Coming this week: Liquor privatization's first big test
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Coming this week: Liquor privatization's first big test
This coming week will be the first test of whether the legislature can finally reach consensus on a plan to privatize the sale of wine and hard liquor in Pennsylvania.
The House Liquor Control Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing Monday to consider Gov. Corbett’s privatization plan, which calls for auctioning off the state’s 600-plus wine and spirits shops to the private sector. The proceeds from the sale – about $1 billion – would be given to public schools through a new initiative to help them pay for early childhood education and school security, among other things.
If it passes muster in committee, the bill would then be sent to the House floor for debate. Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R., Allegheny), privatization’s most vocal supporter in the legislature, has vowed to bring the measure to a full floor vote by the end of the month. If he achieves that, it would be the furthest a liquor privatization bill has moved through the legislature.
"This is really over the goal line," Turzai told reporters recently. "People recognize that Pennsylvania needs a change."
But as both Turzai and Corbett know well, the road toward privatization is pocked with pitfalls – from both ends of the political spectrum. Democrats and the union representing state store clerks have historically opposed it, arguing that it will cost the state much-needed revenue (the Liquor Control Board kicks in about $80 million in profits annually to the state’s general fund) and thousands of workers good-paying jobs. And a number of conservative Republicans believe the state should continue strict controls over alcohol sales.
But Monday’s hearing will feature no debate. There will be no witnesses to provide testimony, just committee members asking questions and voting on the measure. Republicans who control the House said the reason for that format is because privatization has been exhaustively debated for years - and that there is no reason to do so again.
Still, Corbett’s privatization proposal is different from ones floated in the past. And it is expected to be amended in committee Monday with even more changes.
House Republicans said their amendment would allow for the basics of Corbett’s plan: allowing supermarkets and convenience stores to sell alcohol. But it would also scale back Corbett’s aggressive approach to privatization.
The amendment calls for 1,200 wine and spirits licenses, and would allow the state’s beer retailers first crack at them. After that, other retailers, such as grocery stores, could apply for one.
But the amendment would not immediately shut down the state stores. According to information provided by House Republicans, their plan would try to phase them out over time – and may not achieve that in certain counties: for instance, under their plan, all state stores in a particular county would have to close, but only if there are twice the number of privately-owned wine and spirits stores, plus grocery stores, in that county.
It is a complicated formula, but House Republicans said they believe they have the votes for it.
"Our goal is to move this," said Turzai. "I can tell you that our caucus is very engaged in the discussion and there is significant support for moving Pennsylvania forward."
Click here for Philly.com's politics page.
Full privatization is the only acceptable outcome. Having the state in the wholesale business does nothing to alleviate the fact that some petty bureaucrat in Harrisburg is making selections for the entire state, does nothing to alleviate the graft, cronyism and incompetence of the organization and does nothing to alleviate what poll after poll has shown the people want - the PLCB out of the business of selling alcohol.
Like pulling tape off of the scab that is the PLCB it is better to do it all at once rather than a little at a time.
Privatization IS Modernization.— Albert Brooks- Privatization is a bad move for Pennsylvania. It will loosen control over the sale of a dangerous product, diminish revenue to the state and flood populated communities with stop and go liquor stores while limiting service to less populated rural communities. It will eliminate 5,000 middle class jobs and replace them with less low pay, no benefit jobs. Privatization is a bad deal all around, except for Cobett's big money backers and Turzai's ideologues. Modernizing the existing system is a better way to go.— union guy
- Having the government of the great state of Pennsylvania involved in sales of alcohol is as ridiculous as maintaining state control over pharmaceutical sales or having State gun stores. If alcohol is a dangerous product then tax it, outlaw all advertising, and allow private regulated entities to sell it. If the people who are employed in liquor sales are competent they can start their own stores or work for the private sector.— emistruth
- Privatization will benefit a very few people and it will soon be seen as a big mistake for the vast majority of Pennsylvanians. The State makes half a billion a year from wine and spirits sales after costs and they offer a huge selection to every corner of the state. If the big retailers get their hands on this the selection will go down to about 60 or 70 items and the prices will go way up as they did last year in Washington state. (15-35% price increases)Most of the beer distributers and small delis are against this so called modernization also so the ill effects of the bill would hurt many more than the 5000 state store employees but also many "Mom and Pop" businesses. The PLCB does a great job and should continue to control and emprove the existing system.— Tom Murphy
- Many beer distributors may not be able to afford the initial cost of the license, selection will decrease(we will drive to find what we want). 25 small vendors in Washington State closed in the first 6 months after privatization. Why does Corbett feel this is "bringing PA into the 21st Century"-(those are just idle words). How can this be more convenient-why do I feel that Costco will always have "MadDog" on sale! Who will make sure all those taxes are collected? This doesn't help the small wineries. The system works, why break it.— penntech1
- the state has been controlling liquor for decades so there is nothing ridiculous about it. and frankly i'm more concerned about 5000 people losing their jobs than being able to buy liquor at the supermarket. i'm just not that lazy. and don't give me 'they'll find something else'. that is bupkus especially if they are older. i'm just glad i'm not in a predicament where my future/retirement is about to be voted on to make someone else rich.— black dog
