do.

One pig man is appointed to lead the people from chronic alcohol use (more than one drink a month), having proclaimed all power over wine and liquor. He uses his private PLCB army to control those who don't believe his power, and crush them. Life at the Pennsylvania Farm gets worse and worse. They don't play well with other states, and punish the animals citizens for wanting better things. They don't want improvement, but control. "Boxer" Newman was a great believer in improving the lot of the citizens, working with great zeal toward the prosperity of the Farm with careful Selections. But the PLCB sees the threat to their control, and sends "Boxer" Newman to his untimely fate as "Napoleon" Conti takes over and begins his plan to build a windmill kiosk at great expense and labor by all. 

When the citizens rebel against this idea, and years of other false promises and schemes, Napoleon aligns himself with powerful forces who like things as they are, to work against the citizens. The citizens notice the free sports outings, strip clubs, booze, golf trips, gifts, bribes, and nepotism at the top. They begin to demand the simple freedoms they see in other states. The PLCB, to counter this new threat to control, puts forth all of its power into "modernizing" its message, saying there will be prosperity for all, not just the "more equal," if they are just given one more chance. Of course, if given that chance, they'll hold onto power for decades to come. Spoiler alert: that's not a happy ending for the animals citizens.

It doesn't have to be that way.
No more lipstick on the PLCB pig!
No more doing things the pig's way!
No more false "modernization"!

END IT, DON'T MEND IT!


*A quick 1984 study guide is here if you need it.
** A quick Animal Farm study guide is here if you need it. 

Why is it that....

The PLCB advertises even though they have no competition. There is no such thing as shopping for the best price; there's only the PLCB price. And of course...forget about shopping for selection. If they don't have it, you don't need it. Or want it. You may think you do...but they think better.

The PLCB limits how many bars and restaurants can serve alcohol, and while very few places are under their quota, there isn't a quota for State Stores. We are nowhere near what a normal state would have for liquor stores (and normal for wine retailers is so far away we can't even see it from here). In fact, the number of State Stores has been steadily decreasing for the past 45 years from over 750 to the current 605, and has only held steady the past two years.

The PLCB has no paper trail that lists who came up with in-house brands, who made the decision to feature them on endcaps, who decided to push them in advertising, and who said to feature them as alternatives when doing searches on the website? Do they know what they are doing at all? (Does any of it have to do with the continuing trail of ethics violations?)

The PLCB never lists any proof for the sales increases "modernization" supposedly will bring. Tell us exactly how opening another 140 stores on Sunday will generate $22 million more in operating income, or how just opening stores quicker will add $25 million more? Tell us what states will join in the booze-buying consortium being proposed? Have they even been approached about it? (Wanna bet there's no paper trail?) Tell us how the PLCB will make $75 million more if allowed to set pricing? Who will decide what the pricing will be, what will the change be based on, who will have oversight, who will look out for the consumer's interest (it never has been the folks in Harrisburg so don't expect them to suddenly start now),

The PLCB hasn't said whether a six-bottle container of 750ml bottles of Belgian Trappist brew will be a "case" too under their new "interpretation." It is over 144 ounces after all.  What about 6 bottles of beer that are only available in 700 ml bottles? Will there be a special "interpretation" for those if somebody decides to sue and the PLCB is too lazy to support their 80 years of apparently wrong "interpretation" like what happened in the latest "interpretation" that allowed 12 packs? And why can't the Legislature get off its butt and just do away with the case law entirely?

The PLCB ranks 15th worst out of 17 control states for binge drinking rates and is in the bottom half of all states, tied for 31st place. Why? Because "control states" like PA don't really control anything. The total alcohol use for control states averages higher (2.46 gallons per capita consumption in gallons, based on population age 14 and older) than the U.S. average of 2.33.

The PLCB's plans to increase sales are "good," but if the system were normalized, and a retailer wanted to increase alcohol sales...that would then be "bad?" Is private alcohol chemically different from PLCB alcohol? It's the same tax rate.

The PLCB and its pitiful handful of supporters somehow manage to overcome all of these issues, and continue to monopolize liquor and wine sales in the commonwealth. Kinda makes you wonder what keeps the Legislature from cleaning this up.

You can't fix stupid

Yes, it is true: you can't fix stupid. No matter what the clerks' union comes up with, it will never get away from the image of what was quite possibly the most inane advertisement ever to be put on Pennsylvania's airwaves. It is so bad in so many ways that the entire nation is laughing at the state, and the idiots who put this together for broadcast.



That bunch of idiots would be the UFCW Local 1776 media office and an outfit called Strategic Communications (the link is provided in case you want to put this gang of ham-handed 'communicators' on your company's Do Not Call list). It is so bad that one of the union's own members said on Facebook, "I work for this system and I personally find this ad embarrassing. Their true intentions are to keep our jobs (which I do not mind), but Ads like these are utterly ridiculous." Obviously he wishes to remain anonymous.

I have not seen one positive response anywhere. I would like to read one just to get an idea of what kind of person thinks this was a good idea.  Those that don't are legion,  If you haven't seen the stories, here are a baker's dozen of them. Be sure to read the comments: they just don't get any better.

1.) http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/04/union-privatizing-the-sale-of-alcohol-will-kill-children-lower-tax-revenue/

2.) http://fermentationwineblog.com/2014/05/worst-alcohol-related-ad-history-world/

3.) http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/unions-panicking-possible-liquor-privatization-pennsylvania-video/#axzz30tTcJtUY

4.) https://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2014/05/state-liquor-store-union-pulls-out-the-stops-new-ad-explains-that-selling-beer-in-grocery-stores-kills-children/

5.) http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/377162/union-monopoly-protects-pennsylvania-children-drunken-slaughter-tim-cavanaugh

6.) http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/audio/1562-chris-stigall-show/the-chris-stigall-show-wendell-young/

7.) http://tinyurl.com/njtuhwc (About 7 minutes in)

8.) http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/entertainment/television/WATCH-UFCWs-hilariously-bad-anti-liquor-privatization-ad-.html

9.) http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/02/pennsylvanians-cant-buy-beer-and-wine-at

10.) http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/policyblog/detail/will-more-choice-and-convenience-really-kill-your-kids

11.) http://www.nationalmemo.com/watch-the-craziest-political-ad-of-2014/

12.) http://philly.barstoolsports.com/around-barstool/video-anti-liquor-privatization-ad-says-pa-selling-beer-at-convenience-stores-will-kill-one-child-every-week/

13,) And my own lambasting published here last week.

Enjoy, have fun and don't laugh too hard. Remember: this year privatization killed the little girl; last year, they killed her father. If this drags on one more year...that's going to be a pretty lonely ad campaign. But it's still going to be stupid, because there's just no way this line of reasoning is ever going to make sense.

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:

People want to break the law

Just as Prohibition made criminals out of ordinary people who just wanted to have a beer, a cocktail, a glass of wine, the PLCB steadily creates criminals in Pennsylvania every day. Because the State Stores suck so hard, thousands of Pennsylvanians break the law every day, crossing the borders to buy booze and bring it home. The most common question people ask Google to get to this site is some variation on Can I bring booze into PA from another state?

Why, the PLCB is so crappy that they even hurt Pennsylvania's small, privately-owned, family-owned beer distributors' business. When those ordinary citizen smugglers go out of state to buy wine and liquor at often lower prices in a congenial atmosphere of informed, friendly service and great selections, they can't help noticing the beer in those same stores, sold by the 12-pack, sixpack, single bottle, and even growlers. They buy the beer, then they often get lunch or dinner, usually buy gas (much cheaper in New Jersey, for instance), and maybe even do some tax-free shopping in Delaware while they're there.

Millions of dollars of taxes and business profits are lost to Pennsylvania every year this way. Why? Because the State Stores suck so bad they drive retail business out of the state. The Control Freaks usually respond to calls for privatization by asking if the loss of the State Stores' "profit" -- taken from us by what should be an illegal retail monopoly -- is worth any "freedom of choice" the system costs us.

Putting aside the total lack of customer service sense that question reveals about the Control Freaks, I have to ask in return: is the loss of millions of dollars in retail business to businesses that aren't benefiting at all from the PLCB's reign of monopolistic retail incompetence worth the mirage of control the State Store System claims to deliver (and doesn't)? Is it worth the jobs program that doesn't benefit anyone except the island of lucky winners (if you do nothing else today, click on that link and read that post; clear answer to those who decry the loss of jobs if the State Stores are closed) who can get those jobs (and their exceedingly well-paid union bosses), doing nothing for all the other retail workers in the state who get the wages and benefits normal for the category? Is it worth the time and money Pennsylvanians spend going out of state to circumvent the State Stores? Is it worth making criminals out of shoppers?

No. No, it isn't. Contact your legislators, especially your Senators. Tell them you don't want to see privatization slip through their hands. Tell them it's a voting issue for you. Tell them they've got one more chance in September to get this done. And then tell them that this is how you want it done, for the best results for Pennsylvanians. It's not hard. The Republicans have majorities in both houses, and the Governor. Make it happen.

RECORD PROFITS FOR THE PLCB!!!!

The PLCB announced the results of the 2012-13 fiscal year this week, and they were clearly happy with them. They had net income of $128.4 million (what they used to call "profit", but apparently we've trained them out of that), an increase of $24.9 million over the previous year, and "transferred" $512 million to the state's General Fund in taxes and fees, like the Johnstown Flood Emergency Tax and sales tax. The PLCB credits "robust sales and cost controls" for the increase, and a 6% increase in wine sales.

Happy control freaks immediately rejoiced, and one dropped a comment here this morning:

$128 million is hard to overlook.

Here's my response. 

What's that? The amount that was wasted on the wine kiosks? The cost overruns on the new POS system? Oh, the so-called profits for 2012! Well, hell, it's against the law to buy booze anywhere else, they ought to be making SOMETHING.

Seriously, glad you brought this up. The PLCB is doing some bizarre sack dance right now about the "record" amount of money they siphoned out of the pockets of Pennsylvanians the past year...and all it took was millions in advertising, national growth in wine and spirits sales, and a police-enforced monopoly. Wow, pretty impressive.

Except when you look at the gross sales vs. profits over the past few years. Five years ago, the PLCB's gross sales were $1.778 billion; this past year they were a record $2.171 billion, an increase of 22.9%.

Five years ago, the "profits" were $112.2 million; this past year, they were $128.4 million. That's an increase of 14.4%.

Profits not keeping up with sales? Well, their costs must have gone up, right? Actually, they closed about 30 stores in that time; I have to assume stores that were losing money (why close them otherwise?). So what the hell, PLCB? Where'd all the money go? Fatter salaries for bureaucrats? Courtesy contracts? De luxe wine tasting rooms? Or just failed programs, like the wine kiosks?

I know what some of your "cost controls" were that put profits up 24% this past year: not filling positions. Board member Robert Marcus admitted that earlier this year in legislative hearings, saying roughly 250 positions, many of which he described as essential, remain unfilled. Marcus tried to blame the Governor, saying he would not permit the jobs to be filled, but that's malarkey coming from an agency that has its own source of revenue and is all too independent. Corbett spokesman Kevin Harley noted (in this story in the Inquirer) that the LCB is an independent agency that controls its own finances and hiring, and said he was not aware of any open positions that the administration had refused to fill.

Meanwhile, up in New Hampshire, where they KNOW how to run a State Store System, they made $145.6 million in profits on less than a third of the gross sales the PLCB did. Oh, and they did it while charging a bit less than the PLCB. Kind of looks like the PLCB is -- as I've been saying -- grossly mismanaged and inefficient. Are these the people we want to trust to come up with "modernization" ideas?

I have one modernization idea: PRIVATIZE.

I am sick and tired of the characterization of privatization supporters as "lazy drunks"

I've been reading the letters to the editors from people who think the world will end if liquor sales are privatized, or if beer is sold at gas stations, or if beer and wine are sold in the same place. What's worse, I've been reading the comments people leave on the web versions of those letters and stories. I shouldn't, I know, because they just drive me crazy...and here's why. 

I am sick and tired of hearing people who are just asking for the same kind of convenience they see in other states being called "lazy," or "alcoholics." We're "lazy" because we'd rather make one stop to buy our groceries...which in most other states includes the beer and wine? Am I supposed to believe that the people who call us lazy never stop at a convenience store for a bag of ice or a cold drink, instead of going to the grocery store? Man, that's lazy! Are we "alcoholics" because we'd like to buy our booze on a Sunday, or at the grocery store/drugstore/gas station...like normal people do in other states? Are they all alcoholics? I don't think so.

We aren't lazy, we aren't alcoholics, though it's easier to try to smear us like that rather than address what we're really saying. This is what we want:

• We want rid of Pennsylvania's antiquated alcohol laws.
• Get rid of the case law. ANY restrictions on how little or how much beer a person can buy in a single purchase should go. 
• End the State Stores, AND the state's monopoly on wholesale wine and liquor, which limits what wine and spirits we're "allowed" to buy to those selected by a committee in Harrisburg, without any input from the customers: us!
• We'd like to see an end to the strange limits on what beer distributors can and cannot sell: it's okay to sell soda, tobacco, snacks, and beer paraphernalia (like glassware), but they can't sell sandwiches, or more substantial food, or much else of anything, really. Why not? 
• We'd like to see an end to the bizarre requirement that a supermarket must have a cafe in order to sell beer. 
• We'd like to see the state have a normal number of retail wine outlets; that would be about 6,000, comparing our population and geographic size to those of other states. 
• We'd like to have a choice in where we buy our booze, not just one store that's the same store all across the state.
• We'd like to see an end to the police-enforced monopoly, and be able to buy wine and liquor in other states if we want to. For many of us in southeast PA, there are lots of great stores not far away, but buying there and bringing it home is illegal...which is insultingly unAmerican. 

We're not lazy; we're disgusted. We're not alcoholics; alcoholics don't care about inconvenience, they just do whatever's needed to get their drink. We don't want "alcohol," we want better selections of wines and spirits, we want a real choice on where to get them, and we want better service where we shop. We just want things to be normal in Pennsylvania.

And what we really want...is for the Legislature to take this up and get it done in September. Finish it.

UFCW member admits privatization WILL make buying wine cheaper and more convenient!

John Rzodkiewicz, long-time PLCB clerk and now an employee of the UFCW (the main union for State Store clerks), made a surprising admission on a PennLive page yesterday, showing that he realizes that privatization will indeed make it more convenient to buy wine and spirits in Pennsylvania, and at lower prices. Here's how it happened.

PennLive published a letter from David L. Faust, of Selinsgrove, who said there were "six questions to ponder" about privatization. They're, well, you should probably go read them, because they range from Prohibitionist to pro-beer distributor to socialist to...internally contradictory, so much so that they're kind of funny.

Then down in the comments, 'fancysmom' asked "Will a change in how alcohol is sold in PA make a difference to alcoholics? NO", to which 'Chuck' responded, "Just less future alcoholics. Or maybe you should ask Alberta Brooks or maybe even Lewser Bryson. They seem to be the expert lackeys of Corbett, Cawley, TurDzai, Adolph, Taylor, etc...." (Chuck's quite a wit, as you can see; ho ho, haven't heard "Lewser" since high school, Chuckie.) 'fancysmom' responds, asking, "Please explain how maintaining state stores will result in fewer future alcoholics. A statement that definitive should have some support."

That's when 'JohnRz' responds with this amazingly candid observation: "Alcohol is a drug. Ask any cop if you have a bigger crack problem when crack becomes cheaper and more available."

Excellent! Sure, John makes a ridiculous equivalency between a bottle of chardonnay and a pipe full of crack cocaine, but that's the kind of neo-Prohibitionist cant we've come to expect from the PLCB and their ilk. The point is, John's owning up to the simple fact that wine and spirits will be cheaper and easier to buy if the State Stores are replace by private stores. We've known that all along, but this slip of the fingers shows that the pro-PLCB partisans know it too, and they're fighting against it to keep the status quo, and keep the crappy State Stores as the only choice for Pennsylvanians. 

Thanks, John Rzodkiewicz! Your honesty is appreciated! (Not sure how Wendell W. Young IV is going to feel about it...)

Why the PLCB's "Modernization" plan is misleading

The PLCB keeps telling us that they want to "modernize" their stores; the unions involved (the UFCW and ISSU) tell us the same thing; the Democratic legislators who dance merrily (in lockstep) to their tune put forth "modernization" proposals. But take a look at what they tell you, and wonder...if this stuff is so great...why aren't they already doing it?

What do we want? More convenience.
The PLCB Partisans offer this:

We can open more stores.
The PLCB already controls how many stores are open. There were 692 in 2000, there are 596 now. Neither the house or the senate had to vote to change that. They can open more stores any time they want to. They haven't, they've closed stores. Why? Probably because of their bulging overhead costs and mismanagement.

We can make shopping more convenient by putting more "stores in stores," State Stores in or beside grocery stores and beer distributors.
Not one of the new Fine Wine and Good Spirits Stores are "in a store" and none being built at this moment are either. Once again: if they can do it...why aren't they doing it now?

We can increase the hours.
Except for Sunday sales, which would require an act of the Legislature, the PLCB can set the hours for all stores now. If they wanted to be open 8AM-11PM, they could be. They obviously don't.


What does the Legislature want from the PLCB? More MONEY.
The PLCB Partisans offer this:

We can and have reduced costs to make more money for the state.
In the free market, reduced costs mean lower prices for the consumer; see Walmart as an example. I haven't seen it at the State Stores, have you? You come last at the PLCB.

We will turn in a record amount of money to the general fund this year.
It's juggling. Next year, when they bring inventory back up to normal, hire the 400 people that they purposely didn't hire this year to make the numbers look good and pay for new stores at a faster rate than the current 100 year completion schedule, it will go back down to historical percentages or lower. But by then the privatization scare will be over, so they don't care about next year.


What do we really want? A chance to buy in great stores like they have in other states: a choice.
The PLCB Partisans tell us: The PLCB is "a world-class shopping experience...akin to Williams-Sonoma."
 You don't become "world class" simply by saying you are "world class." You do it by working hard, exceeding expectations in selection, customer service, and meeting customers needs and wants...and then being judged "world class" by independent experts in your field. Even the ISSU, the Independent State Store Union, which represents the stores' managers, calls it "their delusional effort as a wannabe 'world class retailer'".(ISSU press release, Dec. 9, 2011)


As we saw with the wine kiosks, the PLCB knows nothing about "modernization." In fact, expecting an agency that came up with such a clunky idea as the wine kiosks to offer sound ideas on "modernization" is like asking your dog for advice on how to fix your car.

Remember, folks: Privatization IS Modernization. We don't need to "modernize" the PLCB; we need to put it out to pasture where it belongs.

Thanks to Albert Brooks for the core ideas of this post.

The Selection Lie

When the PLCB Partisans have made their statements about how dangerous privatization is -- ignoring the fact that it doesn't seem to be causing chaos or undue harm in the states that have it -- and how many jobs it's going to cost -- their jobs, usually, which isn't exactly objective, and ignores the jobs that privatization will inevitably create (if we don't do it the stupid way Senator McIlhinney wants to; yeah, Senator, I said stupid, and if you want to talk to me about it, you already have my email) -- and how much 'revenue' it will cost the state -- which 1)it won't, and 2)that's not the point anyway -- they often get around to saying something like, "And you know, privatization will mean less selection. The private stores don't carry as many different wines and liquors as the LCB does, and supermarkets won't carry a lot of your craft beers; they'll only carry what sells."

Can we just say "bullshit" and be done with it? Because you'd have to be feeble-minded to believe that argument (which really makes me worry about my own state representative, Frank Farry, who actually quoted it to me as the main reason he voted against HB790). All you have to do, quite literally, to disabuse yourself of this notion is go to one of the 160-odd Pennsylvania grocery stores that are now selling beer and look at their beer selection. The Wegmans in Downingtown, for instance, where I bought this bottle of Brooklyn Local 1.

Or you could go to the Whole Foods in Plymouth Meeting, where they even have six taps for filling growlers. But before you make this silly argument, do the really simple thing and just go look at what privately-owned supermarkets are already selling in Pennsylvania! And then stop blathering this ludicrous "talking point" that the state store clerk's union or the Malt Beverage Distributors Association gave you.

It's not just beer, either. Want to see what wine and liquor selection looks like in a privately-run store? Just go look at one! They're right across the border: Joe Canal's, Total, Roger Wilco, Moore Brothers... Are there corner bodegas in the side streets of Trenton that have tiny selections? Sure there are, just like the "grocery" selection at a 7-11 is dwarfed by what you can get at Wegmans, or Giant Eagle, or at an Aldi's, for that matter. That's the point: they don't all have the same stuff, so some of them have a lot more.

But really. If you're making these arguments, or even thinking about considering them as possible...Just. Go. Look. It's all you have to do to realize that they're pure delusion, lies, distortions of truth. If we break open wholesaling in this state -- and it can be the same "system" as the beer wholesalers, they're doing a great job supplying us with multitudes of beers! -- the private stores will get the selection. And it will be the selection you want, not the selection some PLCB committee in Harrisburg has decided you're going to get.

Tell Senator McIlhinney and your state senator that you want real privatization in Pennsylvania: privatized retail and privatized wholesale. If we don't get it all, there's no point. Happily, McIlhinney does get one thing:

"The committee's chairman, Sen. Charles McIlhinney, R-Bucks, also attacked part of Corbett's justification for selling private wine and liquor store licenses, the idea that a windfall of $1 billion or more would result. "If this is about a money maker, I don't think that's really where we should be going with it," McIlhinney told reporters after the hearing. "If we're going to do privatization and try to make more convenience out there, it shouldn't be some way to generate a billion dollars and then give it away."

Right on that one, Chuck. Now get your head straight on the rest of it. Don't compromise with people who aren't going to make a deal.