Vox Populi

Newspapers are the voice of the people, even now, in the age of the Internet. There are left-leaning ones, right-leaning ones, moderate ones, and some that seem to just wander about the center. But in Pennsylvania, right or left, they all seem to be in favor of liquor privatization.

The State Store clerks and their union bosses will tell you that it is because of the advertising dollars that newspapers will get from liquor ads; it's all about the money. But if you look at the Sunday New York Times, in the largest media market in the country, how much liquor advertising do you actually see? Usually under a quarter of a page. How much do they think The Somerset Daily American is going to get in advertising column inches? Makes for good sound bites, though, and helps you forget that for the clerks and the union bosses...it's all about the money.

I wonder how the "liberal media" is somehow controlled by the right on just this one subject, don't you? They know and have known that the people overall want a private liquor system. There has never been a scientific poll showing otherwise, including all the polls the newspapers have done themselves. The first complaints published about the PLCB were shortly after it started, saying there was a lack of selection and convenience. 82 years later, nothing has changed.

So here's the challenge. What newspaper is actually in favor of keeping the state stores? Are there any, besides the Raging Chicken Press?  (I'm not making that up and it isn't a print newspaper either.) Perhaps a few union and progressive blogs, but even some of them are in favor.

Here are just some of the newspapers that have come out editorially, some numerous times, for privatization. Where is the list of newspapers against?

Bucks County Courier Times-Intelligencer
Butler Eagle
Express Times (Bethlehem)
Lebanon Daily News
Philadelphia Inquirer
Pittsburgh Post Gazette
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Scranton Times Tribune
Somerset Daily American
The Altoona Mirror
The Citizens Voice (Wilkes-Barre)
The Courier Express  (DuBois)
The Delaware Daily Times
The Observer Reporter (Washington/Greene Counties)
The Patriot News (Harrisburg)
The Pocono Record
The Pottstown Mercury
The Reading Eagle
The Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre)
The Tribune-Democrat (Johnstown)
Williamsport Sun-Gazette
York Daily Record

All parts of the state, all sizes of towns and cities, all in favor of what the people want. 3,000 clerks should not control the wants of a state of 12.7 million.

Privatize. Make this the year it happens.

How to lie like Wendell Young IV

We like to take UFCW Local 1776 president-for-life Wendell W. "The Haircut" Young IV to task for bending, breaking, and shattering the truth about booze sales in Pennsylvania. He's out in the public again as the budget impasse comes down to the close and Senator McIlhinney's Great Step Sideways "modernization" plan for the State Stores is in play. Windy Wendy is spreading the same old manure about changes to the State Store System: any change is bad, we need these jobs, private companies are evil. 

As a public service, we will now present actual statements by Mr. Young, showing the different types of lying and some of the nuances of the same. 

Never gonna happen is it?

The Flat-out Lie 
One of Wendell's favorite type of lie, the flat-out lie is best used in press releases or other forms of communication where the liar can't be questioned with any immediacy. This type of lie is best used to impress or intimidate by showing the supposed knowledge of the liar.

For example, you can find this lie on the union's website "...the PFM found that privatization will cost more than $1.4 billion in transition costs over five years,”

As one of Mr. Young's favorite lies. He has said this numerous times in numerous places, but saying it over and over doesn't make it true. The PFM report  on page 186 lists the Operating and Transition costs as $1.4 billion. Mr. young always seems to forget the Operating part, the costs that are incurred by simply running the stores while they're open. The normal costs of operation, not costs incurred by any kind of transition.

And on page 180 of the report it shows how much just those operational costs are. Remember: these are costs that would be incurred just to keep the state stores running anyway.

From this you can see that keeping the state stores would cost well over $2B over the same time period since there would be no reduction in Operational expenditures over time. (Take the first entry and multiply it by 5.) That's actually likely to be on the low side: current expenses are $470 Million per year and going up.

The Lie of Time Passed

Another favorite lie for Mr. Young is to "forget" that one, two, five, or ten years have passed since he came up with whatever statistic he is talking about, but he still presents that old and often outdated information as current.

In this example, eight years after this CDC report was current (the CDC doesn't even have it up on their website anymore), the UFCW Local 1776 webpage still says that in 2007, PA had the lowest death rate in the country associated with alcohol consumption. They are actually correct about this....for 2007.  By 2009 Pennsylvania's rate had increased over 25% (Page 87 in the report) and by 2012 had gone up even more (Table 19, Page 78), resulting in a rate 30.8% higher than the 2007 figures Mr. Young likes to use. If you imply that the union-run, state liquor stores are responsible for the low rate, then aren't they also equally responsible for the higher rate? 

Just to make things worse for Wendell, of the states with lower rates than PA for the past seven years, two of them are New Jersey and Maryland. (Damn those free privately-run states right on our border...that so many Pennsylvanians use.)

The Lie by Omission
Another favorite used to make statements sound better without telling the whole truth.  We'll start out small with this. "Pa. has Wine and Spirits stores in every one of the state's 67 counties; West Virginia had state run stores in every county; with private companies in charge, five counties now have no stores."

The implication is that some people in West Virginia have to go unreasonable distances to find a liquor store. The truth is that NOBODY in West Virginia has to drive as far as some residents of PA. Why? West Virginia is a much smaller state with much smaller counties. It only makes sense...unless you are a union boss.

Wendell likes to talk about West Virginia and Iowa a lot. Mostly he will tell you about how they lost so much money on privatization, using statistics from the Iowa Alcohol Beverage Division and West Virginia Alcohol Beverage Control Administration.

Only total revenue did not decrease in Iowa. Reading the same PFM report linked above, it was reported for Iowa that: "Privatization was deemed successful from a revenue standpoint, with profits increasing by $125 million over the first 11 years of privatization compared to estimates under State control of the stores. At the time of the 10-year review, the conclusion was that most of the increase in profits was the result of eliminating the state stores and the costs associated with them. " (Page 111)

Oh, and Iowa now has over 1000 outlets with a quarter of our population, and still has less DUI and binge drinking across the board.

How much did West Virginia save when they didn't have state stores to maintain, with salaries and pensions? What about the auction fees for licenses (over $60 million)?. Then there are the business taxes that are now paid which weren't before. I don't see any of that in Mr. Young's calculations.

You know what else he doesn't say?  For eight years, West Virginia state stores and private stores were in direct competition in wine...and the state was losing. If state run stores are better, how could that be? 

You want more? How about the 5,000 family sustaining jobs you hear him talk about being lost to privatization all of the time? Here is another example, and another from 2 years ago.  What he doesn't tell you is that the PLCB says that over 45% of their workforce is classified either part-time or seasonal (page 43). Hardly "family sustaining," and it's not 5,000, either.

So if you hear Mr Young say anything about privatization, it is time to fire up your google-fu and check to see how badly he is lying about it this time.

Privatization is Modernization.

Private Retail, Private Wholesale.

All We Want Is Normal.

Why PA won't lose money privatizing

There are two conflicting arguments proponents of the State Stores use to say we shouldn't privatize. The first is the old "liquor store on every corner" lie, trying to scare us with images of urban decay, and the second is that prices will go up (because you know, like how competition always makes prices go up) and selection will go down. The selection part is just laughable, since we all know what the private sector can provide. If somebody wants it, the private sector will provide it: that is just how free markets work, as shown by everything else you purchase. If you don't believe it, think about how many different candy bars and single-serving drinks the average Sheetz offers.

That leaves "but we'll have too many stores," although nobody can define what the right amount of stores are except for the free market - stores that fill customer needs will survive, and if they don't, they won't. What does that mean for the state?  It means that it will collect more license fees, more business taxes, more sales taxes, and more excise tax and of course, more people will have to be working because all those stores don't exist since they can't all be current existing stores. So according to the pro-State Store folks, using their weak logic, amounts collected have to be greater than the current amount because more is being sold at a higher price.

We know sales will go up because they have elsewhere. PA isn't going to be special in that regard.  Will they go up 44% like the favorite CDC report the UFCW uses - doubtful since they haven't anywhere else. Will they eventually get up to the national norm? Probably, if they open more stores than the relatively small amount called for in HB 466 or Senator Wagner's proposed bill.

In the only recent example of privatization of a control state, total sales in Washington went up about 15%; 8-9% internally and 7% went out of the state, the increase in border bleed. Adding 27% in new fees probably had a lot to do with the increase in border bleed, so the lesson for PA is don't do that. Let's pick a reasonable number for how much prices may go up -- say 5% -- and let's stick with a 15% increase in sales. I think that will be a little low since we will be privatizing both wine and spirits while Washington only did spirits but I'll stick with it since it is a real number. That means the total sales will be about $465 million more than they were last year, or an increase of about $116 million in just tax revenue not counting all the other stuff, or pretty much a zero net in terms of liquor revenue but a larger gain in overall economic activity.

Border bleed will probably stay close to what is is because greater convenience will cause people to buy locally and the slight price increase won't change the buying habits of too many. But then you have all the new employees working, delivering to bars and restaurants, more distributors with new warehouses, new superstores being built where none exist today. All of that adds to the economy too, and all of that is something the PLCB won't provide; can't provide.

There's a sub-argument that private stores can't survive on the wholesale and retail markup of 30% like the state stores do. Bullshit. The PLCB doesn't survive on only 30%, they currently have an effective 45.2% markup (Gross Revenue From Sales divided by COGS), and they get there with all sorts of hidden fees and charges generally unknown to the buying public while all the while saying the markup is only 30%. They lie. The 5% increase I mentioned above would move that to just over 50% and lots of businesses would love to have that or even the 45.2% effective rate the PLCB has now.

Now let's say - horror of horrors - that prices actually decline. Lower prices increase demand which means more workers are required to fill that demand, which means more product is being sold which means that more sales tax is being collected.  The excise tax collection will go up too. Lower prices will decrease border bleed as competition and convenience cause more people to buy locally; as it will be is easier and/or cheaper or both. That causes sales to rise even more. There might even be an increase in out of state buyers that come into PA to buy.  So where do we end up?  Ahead of where we are now that's for sure. Ahead in jobs, ahead in tax collection, ahead in license fees, ahead in business taxes, ahead in income taxes, ahead in paying less future pension debt, ahead in convenience and ahead in consumer satisfaction.

Don't listen to him Tim and Skip - he's talking that crazy talk!

So if all the other states surrounding us have higher prices, as numerous state store people say, then if PA prices rise we'll be normal, if prices go down and get close to what most people believe are the better prices in New Jersey and Maryland, we'll be normal. And if we get the state out of the liquor business, we'll be normal like most states.

I vote for normality, not monopoly. Dump the system and move Pennsylvania back to normal.

Gene Gene the wishing machine.

In an opinion piece in Thursday's Inquirer titled "Math supports modernization of liquor sales." , Representative Gene DiGirolamo (R-Bucks) demonstrates how much he enjoys the taste of the UFCW kool-aid, supporting his bill for "modernization" of the State Store System. He decries the "hype" surrounding his bill; there is none, but he's clearly trying to generate some. His main aim is to keep the State Stores open by any means necessary, because he's strongly anti-alcohol, and just as strongly pro-union ...and pro-union campaign support.

Gene and his bestest buddy, UFCW prez Wendell W. Young IV

Representative DiGirolamo -- Gene -- offers his piece as a discussion. "Some critics have questioned these projections, and I welcome the debate - provided it is an honest and transparent discussion that extends beyond sound bites." 

Okay Gene; let's go to the math, with an appetizer of economics first. The basis of any "honest and transparent discussion" is that the PLCB is a legal monopoly -- so any sales or "profit" increases have much less to do with the service, selection, convenience, or pricing being offered than with the fact that the citizens can't go anywhere else legally. As prices increase and population increases, sales will increase; that doesn't mean the monopoly is doing a good job, or satisfying the consumer.

On to the math. DiGirolamo says that there have been great increases in LCB "profits" over the past five years, but FY 2010 itself was horrid. Operating income was down almost 32% from the year before and was the lowest since well before 1999.  In fact, looking at operating income over the past 15 years, it declined in 8 of those 15 years (including last year) on a year to year basis and the long term rate of growth of the past 15 years is only 3.3% annually. Since inflation over that same 15 year period was 37.5% (2.14% annual compound rate for 2000-2014) the real dollar growth was only 1.16% annualized and that is nothing to brag about.

Getting down to the details of your "proposal", we can see that most of it is built -- appropriately enough -- on moonshine. Here's the specific proposals Gene makes, and the monies he projects that they will reap.

• Allowing more LCB stores to open on Sundays (currently only 25 percent can) and expanding the hours of operation on Sundays. Projected annual profit: $22.5 million.

To get an additional $22.5 million in profit means gross sales have to increase - using Gene's numbers of 6.92% profit margin - $325 million above what they currently are on Sundays, without taking sales away from any other day. This would somehow happen even though the PLCB said they would only be looking to open an additional 140-160 stores on Sunday, bringing the total to still less than half of the 605 stores they have open now. And the ones that are open on Sundays now are already the busiest ones. This seems far-fetched, if not outright misrepresentation.

• Allowing the LCB to locate more stores inside or next to grocery stores, beer distributors, and other high-traffic areas. Projected annual profit: $25 million.

The "store in a store" program has been authorized for 40 years and in place since 1981; no further authorization is needed. Less than 20 stores are taking part (fewer than were willing to take on a wine kiosk), so the odds of that somehow greatly increasing aren't good (even less for it happening quickly, since the standard lease is for 10 years). Putting stores near grocery stores should have been a no-brainer for the last 80 years, a prime example of how the PLCB has failed the consumer all this time. Gene claims this will somehow increase profit by another $25 million on top of the claims for Sunday sales. That requires another $361 million increase in sales to get there. Gene, you said you wanted to keep the State Stores to control liquor sales; looks like you want to increase them! Total sales increase needed for "modernization" to work: $691 million.

• Giving the LCB more flexibility in pricing, which would allow the agency to more quickly change prices to reflect market demand. Projected annual profit: $75 million

Be honest: you are saying the PLCB will be able to RAISE prices on popular items. That's the only kind of "change" that's going to happen, except for the occasional token lowering. That's not really going to help stanch over $300 million in border bleed or improve the notion that the state stores are competitive. How do I know that prices will go up?  If the PLCB is one of the largest purchasers of wine and spirits in the country, and are as effective negotiators as they claim to be, they should be getting the best prices on those purchases. To make any more "profit" above the 45.2% effective mark-up in place now, prices have to increase or costs have to decrease, and costs at the PLCB just don't go down. This is the keystone of Gene's "modernization" proposal; breaking the PLCB free of the regulated markup so they can raise prices. Everything else is window dressing.

• Speeding up the state process for reviewing leases for the state's Fine Wine & Good Spirits stores. This is a critical piece of the puzzle because it will allow the agency to more quickly open new stores in more convenient areas. Projected annual profit: $25 million.

I have to admit: I have no idea how opening new stores faster (with no mention of actually increasing the total amount of stores) will generate that much more income.  If the state store isn't open in one spot, the people are forced to go to a different state store. Think of the 2 years it took in Mountaintop to open a new store. Do you suppose the population stopped drinking because the store wasn't opened? That restaurants and bars no longer ordered any product? Gene thinks that sales will increase another $361 million if they open stores faster. I have my doubts. Total sales increase needed for "modernization" to work: $1.05 billion. With a "b".

• Allowing direct shipment of wine to Pennsylvania consumers while also permitting the LCB to ship products out of state. Projected annual profit: $25 million.

This one may actually make some money, but since no other state gets anywhere near 16% of their sales from direct shipments (another $361 million increase is needed) I'm not sure how realistic it is. Total sales increase needed for "modernization" to work: $1.37 billion.

• Installing lottery ticket kiosks in the stores. Projected annual profit: $3 million.

They may make some money on this, but it's all going to be siphoned off from other businesses. If the PLCB makes some money and small businesses don't make as much...they're on their way to a new monopoly.

• Allowing the LCB to join large purchasing consortiums to help lower the purchase price of wine and spirits. Projected annual profit: $10 million.

Besides the legality of this, other control states already have contracts in place, and all other control states except Utah allow private wine sales already, so this would be spirits only. That and the fact these consortiums don't exist yet may put a damper on the idea. And will the distillers give any additional price breaks? You can't stop selling Jim Beam because they wouldn't give you an additional nickel off the wholesale price. Again, I have serious doubts about this. 

So, Representative, please explain to us how sales will increase at least 62% above what they are now and how good that will be for the state. Sales in Washington - including increased border bleed - are up less than 15% and they have twice as many stores, open all day Sunday, Direct Wine Shipping by permit (the same as you propose), grocery store sales, and one stop shopping that you don't even propose: even if you double that because Washington only privatized liquor, you are nowhere near the increases you say will happen. Plus, there is no mention of cost increases for staff, admin, transportation, utilities, increased pension, medical or any other costs associated with a 62% increase in sales.

Open invite to Rep. DiGirolamo: if you respond, I'll publish it, but if you don't, I'll take that to mean you really don't want to have the debate extend beyond your own sound bites.

Fact Check, what the UFCW says, What Rep Turzai says

Below is the list that the UFCW 1776 calls "Twenty of Turzai's Lies" You can read the list here.  Not anywhere near as many as I've documented from Wendell Young IV (which nobody has refuted as of yet) but enough to see who is spinning more. I'll take them one at a time

Who is spinning more?

 01: Turzai: The PLCB has been operating in the red for the past 10 years.
      UFCW: The PLCB’s net profit for the past 10 years is almost $1 billion total

There are three ways to look at this.. The first is if everything the PLCB collects is a tax because tax is defined as "a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc." so what ever isn't specified as the Johnstown Flood Tax or Sales tax can be thought of as a use tax and not profit.

The second is that to have a profit a business has to list all liabilities and since the PLCB doesn't (not listing the over $600+ million in pension liability or $50+ million in medical for just two examples) it is questionable if a profit is made.

The third is that the PLCB as a business that is not responsible for any liabilities because the taxpayer, not the PLCB will cover them and therefore does make a profit. I'll call this one a tie

02:Turzai: The Fiscal Note for House Bill 790 said it would bring over $1 billion in upfront revenue.
    UFCW: Turzai’s own Fiscal Note says there would be at most $137.5 million in upfront revenue.

OK, there is one fiscal note listed by for HB 790 PN 1291. and it specifically says "A total of $1,123,000,000 is estimated to be generated from one-time license fees" The Rep. Turzai fiscal note does say $137.5 million. so the question is - what time period is "upfront" ?  Upfront is usually thought of as before something happens so does the money start counting before the beginning of privatization or before the end of the state stores?  This one is a tie.

03: Turzai:There is going to be an auctioning off of 1,200 wine and spirits licenses.
      UFCW: There is not one mention of auctioning licenses in House Bill 790 or his current legislation House Bill 466

This one goes to the UFCW, there is no mention of auctions in HB 466

04: Tuzai : When West Virginia went to the private sector they saw an increase in revenue.
      UFCW: West Virginia lost millions and has never financially recovered since privatizing.

Try as I might I could not find anything on line from the state of West Virgina that listed revenues from over 30 years ago when they privatized retail sales. Without verifiable information I can't make a call on this one. However, as a side note, Iowa which also privatized retail a few years later reported making more money. (1)  I have to toss this out for lack of information.

05: Turzai: There will be no increase in unemployment compensation and all PLCB jobs will be absorbed in the private sector. 
      UFCW: The Public Financial Management study states 2,302 full-time equivalent employees will lose their jobs and cost more than $64 million in unemployment costs over four years.

Since everyplace that has fully privatized has tripled employment in the industry jobs will be created, far more than are lost. If the offset is enough to make a zero balance after some of those new jobs will be filled by people already supposedly trained is a question I don't have enough information to answer. This one is a tie also.

06:Turzai: There will be open dialogue and everyone will be at the table to discuss issues.
     UFCW: There hasn’t been a House hearing on liquor privatization since 2011.

This one is tough because it is an opinion.  If you are a citizen of the state and don't know anything about the issue already I question your ability to govern the rest of us.  If you are a legislator then there is no excuse what so ever not to educate yourself. More hearings will not bring anything new to the table. THe UFCW is still using documents and statistics from as far back as 2006 so that isn't going to change. The question is if the state should sell a retail product or not.  Once you have decided that then questions like "should we have pretty stores" or "add 1,000 more "R" licenses" come into play but not before. I know that both caucuses will be meeting on this issue so I'm in agreement that everyone can discuss the issues. Rep Turzai gets this one.

07:Turzai:The PLCB produces no profit.
     UFCW: The PLCB’s net profit was $123 million alone in the last fiscal year.

This is just a rewording of #1 and the result is the same- a tie.

08: Turzai:There will not be any lost revenue.
      UFCW: Both the Fiscal Note to HB 790 and PFM show revenue gaps that need to be made up.

The fiscal note to HB 790 does say that because of the increased discount to licensees, going from 10 to 14% will reduce income it is the same proposal mentioned in some modernization plans so what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The PFM report also shows revenue gaps but self admittedly accounts for a zero balance of the over $200 million in inventory, the sales jump as private stores ramp up before divestiture and the $200 million in other assets which can be sold although for not anywhere near the inventory value. Add to that, the complete lack of accounting for economic churn increased employment and peripheral employees will bring and the increase in sales greater access will bring it does raise questions if there will be any lost revenue in total. Since neither side can provide concrete evidence either way this one is a tie.

09: Turzai: There will not be a complete proliferation of alcohol.
      UFCW: Under Rep. Turzai’s proposal, spirits outlets will triple, including in urban areas.

Even after tripling the amount of liquor stores the state will still be well below the average for a population of 12 million - about 33% less. Since the beer distributors will get first call on licenses and they already sell alcohol where ever they are - urban or rural that aspect is a red herring.  Community zoning should take care of the additional licenses past the initial 1200. Who knows better about what the needs of the community are - Harrisburg or the people who live there? Rep Turzai takes this one.

10:Turzai:No other state taxes liquor like Pennsylvania. 
     UFCW: Almost every state has a liquor tax, as well as retail and wholesale markups.

This one will go on a technicality. No other state does tax like Pennsylvania,  We don't have a liquor tax, we have a temporary tax that is to be used to help people from a 1936 flood.  Now what it turned into and what it is used for may be like a liquor tax that other states have - it isn't. The Johnstown Flood Tax is not part of the Liquor Code. Rep Turzai wins this one too.

11: Turzai: There will be new business taxes.
      UFCW: Turzai’s proposal heavily favors existing retailers, meaning no new business tax.

Another iffy one. Obviously if a business increases sales volume there is new business tax but if there physically aren't any or many new businesses then the number of businesses being taxed doesn't increase. Pure semantics. A tie at best or completely rejected at worst

12: Turzai:There is significant border bleed.
      UFCW: Turzai cites an unknown statistic, but in reality border bleed is minimal and there is reverse border bleed into Pennsylvania.

I'm sorry, but when the PLCB itself commissions a study on border bleed and shows that there is hundreds of millions of dollars leaving the state that indicates a significant problem Rep Turzai gets this one hands down.

Wendell Young IV star of Say Anything

13:Turzai: The public supports privatization at a 70-75% approval rating and there is widespread support for his plan.
     UFCW: No poll shows this claim. Instead, recent polls show support going the other way. Also, dozens of groups oppose House Bill 790 from last session.

This gets a bit tricky. The primary question is if the state should sell a retail product.  Given that there are 40 years of scientific polls that say the citizens do not want the state store system and some of them are in the 70% range and there has never been a poll saying they want to keep the state store system over a private system that indicates there is widespread approval for privatization.  Later polls give a third option of modernization which is a dependent option and not a primary option. You have to agree that the state should sell a retail product before you can choose how they sell it.

What dozens of groups believe or not has no bearing on what scientific polls say. To believe otherwise is to succumb to "We know better than you what is good for you"  The majority of citizens want a private system as Rep Turzai says.

14:Turzai:Beer distributors will do well under his proposal.
     UFCW: The Malt Beverage Distributors Association opposes Turzai’s plan.

It is true that the MBDA opposes this plan it is also true that they represent less than half of all beer distributors. Their disapproval does not negate if some beer distributors will do well or if most will do well or if any do well.  It has no real bearing since how well an individual distributor will do is dependent on how hard he works at his business and not his membership in the MBDA. Another that is a tie at best

15:Turzai:There are only 3,500 employees at the PLCB we need to worry about. 
     UFCW: There are more than 5,000 employees at the PLCB and mostly all will lose their job

According to the state itself there are 3,074 full time employees and 1,519 part time employees as of 1/15/15.  This doesn't count any seasonal employees which may push the total over 5,000 but would also be stretching the truth a bit. Since the UFCW continually uses the PFM report I'll use it too and it says that between 2,436 - 2,678 Full Time Equivalents or 3,210 total employees  would be unemployed depending how the PLCB retail and wholesale was disassembled.

Now you can make a case for people won't be working in the same state job but a number will still be working for the state. Rep Turzai has the facts on his side for this one but semantics are with the UFCW - they get it.

16: Turzai: Operational costs have increased by 70% at the PLCB over the past decade.
      UFCW: Operational expenses have only grown at a 1.7% compound annual growth rate in the last five years.

I've a mind to throw this one out.  Answering a question with a statement that doesn't match the question is just not being honest.  According to the FY 2005 Audit by the Auditor General operational costs were $289,810,000 and in 2014 were $424,478,913 which is a 45.6% growth so Rep Turzai is wrong.  However. the 2010 Operational costs were $381,801,000 which comes out to a 2.15% compound annual growth rate to 2014 so the UFCW is wrong too.I didn't include COGS in my operation computations because the PLCB has no real control over that but if I did then operation costs from 2005-2014 would have gone up 56%  and the compounded annualized rate would be 2.79% I'm not counting this for either side.

17: Turzai: Private wholesalers sell to the PLCB wholesale system currently. There is a duplicate system in PA.
      UFCW: Producers sell to the PLCB wholesale. There is no duplicate system.

There is a duplicate system.  While for major items the PLCB may go directly to the producer, for the vast majority of items available in the system they go through a private distributor. This is easy to see because every SLO item has a vendor code and that code is not the Wild Turkey Distillery or the Conundrum winery, it is a distributor. and since SLO items outnumber in stock items by at least 4 to 1 there is a duplicate system. Rep Turzai is correct

That is the end of the list, why they called it 20 lies and then only listed 17 is a question you'll have to ask the UFCW.  I've always said they weren't very good with math.

The totals are
Rep Turzai - 6
UFCW - 2
Tie - 6
Tossed out - 3

Who do YOU believe?


(1)Privatization was deemed successful from a revenue standpoint, with profits increasing by $125 million over the first 11 years of privatization compared to estimates under State control of the stores. At the time of the 10-year review, the conclusion was that most of the increase in profits was the result of eliminating the state stores and the costs associated with them. PFM report pg 111

The UFCW 1776 thinks that PLCB profit is less than minimal - We knew it all along.

One of the more outrageous claims by the UFCW in the past week has been that border bleed is "minimal". From their "fact sheet" on Speaker Turzai's recent PCN interview:

"Fact:Turzai cites an unknown statistic, but in reality border bleed is minimal and there is reverse border bleed into Pennsylvania. (See No. 6 in outline)" (The outline mentioned is not provided or listed by the UFCW.)

How they know this isn't said, but let's look at the official PLCB report of 2011 done by the Neiman Group. The PLCB doesn't list this study on their website, which is why the link points elsewhere but they bought and paid for it nonetheless.

This report only used the Philadelphia area counties of  Berks, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Lehigh, Montgomery, Northampton, and Philadelphia, so I'll only be using sales from those counties myself.  The following is a list of how much PLCB sales were in each of the above counties for 2013, the latest available taken from the 2013-2014 Year In Review, page 13.

Bucks	$135,700,317.31
Berks	$52,109,662.18
Chester	$120,388,495.05
Delaware	$77,696,292.72
Lehigh	$70,209,394.60
Montgomery	$200,801,436.82
Northamton	$41,606,625.89
Philadelphia	$228,424,798.19
Total	$926,937,022.76

That $927 million represents 42.6% of all PLCB sales. Using the Neiman report that says 5% of people only shop out of state (page 12) that would mean $46.3 million in lost sales by itself.  However, the Neiman report also says that 40% also shop in and out of state. Since people who buy out of state spend more (page 16) it would be safe to think that the total sales amount of those that shop in both would be greater out of state. I'm going to use half, just to err on the conservative side. That would meant that people spend at least 20% of total sales (half of the 40% who shop in and out of state) out of state. That number would be $185.4 million and that's almost certainly low.

So the total minimal border bleed is $46.3 million plus $185.4 million, or $231.7 million: about 11% of the entire state store sales. Or is it? As the Neiman report says, people spend more out of state to begin with, and then you have to look at when the report was made: 2011. Things weren't so good in 2011. Gas was higher, the economy was worse, people traveled less, all things mentioned in the report as potential reasons why people might be spending more in state in 2011. That isn't as true now and the border bleed number may be in the $300 million range -- which according to the UFCW is "minimal."

So if $300 million, or even $231 million, is "minimal," then the $124 million in non-tax contribution by the PLCB is less than "minimal," and shouldn't even be mentioned, based on that logic. There are very few things that the UFCW and I agree on, but it seems that this logical conclusion is one of them.

Maybe they are wrong and it isn't minimal. How many other things are they wrong about either on purpose (usually called lying) or from just not being able to read and research. I'm just one guy and can find and figure this out, they have thousands of members, entire staffs and apparently no fact checking. Why should we trust them?

Tell your legislator that you are in favor of HB 466 and get the state out of the liquor business.

HB 466 will allow 1800 liquor store licenses -- far more convenient than 600 state stores, no matter how many baskets and islands and palm trees they put in them. HB 466 will allow 825 grocery stores to sell wine, something the UFCW is dead set against (unless it involves more UFCW workers in a One Stop Shop; something that has failed for the 34 year existence of the program).

HB 466 will get the state out of telling you what you are allowed to buy -- no "modernization" plan does that.

HB 466 will give the freedom of choice found in other states -- modernization doesn't do that either.

HB 466 will benefit small business -- The PLCB modernization does not.

Modernization is a false choice because nothing changes.  Just because they paint your jail cell and allow longer visiting hours does not mean you are free.

Privatization is REAL moderniization