Privatization is Not a Piñata

Looks like the Legislature's been here...

I'm looking at HB790, the proposal that Governor Corbett has put forward for privatization of the the State Store System, and it's becoming clear what the Legislature is in this for: the money. It's not about us, it's not about doing the right thing, it's not about doing what we want, it's about the money.

It's about campaign donations from the unions and businesses, it's about the tax revenue, it's about the shiny promise of a billion bucks in "windfall" money from license fees and wholesaler fees and higher fines and continuing fees... And like I always tell people in other states when their legislators want to raise booze taxes, where do you think all that money's going to come from? Duh, guys: out of your pockets. Because the wholesalers and the retailers aren't going to eat that increase (and no reason we should expect them to), it's part of the price of goods. So the higher the license fees...the higher the prices. It's just a tax under another name. Why, much as I'm pissed about Representative Taylor's planned amendment for HB790, at least he recognizes that, and lowered those fees.

The problem is that the Legislature doesn't look at the booze business like we do: producers and wholesalers and retailers all bringing the wines, spirits, and beers we love to shelves near us, hopefully sold by folks who have the same kind of passion for it that we do (or, hey, by guys who want to make picking up the basics quick and easy). They don't look at it like those in the industry do, as a fair business that makes a decent profit and pays good wages. They don't even look at it like MADD and the neo-prohibitionists do, as the devil's handmaidens, selling pure liquid evil.

No, the Legislature looks at the booze business -- brewers, distillers, vintners, importers; wholesalers, retailers; bars, delis, restaurants, taverns, stadium concessions -- as a big piñata, stuffed full of revenue, the money that makes things work in Harrisburg. Yes, the money that builds roads (and drips down to corrupt the fat cats), and pays for the State Police, and higher education, and state parks, and so on and so on, and it's also the money that gets doled out to make friends happy, and pay for patronage work, and all the semi-shady crap that's been going on in Harrisburg...it's all revenue, and that's really how the Legislature sees the booze business: a piñata, dangling in front of them, bulging with bucks, and the stick's in their hands.

Step right up, Senator! See the beer distributors, gorged with the fruits of their semi-monopoly? WHACK! The bars, making money in cash, helped along by the limited competition the licensing system creates? WHACK! The wholesalers, a layer of markup forced onto the others by three-tier laws -- WHACK! -- the brewers, newly successful craft brewers and the roaring Yuengling -- WHACK! -- Pennsylvania's wineries, ignored by the State Store but making people happy with festival fun -- WHACK! --the new distillers, better teach them how it works before they get too big -- WHACK! -- and the grocers and drugstores, wow, new blood! -- WHACK! WHACK!

 WHACK!

And then...the piñata breaks. The revenue tumbles out! Oh boy, grab it, shovel it into your committee bags, scoop it up to take home to your campaign contributors! Don't worry about the broken shell of the piñata. Don't worry; the system has limped along for decades, made to work by dedicated people who worked within the ridiculous cage of complicated laws you made, who did their best to try to bring the citizens what other states' peoples took for granted. It doesn't matter if you don't get this right: you've been ignoring what's wrong with the State Store System for over 40 years, you can ignore the mess you're going to make with privatization, too.

Don't let this happen. Call your representatives, email them, visit them if you can. Go to Facebook, tell Representative Taylor that you want real privatization, not some watered-down "modernization." Here are some talking points, bullet points, really.

• License fees are too damned high.
• There are too many different types of license, and the mistake of the "case law" is repeated in multiples with all the different arbitrary limits on how much each license can sell in one transaction.
• Beer distributors should not be charged a special fee to sell sixpacks, and there shouldn't be a minimum sale of a sixpack: do away with these ridiculous minimum and maximum sales altogether.
• Privatize fully, NOW. Give them 6 months. 

Don't break the system to get at all the money inside. Free it up, and collect the extra taxes you'll get when people no longer feel the need, the urge, to avoid the screwed-up mess we have and buy across the border.

And most of all...there is no windfall. If the State Store System really were the "valuable public asset" the unions keep trying to tell us it is, some company would be offering you money to take it over and run it. It's not. It's an annoyance. The people of the state despise it, and can't wait to see it gone. Forcing the new licensees to pay for it is just...whacking the piñata.
 

The State Stores have had 80 years to get it right. They haven't, they won't. Game over. PRIVATIZE.

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!

Breaking The Law: the tale of the tape

Yesterday I went Out Of Control. I broke the law by driving to New Jersey and — deliberately and with intent — bought twelve bottles of table wine, mostly Italian and California reds, with a few whites, at Joe Canal's in Lawrenceville. They were not mass market wines; nor were they “fine wines.” I picked the bottles out on my own, based on price, reviews, and “shelf talkers” written by individual clerks whose tastes I’ve learned to trust. The bottles were also mostly offered on special through Canal's Bottle Club: a free membership, like a shopper's card. I had no shopping list going in, just looking for wine for dinners over the next month or so.

In all honesty, I was just buying wine; I had no ulterior motive, no agenda. We were out of table wine, and I was close to Jersey, so I went. But last night, after everyone else went to bed, I got curious about just what the price differences were. So I scanned the bottles with the PLCB's -- admittedly -- fairly nifty Android barcode app, and here’s what I got. The Canal’s price is first…followed by the posted price from the PLCB’s database, where available.

2010 Zenato Valpolicella Superiore — $10.96 — $13.99
2011 Rancho Zabaco Dancing Bull Zinfandel — $7.34 — $9.99 (“sale price”)
2012 Frenzy Sauvignon Blanc — $8.29 — $10.29
2012 Box O 'Birds Sauvignon Blanc — $10.96 — $18.39*
2011 Feudi del Duca Montepulciano d'Abruzzo — $8.66 — NA
2010 Varner Wine Foxglove Chardonnay — $13.49 — NA
2010 Ravenswood Winery Vintners Blend Cabernet Sauvignon — $9.44 — $11.99
2012 Sileni Estate Cellar Selection Sauvignon Blanc — $9.99 — $13.39
2011 Ravenswood Winery Vintners Blend Old Vine Zinfandel — $8.01 — NA
2010 Penfolds Koonunga Hill Shiraz - Cabernet Sauvignon — $9.99 — $9.99 (“sale price”)
2011 Poggio Anima Samael Montepulciano d'Abruzzo — $11.99 — $15.79
2011 Di Majo Norante Sangiovese Terre degli Osci IGT — $7.96 — NA

In summation: PLCB did not list four of the wines. Of the eight wines that were available in the PLCB system AND at Joe Canal’s in Lawrenceville, NJ, all but one was more expensive at the PLCB, at an average of a little over $2.50 per bottle. ONE wine was the same price at both Canal’s and in the PLCB system. And of course, none of the wines were cheaper in PA.


Adding up what I saved (and throwing the PLCB a bone by using the Canal's price for the four wines they didn't carry), and figuring in the PA sales tax (6%) vs. the NJ sales tax (7%)...I saved a total of $27.35. Add in the $2.34 I saved by filling my tank in NJ on the way back, and subtract the cost of fuel for the 40 mile round trip (just a hair over $5), and I saved a nifty $24.61 on the trip. Cha-Ching! I'd have saved money even if I had to pay the $2 toll across the Burlington Bristol bridge! (I used the free crossing on I-95; it's closer.) As it was, this more than covered breakfast for Nora and I; hell, I could have bought a second bottle of Dancing Bull and STILL been ahead.

What's this prove? Nothing, really, because as I've always said, privatization is NOT about the price. But it does show up the bullshit that the PLCB and "Windy" Wendell Young and their ilk spread about the PLCB have "on average" lower prices than New Jersey: out of 8 identical wines, the PLCB didn't beat Canal's price ONCE. So much for that vaunted "buying power." It also shows that the PLCB's claims about their "huge" selection...are crap, when out of a randomly selected dozen wines (they were, but I realize you don't have to trust me), at a store about ten miles from the PA border, the PLCB only lists (which is not, as we all know, the same as "stocks") eight.
 
Lies, lies, lies. We cannot let them control the terms or the facts of this debate. Just because we know the lies they tell, doesn't mean everyone else does. For instance, PLCB partisans have recently been claiming "$2 billion in revenue" for the stores in website comments and letters to the editor. Well, sure...gross revenue. But after it's gone through their amazing overhead, it comes out to the puny profit we all know about. We need to make them tell the truth. When you see bullshit, call bullshit.

And if you can, screw 'em: buy out of state. There are obviously good reasons to.

Oh, and if the BLCE is reading this? Just kidding. I didn't really buy these wines, I just went and window-shopped. I love the police-enforced monopoly and would never do anything to undermine it. I love you. As far as you know.

*This is actually the price for the 2011 vintage, the 2012 was not available. But the 2011, 2010, and 2009 vintages were all listed, and all at this same price...so I feel fairly honest putting it up there.
 

Percolation and Progress

Things are popping in Harrisburg. Check out this headline on the Harrisburg Patriot-News website:

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!

Just Imagine...

If you had a clean slate, could lay things down the way you think would be best for selling alcohol beverages in Pennsylvania...how would you do it? I heard that question asked recently at a small discussion of the prospects of PLCB privatization, and it gave me pause.

Some things were easy. Would I keep the state-owned stores? Certainly not. Would I ever have the State as the sole wholesaler, with a committee in Harrisburg deciding what would and wouldn't be sold in the state? Don't be ridiculous. Would I keep the police-enforced monopoly, making it illegal for Pennsylvanians to buy a bottle of wine across the river in New Jersey? Not on your life. Would any of us keep the nonsensical case law, or its equally ridiculous corollary, the two sixpack limit at bars? Hell no, done away with, along with "registration"!

But... Would I want anyone who wanted to be able to sell beer, wine, or spirits, by the bottle or by the drink, with no limit other than a small fee and maybe a criminal background check? Should municipalities (of whatever size) be able to control that through zoning? What about BYOB and corkage fees? Would I impose excise taxes? Wholesaler franchise laws, brewery/winery self-distribution, hell, the whole idea of the state-imposed three-tier system: keep it, modify it, or toss it out the window? Honestly, there are things that cause me some head-scratching. I like the idea of no license limitations and a small fee: I've already said that I think licensing limitations lead directly to nuisance bars. But if a majority of people in a town really want to put a limit on the number of licensed bars/restaurants/booze stores, shouldn't they be allowed to? It's their town! Truly, the Devil is in the details.

However...hard as it was for me to answer the question, the pro-PLCB side found it even harder. There are just too many contradictions in the current system to put it forward as the ideal situation with a straight face. Government control of retail? If it's good, why not government control of beer sales? Why not government control of by-the-drink sales? And believe me, no one wants the government controlling that. Can you imagine PLCB clerks as bartenders? The mind boggles. They certainly couldn't call it "the hospitality industry" anymore...

If you grant control, and manage to come up with a cogent argument for it, how on earth do you then task the very same agency with regulation, taxation, and regulation of booze sales with an eye towards -- literally -- controlling how much people drink? Does anyone really think an agency that's supposed to be keeping us from drinking too much, that was created "for the protection of the public welfare, health, peace and morals of the people of the Commonwealth and to prohibit forever the open saloon," (as the Almighty Liquor Code puts it), is the agency that should also be advertising the idea of buying mom a bottle of vodka for Mother's Day?

I've said I wouldn't want to debate President For Life Wendell W. Young IV about privatization --  the man is just too glib a liar -- but it would almost be worth it to sandbag him with that question: if you could wipe away the Pennsylvania Liquor Code and build a new way of doing alcohol beverage retail from zero...would you create the PLCB and the State Store System, the beer distributors and tavern licensing, and the case law? Love to see a pro-PLCB answer to that one that wouldn't have the audience laughing their asses off.

The Big Lies

Pro-PLCB arguments, fresh from the source

Updated 2/16/13: see last point

Privatization is on the way again, so this of course means that the anti-privatization forces will be beating the drums to keep things just the insufferable way they are, headed by UFCW Local 1776 President (for life) Wendell W. Young IV and every Democrat in the Pennsylvania Legislature, assisted by an unholy alliance of State Store clerks, beer distributors, teetotalers, social conservatives, and unaffiliated union members.

What that also means is that the same ludicrous lies will be trotted out in defense of the indefensible (see my recent post on Joe Da Ex-CEO Conti below). I can predict what will be said like I can predict the rising of the sun; these guys are nothing if not reliable in what they have to say, and they always, always stick to the script. Therefore, as a public service, I've undertaken to tell you what the Big Lies will be, why they're Big Lies, and how you can respond to them. If someone says them to your face, politely rebut them. If someone says them in a letter to the editor, write a response (not a comment on the newspaper's website: even fewer people read them than read the letters in the paper!). If someone uses them in an article or television story, SEND AN EMAIL IMMEDIATELY to correct them. You can't win if you don't say anything. We CAN win this, with the truth.

The $500 Million Lie: The PLCB makes $500 million in profits every year that goes into the State's General Fund. All of that money will be lost if the State Stores are privatized!

•  The Truth: This is a multi-part lie. First, of the roughly $500 million that wine and spirits sales (I'm going to refer to "wine and spirits" as "booze" from now on to save time) bring to the General Fund in a year, about $400 million of it is taxes. Those taxes will continue to come in; no change in that is proposed. (The pro-monopoly group will tell you private businesses don't pay their taxes: if that's true, then it's a much broader problem than just booze sales. Fix it at the Department of Revenue level.) Second, the remainder isn't actually "profit." The Legislature tells the PLCB how much it's going to "contribute," and they come up with it. If it's "profit," fine; if they don't have enough, they come up with it elsewhere, by selling assets, for instance. Finally, if privatization is done right (and the Corbett Plan is close), border bleed will decline significantly as people in southeastern Pennsylvania don't feel the need to cross the border to get better selection, service, and prices...which in turn will mean more taxes coming in, an estimated $140 million. Of course, the big lie is that all of that revenue will go away. It won't, not even a significant part of it. 

The 5,000 Jobs Lost Lie: If the State Stores are privatized, 5,000 "family-sustaining" jobs will be lost. Privatization will create no jobs, all sales will be absorbed by "big box stores" and grocery stores with no additional jobs.

• The Truth: Up-front: this is the toughest point. These are real people, and it's been the hardest thing to deal with: how do we see them back into the workforce? That said...we're not talking about 5,000 full-time jobs. There are around 3,200 full-time jobs involved. The rest are part-time and seasonal, hardly "family-sustaining." Also, while most grocery stores and big box stores will simply add the stocking of beer and wine to their current staff, with a bare minimum of staff added for purchase and selection, there are going to be 1,200 "all-alcohol" licenses under the Corbett Plan, twice as many booze licenses as there are now. Total Wine has said they'll be building stores in PA, and you can be sure that Canal's and Roger Wilco won't want to miss out. No jobs created? Pull the other leg. Will the jobs pay as well as the State Store jobs, with the benefits and pension? Probably not, because jobs in retail don't pay like that in the real world. The union will argue that they should, but the reality is that the union is doing nothing to use these jobs as leverage to improve the lot of average retail workers; they are an isolated island, restricted to those lucky enough to get one of these jobs. They are an anomaly. And when the system is abolished, there will be early retirement packages, there will be preferences for other state jobs, there will be training.

The Union-busting Lie: This is really about busting the union/really about privatizing every government function/really about anything other than doing away with this relic of Prohibition.

• The Truth: Privatization of the liquor stores is favored by over half of self-identifying "liberal Democrats" in the State, according to a recent poll. They clearly recognize that this is a unique case, a government agency that never should have had "control" of booze retail. It is not at all about busting the union (and it has nothing to do with the Governor's desire to privatize the lottery without the approval of the Legislature); it's about getting the government out of retail. The same agency should not be selling alcohol with an eye to maximum revenue, while at the same time "controlling" alcohol sales to "protect" the citizens. This also leads to the PLCB being the major regulator of its main competition: Pennsylvania's wholesale and retail beer business. Two clear conflicts of interest; privatization frees the agency to effectively regulate retail alcohol beverage sales.

The Control Lie: State control of wine and spirits sales keeps Pennsylvania's citizens safer than private sales could. 

• The Truth: In underage drinking, in DUI, in deaths attributable to alcohol, Pennsylvania's rank is only average; at best, on the high side of average. There may be a few categories where Pennsylvania does well, but it's a "cherry-picking" proposition; really, we don't do any better than the surrounding states, which have private sales. Control is ineffective, and anyone could guess that: "control" is only imposed on off-premise wine and spirits sales, not on-premise "by the drink" sales, and not on any beer sales. Those sales are all private. 

The Underage ID Lie: State Stores are the best defense against underage sales; employees check over a million IDs every year.

• The Truth: First, we only have the PLCB's word for this. The police are not allowed to conduct "sting" operations in the State Stores, as they are in bars and beer distributors. These numbers are all self-reported. Second, the State Stores don't even do as good a job as Wegmans. The New York-based supermarket chain requires an ID for every single sale of alcohol. They will not sell you as much as a sixpack of beer without swiping your ID through an electronic reader, no matter how old you are. The State Stores don't ID on every sale. Finally, research shows, over and over, that underage drinkers get the vast majority of their booze from family and friends, and from using fake IDs in bars...not by purchasing over the counter in stores. This is a very small problem, and private sellers are already on top of it. Corbett's plan includes carding for every sale. 

The Liquor Store On Every Corner Lie: Privatization will bring a seedy liquor store on every corner. Wendell W. Young IV has said it, and legislators have repeated it.  

• The Truth: First, they'll also tell you that all the licenses will go to "big box" stores: guess they don't really know what's going to happen. Second, competition will keep that from happening; a community can only support so many stores selling the same products. You don't see a gas station on every corner, or a coffeeshop on every corner. The very idea of a liquor store "on every corner" is ridiculous on the face of it; an obvious scare tactic. Third, local zoning laws will still be in effect. This is perhaps the hollowest of the Lies.

The Windfall Lie: Corbett says this will bring a $1 billion windfall. Last year they said it would be $2 billion. When (insert state that is nothing like Pennsylvania here) privatized, they only got (insert small number here). Why sell an asset?

• The Truth: It doesn't matter what the number is. The State Stores aren't worth anything, except for the value of the inventory and the fixtures. The stores are all leased, as are the warehouses. The monopoly is the only thing worth money, and honestly, it never should have existed. Corbett's plan will make a large sum of money, and continue to bring in more every year. And it's all gravy, above the continuing flow of revenue from liquor taxes and sales taxes. What is the asset that we are supposed to own? A patronizing, annoying monopoly that would be illegal if it weren't for a traditionally overactive interpretation of the 21st Amendment.

The Rural Deprivation Lie: Only the PLCB supplies the state's rural areas with a full selection of wines and spirits; private stores won't go to those areas because they won't make enough money, and Pennsylvanians will have to drive 50 miles to buy wine and spirits.

• The Truth: First, and foremost, it is not the function of government to supply rural Pennsylvanians with booze, anymore than it is to run a jobs program called the State Stores. The very idea is laughable. Second, has anyone had a look at the job the PLCB is doing supplying rural Pennsylvania now? Take a look at some of the rural counties: Adams: 1 store. Bedford: 2 stores (one of which is open 3 days a week, from 11 to 6). Cameron: 1 store. Clinton: 1 store. Columbia: 2 stores. Elk: 2 stores. Forest: 2 stores. Fulton: 1 store. Greene: 2 stores. Huntingdon: 2 stores. Juniata: 1 store. Mifflin: 1 store. Montour: 1 store (okay, that one's not so shocking!). Perry: 2 stores. Pike: 2 stores. Potter 2 stores. Snyder: 1 store. Sullivan: 1 store. Union: 2 stores. Wyoming: 1 county. That's 20 counties with 2 or fewer stores. What kind of rural service is that? Now...under Corbett's plan, these counties will get as many all-alcohol licenses as there are state stores, or as many as there are beer distributors, whichever is more. They may tell you that no one will take the risk of paying for the license, that they can't make enough in bucolic PA to pay it off. But remember: the demand for spirits at taverns in those counties would almost certainly mean that an all-alcohol license would indeed be profitable enough for someone to take that risk. And the proposal allows wine sales at supermarkets, restaurants and taverns, and "big box stores," which means wine would be much more available in these counties. Third, selection? Ever seen the "selection" at rural grocery stores? It ain't like Whole Foods, and people who live in the country are used to that. Private stores will stock in response to local requests and needs, instead of the top-down inventory currently imposed from Harrisburg with no attention paid to local preferences. This is a bogus point: things aren't that great now, and they'll actually get better. 

Got any more lies? Bring 'em on, we'll take them, and tell the truth.

New in-depth poll shows solid support for privatization

Today, the Commonwealth Foundation (a pro-business, conservative/libertarian Harrisburg policy group) released results from a poll they commissioned from Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates, a public opinion research group based in Santa Monica. I'd note from the beginning that FM3 does scientific polling, and is a group that mostly works with Democratic political candidates (almost exclusively, as you can see from this client list). CF president Matt Brouillette took pains to point that out, explaining that they didn't want an easy poll from a supportive group, they wanted an honest result.  I got an invite to attend a briefing on the polling data last night, and it was an interesting evening.(The highlights are presented in a slideshow here.)

In the last week of January 2013, FM3 polled 800 randomly-selected PA registered voters (using both cell and landline phones), then did an "oversampling" of more extensive interviews with 200 voters in the "outer Philadelphia market," essentially the southeast part of the state without Philadelphia County itself. Their research found some of the strongest support for privatization in that part of the state, and they wanted to look at what made up that support.

Enough about how the poll was done. Overall, 41% strongly favored ending state-run liquor stores, 19% "somewhat favored" it. 20% strongly opposed, 14% "somewhat opposed." 61% in favor, 35% opposed, 5% don't know/no answer. Note that there was a much lower "don't know" response than in the recent F&M poll that found 53% in favor. The pollster noted that in the F&M poll, the privatization question was a much simpler one (do you favor privatization of the liquor stores), and it immediately followed the question about the very unpopular privatization of the state lottery, which likely had an effect.

In the polled folks' own words, and in descending order, the strongest reasons for supporting privatization: less government regulation (which surprised me); convenience/buying beer/wine in supermarkets; 'keeping up' with other states/seen it work in other states (the pollster noted a kind of competitive spirit here, people feeling that the state was behind the other states in this aspect); better prices (note: this is fourth on the list); private enterprise is better; more choices/variety; more money for local economy; waste of tax dollars; ability to have booze shipped to home (way down the list...). Other reasons had 2% support or less.

Another interesting point: I've always complained that newspaper articles ask the people who are actually shopping in the LCB stores if they're satisfied. If they weren't, they'd be in Maryland, I always thought. Well...the poll asked how often people purchased from the State Stores. Support for privatization was strongest (77%!) among the most frequent purchasers! I suspect this is probably the people who are not close to a border; because those of us who are generally are buying across that border... The strongest opposition to privatization -- in fact, the ONLY group of people asked this question who opposed privatization -- is among people who admit that they NEVER purchase anything at the State Stores. Teetotalers and anti-alcohol types, in other words. Only 35% support privatization.

Geographic breakdown? The ONLY area opposed to privatization is Philadelphia County, 50% opposed, 46% in favor. Allegheny County: 69% in favor. "Outer Philadelphia" as explained above: 66% in favor. "The T," that part of the state left after carving out the southwest and southeast corners, made famous by James Carville in his characterization of Pennsylvania as "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between": a surprising 62% in favor! Northeast PA: 59% in favor. I talked to a representative from the T area who was at the event, whose district was not one I'd expect to support privatization for social conservative reasons. "They're rednecks," he said, "redneck libertarians." We could be seriously over-estimating the opposition to this.

What else? Well, there's very little gender split: 62% of men and 60% of women support it. The older a voter is, the less-likely they are to support privatization: in all age groups but the oldest, a majority support it (75+ year olds only support it by 49%, but only 42% are opposed). Party affiliation: support is strongest among Independents -- 71% -- and Republicans -- 69% -- but even 52% of Democrats support it. Surprisingly, support was stronger among self-identified liberal Democrats, which I think shows the truth of what I've been saying: this is not a classic privatization issue; this is not really a union issue. This is about correcting a mistake.

Union members? 52% of union members support privatization, and 58% of people in union households support it. That's compared to 61% in non-union households; almost within margin of error.

But possibly the most interesting and promising takeaway from the poll is what happened when people were presented with arguments against privatization after making their initial response. The pollster said that support for a proposition usually melts a bit after arguments against it are presented; 10-15% is normal. I'll remind you: overall, the support for privatization at the initial question was 61%. After hearing only the supporters' arguments, 61% still favored it. After hearing only the opponent's arguments -- which were essentially the UFCW talking points as presented by Wendell W. Young IV --
61% still favored privatization. And after hearing both sets of arguments, support was at 62%.

The weakest opposition argument was no surprise: people reacted very negatively to the "we should modernize rather than privatize" proposition. Only 19% found that credible, and those who did not were quite firm about it.

Is privatization an important issue for people, one that will influence how they vote for governor or legislator based on how the incumbent voted? No, it is not. Under 20% felt that strongly on either side of the issue. But...that means while there is not much upside for a politician voting for privatization, there is also very little downside on voting for privatization. There is not an army of social conservative voters, or a horde of angry union voters, who will vote out of office anyone who votes for privatization.

To sum up: about 61% of Pennsylvanians are in favor of privatization, a number that has been consistent for decades. The only group in the state that is opposed are Philadelphia voters, and even there, it's a narrow divide: 50% opposed, 46% in favor.

We had a chance to ask the pollster questions, and Matt Brouillette asked a good one. "If you had been hired by [UFCW president] Wendell W. Young, what would you advise as a strategy after presenting these results to him?" And the pollster, from the firm that has worked mostly for Democratic candidates, done polling for AFSCME, for the Sierra Club, for the California School Employee Association...said, "I'd say cut a deal."

This is NOT a done deal. This proposal needs work, and especially needs to get buy-in from the beer industry. But I feel a lot better after hearing these results. The work begins.