Corbett study recommends privatizing liquor stores
HARRISBURG - Pennsylvania would benefit financially from privatizing the state-run system of selling wine and liquor, a new study commissioned by Gov. Corbett found. The report, conducted by Public Financial Management Inc., found that the state could take in up to $1.6 billion if it auctions off both the retail and wholesale operations of the state Liquor Control Board (LCB).
Corbett study recommends privatizing liquor stores
HARRISBURG – Pennsylvania would benefit financially from privatizing the state-run system of selling wine and liquor, a new study commissioned by Gov. Corbett found.
The report, conducted by Public Financial Management Inc., found that the state could take in up to $1.6 billion if it auctions off both the retail and wholesale operations of the state Liquor Control Board (LCB).
Asked about the nearly 300-page study earlier Tuesday, Corbett said it only reinforced his belief that the state should shed its role of selling liquor.
“We should not be in the business of selling alcohol,” Corbett said, noting what he called the “inherent conflict” of having the same agency – the LCB – be in charge of both regulating the sale of liquor, and pushing to sell as much as it can.
Over the summer, House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R., Allegheny) introduced a bill calling for privatizing both the retail and wholesale operations of the LCB. With so many other big-ticket items on the agenda this fall, including school vouchers and a proposed drilling impact fee, it is questionable whether the legislature will have enough time to tackle the liquor issue this fall.
There is also one other problem: the Senate.
Over the summer, Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati (R., Jefferson) said he believes the state should stay in the liquor business for now, knocking some of the wind out of the momentum for privatizing. And privatizing is fiercely opposed by unions and many Democrats.
But Turzai has a friend in the administration.
Corbett on Tuesday called Turzai’s proposal “the place to start.”
The next step: the governor and his top staff will the study and evaluate the options contained in the report and decide how to best disburse revenue from license sales. One area that could benefit from privatization revenue: the state’s roads and bridges, the administration said.
“Our system of state stores harkens back to a time government thought it knew best what was good for us,” Corbett said, noting that the Liquor Control Board was formed nearly 80 years ago following the end of Prohibition. “History has shown – as it always will – that the people, not government bureaucrats, know best how to live their lives.”
Click here for Philly.com's politics page.
I'm certainly not politically conservative, but I am so on board w/ this. The current system is a damn joke.
what about the jobs of all the State Store employees?— oliver north
Comment removed.- THANK YOU. I'm tired of hearing about all the people that are going to be out of work. The stores aren't going anywhere. If anything people will buy more and create demand for more workers. — jlcts2
- i'd rather have the commonwealth make profits on the state store system than sell it, lose the revenue, and raise taxes (and if you think they'll ever cut spending i have some swampland in florida to sell you) — oliver north
- Comment removed.
- The state benefits more by selling. They unload all the salaries of the employees. NO MORE Pension for sales clerks. The state has less to cover with health care. SELL SELL SELL — thebaron
- Like the workers will be the first to get rehired? At what rate? Minimum wage and no benefits. People who have worked the stores for several years with gret experience will get zilch. But that's the repub way. Take away good-paying jobs, from people who PAY taxes on those wages, and cut the amount of tax money coming into the state. Just love how those who hate state employees believe they somehow contribute nothing, that their jobs are all free. They pay taxes just like the rest. They spend their wages in PA businesses and pay sales taxes. They pay the same property and school taxes as other PA residents. Just where do you think that loss in revenue will be made up when the workers are all furloughed and some brought back for minimum wage? — mike l
- it is a joke especially when you travel to different states and see liquor being sold in Rite Aids and Cvs'.
— Lancer255 - Comment removed.
- To quote Larry the Cable Guy - Git Er Done!— Bruno Sammartino
- When Terry Whats-her-name (Nutter's pal) was starting out a few years ago and going door to door to get her name on a ballot I (a Democrat) asked her one question: What do you think about getting rid of the State Stores?
Her reply was immediate and passionate "what about all the people who work there?"
Now I may be a Democrat but I still enjoy wine with my dinner and serving alcoholic drinks to my guests.
I thanked her but refused to sign anything having to do with someone who thinks those people at the State Stores work - they just collect pay checks - or who believes the state should protect me from myself - by insulting me. - How much does the state take in because they own the whole thing? I know they have the negotiating power to get liquor for dirt cheap prices, because if the suppliers don't agree to the low prices, they will lose the ability to sell to the entire population of PA. If the system makes money, why sell it? Just because it's archaic? If private liquor stores come in prices will go down, but then tax revenue for liquor sales will go down as well. It seems like we may be exchanging a windfall of money now for less money in tax revenue in the future.— throw_away
- CleanupPhilly,
I would not think that a private owner would want to hire the former state store employees. I think they will hire who they wish. The new owners could never afford to have the people that have such bad additudes working for them. No one would want to visit their business. Right now we have no in state choice and have to put up with the additude. If the businesses are private, we would go to the place with the best service and selection.— Wildman Bill - Comment removed.
- There are now 9 people who have taken the Turzai Pledge to double their consumption of alcohol in order to make the Turzai Privatization Plan marginally profitable.— BobSG
- Comment removed.
- Hey Batty, I think it's abundantly clear that you hate black people. Don't you think we get it by now with your use of smug language? Of course, we also know that you're a chickensh!t that sits behind a computer making racist remarks but you'd never say those things to a black person in public.
If I was a betting man, I'd wager that you're probably an old codger on disability for some reason with your own hand in the jar. You just can't stand to see people of color get something, anything, at all. I'm sure David Duke can give you a job.— taxmanndumbeth - This is an issue that I think should be a state wide referendum and put on a ballot. Although I do see many benefits to this idea I also see so many problems. Therefore in my opinion I think that the residents of the Commonwealth should decide their own fate.— Worker1
- Comment removed.
- I really don't put much stock in polls. But if the voters in the Commonwealth thought that it would be a good idea then we all live with it. This is a major change on how a controlled substance is handled and I think the decision should be made by the individuals. — Worker1
- i'd rather have the commonwealth make profits on the state store system than sell it, lose the revenue, and raise taxes (and if you think they'll ever cut spending i have some swampland in florida to sell you)— oliver north
- Swamp land in Florida? Seems Walt Disney did just fine. You're statement confuses me. You want the PA government to make more money, yet you don't want to raise taxes. Which is it? Money is finite, and as such profits in Harrisburg mean that somewhere else, someone loses money. Profits just mean higher prices customers must pay at the shop. I'm for Pennsylvanians keeping their own money. Why you would think PA should take more money from her citizens is beyond me, but you do bring up a good point on loss taxes. Easy, the taxes will still be levied in a private shop. — lthoughton
- Comment removed.
- if the states has two ways to raise revenue, option A is higher mark-ups on bombay sapphire and bankers' club, or option B, higher income taxes, i'll go with A and make drinkers pay more and taxpayers less— oliver north
- Big surprise, a study commissioned by a guy who campaigned on privatizing liquor sales says privatizing liquor sales is a good idea,— Mr. Baseball
- Big surprise, a study commissioned by a guy who campaigned on privatizing liquor sales says privatizing liquor sales is a good idea,— Mr. Baseball
- Big surprise, a study commissioned by a guy who campaigned on privatizing liquor sales says privatizing liquor sales is a good idea,— Mr. Baseball
- Big surprise, a study commissioned by a guy who campaigned on privatizing liquor sales says privatizing liquor sales is a good idea,— Mr. Baseball
- Big surprise, a study commissioned by a guy who campaigned on privatizing liquor sales says privatizing liquor sales is a good idea,— Mr. Baseball
- The problem with our political discourse is that everybody is too interested in being "right," and in scoring political points, and in making things black and white, that we can't have serious discussions on nuanced issues like this. Among other factors, there's no sugar coating the fact that in any major system change like this, there's going to be some short-term pain for some people.
I lean in favor overall, but can see that this is going to be hard for current PCLB employees, who will likely face major pay cuts if they hire on with private-sector sellers. There are some legitimate public safety and public health concerns as well - it's not clear what hours of sale private stores would be subject to, and they would certainly be subject to less scrutiny in terms of controlling whether they sell to intoxicated persons.
I also think that putting it in financial terms is a losing proposition that obscures the issue. This is an estimate of a one-time infusion of cash that would replace a longer term revenue stream. As a Democrat, quite frankly, I do not trust the Republicans to handle that money wisely.
But in principle, I think that this is the right thing to do - PAs laws are archaic, and if precautions are taken to preserve as much of the public health and safety benefits of the current system as possible, I think it makes sense in the long run.— thomast - Sell it as quickly as possible. It's the worse of both public and private systems.— SoundGround
- Come on governor and Turzai, get it done pronto. And, Mr. Scarnati, stay the hell out of the way!— aviator
- The study was a big waste of money, but it's crystal-clear that government has no business being in the liqour business. The only people in favor of continuing this are the unions, and some religous conservatives, both of whom will likely lobby hard against this. Hopefully the state will acede to the wishes of the vast majority of Pennsylvanians.— The Edifier
- How will they divvy up the money and revenue? Obviously it won't last long. Philadelphia won't get all $1.6 Billion of it, and as we have seen, they can waste Millions of dollars in the blink of an eye: Almost $1 Million severance pay for School Superintendants that should have been fired instead; expensive law firm representation for "legally challenged" Public Housing Authority administrator(s) (and other "interested parties" with ties to them); corrupt politicians, study after study on DROP until someone produces one that supports City Council's reasons for keeping it, and the list goes on.— dee99999
- If the state wasn't making so much money from this, it would have gotten out decades ago. The state and its taxpayers have a huge steady stream of cash that can not be given up because it will lead to higher taxes in other areas. Along with that, this proposal will have another two hands taking money from the consumers' wallets.— flavious27
