Quick, Clean Up Those Liquor Laws: The Neighbors Are Visiting!

5-20-2016: This piece has been updated after a full reading of the bill as released by Sen. McIlhinney's committee and subsequently swiftly approved 50-0 by the Senate. Updates are italicized; deleted words are struck out.


This headline in Tuesday's Inquirer caught my eye this morning:

Pa. May Ease Liquor Rules For Democratic Convention

Here's the piece, describing likely temporary changes in The Almighty Liquor Code for the duration of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia later this summer.

Short version: the Legislature feels politicians' pain, but not yours.

"C" is for "Cheat"

Less-short-but-still-short version: Bars can stay open past 2 AM while the convention's in session — four whole days — if they are granted a special license, which costs $5,000, and is only available for events directly related to the convention (What's odd: it's not clear if the event license applies to individual licensees, or the event premises, or wherever the "national event" decides to serve booze). Even more galling: for that time period only, these special licensees will be able to buy receive booze directly from out of state for those four days, unlike you...ever! This is so state delegations can get their favorite hometown booze (Washington State wines, Maine craft spirits), recognizing that (as our old pal, Senator Chuck McIlhinney, who passed the House bill out of committee, put it) "we're not going to put it in our liquor stores for four days and then sell it to them and then have to be stuck with it." Well...probably sounded good to him at the time. What Chuck probably meant to say was that it would be unreasonable to expect the clerks to have to deal with a bunch of interesting new products, so let's arbitrarily bend the law instead. Right, Chuck? That's what you do over in the Law & Justice Committee, after all.

Our version: Someone in the Legislature got a rush of blood to the brain and realized that conventions run on booze -- they do, even the Democrats, and don't even start on the whole weed thing -- and that our booze laws suck so bad that it could hurt future convention business...no, wait, if that was it, they'd make these changes permanent for Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, because that's true for every convention, not just political ones.

No, this is, as usual, about different rules for the ruling class, and charging you to pay for them. Because if you think that the bars who get those special licenses are going to pay for them in four days, or even try to pay them off in four days, you're dreaming. You'll be paying for them. Lucky you. (Okay, what's likely to happen is that some deal will be struck that the licenses are paid for as part of the venue payment, or covered by the donations of free booze.) And if the licensees are smart, they're going to stock up like mad during those four days, get Total Wine to ship in truckloads of booze to beat the PLCB like a gong. There is no limit on how much booze can be brought in, either. In the words of the bill as it stands, the licensees may "ACCEPT, IMPORT, POSSESS OR RESELL 
DONATED ALCOHOL ACQUIRED FROM LICENSED AND UNLICENSED ENTITIES SO LONG AS IT RECEIVES BOARD APPROVAL PRIOR TO DOING SO. THE DONATED ALCOHOL DOES NOT NEED TO COME TO REST AT A PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR STORE PRIOR TO ITS USE BY THE PERMIT HOLDER, UNLESS THE  BOARD SO DIRECTS. MALT OR BREWED BEVERAGES DONATED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL NOT NEED TO COME TO REST AT A LICENSED IMPORTING DISTRIBUTOR PRIOR TO THEIR USE BY THE PERMIT HOLDER, SO LONG AS
THE DONATED BRANDS ARE REGISTERED WITH THE BOARD AND THE BOARD APPROVES THE ARRANGEMENT." Note that this kind of arrangement would be exactly the kind of thing that could normally cause a licensee to be fined, possibly even lose their license.

Is that even how the law would work? Who knows, because McIlhinney had his fingers all over it, so it's likely to be something completely novel that no one asked for or wanted. Would you pay $5,000 for the "right" to be open from 2 AM to 4 AM for four days? For a bunch of drunken strangers? (On the other hand, would you pay $5,000 for the "right" to buy booze from regular wholesalers, rather than the PLCB? Just for the novelty of someone delivering the booze to you for a change? Hey, maybe!)

Leave out the longer hours, which is window-dressing: all they'd have to do to achieve this is to tell the BLCE to stay away from Philadelphia and give the bars the high sign. This is nothing more or less than an admission that the PLCB can't deliver what wholesalers and retailers in other states do routinely: put new products on the shelves (not in some airy-fairy "online store" that no one can search properly) in a timely manner by delivering them directly to bars. An admission that the state's booze monopoly is a failed, broken system that can't do what business needs.

If it needs to be fixed for four days...it needs to be fixed for good. And we know the way to fix it. The Inquirer knows, too. They ran this editorial on May 20: have a look. The House GOP caucus should belatedly redeem themselves by refusing to pass this deeply cynical bill. Failing that, the Governor should veto this unabashed deal-making. And if they don't, we the people should raise hell.

Privatize it. The time is now. 

I’m a hater

Or at least that is what one pro-PLCB representative called me and he is right: I hate a lot of things about the PLCB. I’ll start off with these two dozen or so and you can add your own in the comments.

Oh PLCB, how do I hate thee, let me count the ways.

• I hate going to the state stores.
• I hate that they don't have what I want.
• I hate that most of the time I can't order it.
• I hate that if they do have something it is usually more expensive.
• I hate that Philadelphians (or any Pennsylvanian, for that matter) don't have legal access to anything approaching the selection of Joe Canal's, Moore Brothers, Total Wine, BevMo, and a host of others.
• I hate that even the PLCB's buyers know so little about brown spirits.
• I hate that the so called 'wine specialists' don’t work standard hours; say noon to eight when most customers could use them.
• I hate that the state cheats its own citizens by not allowing liter size bottles to be sold everywhere.
• I hate that the alcoholic's best friends -- the mini, the half pint and the pint bottle -- are cheap in PA, but the 1.75L bottles are 99% of the time more expensive.
• I hate that a manager can’t even set up the stores they manage to best suit their customer base, but have to follow the forms sent by Harrisburg that tell them where every bottle has to be placed.
• I hate that the PLCB doesn’t even figure that out themselves, they hire an out of state firm to do that for them. 
• I hate it when the union says that five West Virginia counties lost all service when they privatized...but don’t tell you people in those counties still don’t have to drive as far as residents of the 20 PA counties that have only one or two State Stores.
• I hate that while Gross From Sales  has increased 75% since 2000, contribution to the PSB only went up 49%, contribution to Drug and Alcohol education only went up 60%, and that in this "record year" the total contribution from sales is less than the average of the past 14 years.
• I hate wine kiosks and the very idea of wine kiosks; anybody who had a hand in insulting the consumer in that way should have been fired.  
• I hate that the three members of the actual liquor control board worked only 21 days last year.
• I hate that they need a $150,000 babysitter because the board can’t manage to work more than 22 days this year.
• I hate that somehow the PLCB thinks that the alcohol in beer is different than the alcohol in wine or whiskey.
• I hate that I can’t get a case discount to try and mitigate the usually crappy prices.
• I hate that people think the state stores are a cash cow when in reality the non-tax contribution is under 3/10ths of 1 percent of the budget.
• I hate it when we are told that PA has the lowest incidence of underage buying when the state stores are never checked for compliance.
• I hate that the PLCB spends more on advertising than education. Just what are they actually trying to do?  Make sure young people know what to buy once they are 21?
• I hate it that the union thinks one poll counters four decades of polling that show the citizens want to be rid of the state stores.
• I hate that the PLCB thinks convenience has gone up after closing 20% of its stores.
• I hate that the PLCB keeps spending money to rename the State Stores.  No matter what they call them they are still going to be State Stores.
• I hate that some cube rat or committee in Harrisburg decides what an entire state is allowed to buy.
• I hate that the PLCB online inventory has hundreds, if not thousands, of mistakes in spelling or placement making it far more difficult for the consumer than other online retailers.
• I hate that I live as far away from New Jersey and Delaware as I do.
• I hate that after 80 years we are still discussing what the majority of the states have already figured out.

To show I’m not all bad I loved Joe Conti.  He was so incompetent that I wondered if he was secretly working for privatization.

Privatization IS Modernization and government control of retail is Socialism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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