Privatization of Liquor Stores on Pennsylvania Governor’s Agenda
By Mackenzie Krott | 01/27/2013 | Legislation, Pennsylvania, States | 3 Comments
Photo: Pennlive.com
For most Americans, it is normal to purchase beer, wine and groceries under one roof. It’s a much different story for Pennsylvanians. Pennsylvania is just one of two states in the country that still regulates the sale of wine and liquor. However, Republican Governor Tom Corbett, halfway through his first term, is pushing to privatize the industry.
The governor will most likely address the issue and announce plans to move forward during his state budget address on February 5. Tweet the news: Tweet
Privatizing liquor stores in Pennsylvania has long been on the agenda, but little has been done to move the issue forward. The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board currently controls both the regulation and the sale of alcohol in the state, raising multiple conflicts of interest. How can the group in charge of pushing the sale of something also be responsible for regulating and controlling it?
A study was commissioned by the Governor’s Office to analyze the current system and evaluate the potential for privatization of its wholesale and retail wine and liquor operations. The study found that selling off the retail and wholesale operations of the Liquor Control Board could allow the state to take in up to $1.6 billion. The study also recommended an approach that would create retail and wholesale liquor licences, then auction them off to the highest bidder.
Corbett and his administration aren’t the only ones in support of reforming the system. An October 2012 poll conducted by Global Strategy Group and National Research Inc. revealed 55% of respondents supported privatization, while 28% opposed it. Support among senior citizens was drastically lower, with just 31% favoring privatization. Tweet this stat: Tweet
“I am optimistic that we can craft an approach to privatization that will manage the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages, improving the overall customer experience, while maintaining the health and safety of Pennsylvania’s citizens and communities,” Corbett said.
While there is high support for privatization, one obvious group in Pennsylvania is vehemently against it. The United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776, represents 3,000 state store employees who may be out of a job if Corbett pushes forward. The group launched an aggressive campaign against privatization, stating how prices would become higher and alcohol-related problems would increase.
The website additionally comments, “It’s virtually impossible for minors or already intoxicated adults to buy alcohol in PA’s Wine & Spirits stores, but that won’t be the case with a part-time, minimum wage clerk at the local convenience store.”
In a press release from the Office of the Governor, Corbett said, “Our system of state stores hearkens back to a time government thought it knew best what was good for us. History has shown – as it always will – that the people, not government bureaucrats, know best how to live their lives.”
Leave Your Comment →
3 Comments
Joel Whitaker
01.27.2013
“Pennsylvania is just one of two states in the country that still regulates the sale of wine and liquor. ”
Not true. Every state regulates the sale of wine, liquor and beer. What puts Pennsylvania in the minority is the fact that it owns and operates a liquor and wine wholesale and retail system. But other states do that, too.
When Washington State privatized it’s state system, something sought by Costco, which actually wrote the statute, alcohol beverage prices went up sharply.
The problem with privatization, however, is simple: The state currently earns $80 million a year selling wine and spirits, which is distributed to the state treasury and local municipalities. If the retail and wholesale business is sold, that annual revenue would be made up by raising taxes.
M. R. Birkos
01.28.2013
Lotsa errors in this article. PA is one of 17 states that sell alcohol.
Just last year, Washington had a system just like ours, with virtually identical cash flow. Washington earned only $30 million in the sale of its stores, and $150 million for wholesale rights.
The state’s product selection in small towns vanished.. Prices sharply rose for everyone. Theft by minors and shoplifting is now rampant. Washington now has a huge border bleed problem with Oregon and Idaho, bot state-run systems. The small stores are struggling, being forced out by the big boxes.
The pro-priivate polls simply reflect Pittsburgh/Philly, where the big box stores will be located, versus rural PA were all the well-stock, good-selection, tightly=controlled stores will vanish.
Looking at Washington, we have a unique opportunity to see into the future. All the speculative reports and fanciful projections mean little compared to this real-world comparable example.
electedface
01.28.2013
As Attorney General, Tom Corbett received over $647,000 in campaign contributions from members of the Second Mile Foundation, while only assigning one investigator to the case.
Meanwhile, at the same time, he assigned 14 investigators to Bill Deweese and spent more than 5 years trying to get him.
It is difficult to believe these campaign contributions did not improperly influence his decision to not file charges against Jerry Sandusky.
The state police trooper who initially handled the Clinton County case against Jerry Sandusky believed there was enough evidence from a teenage boy — known as Victim One– to charge Sandusky with indecent assault.