Time for the State to Exit the Liquor business

The most cogent argument I've seen to date.

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2009/ 11/more_proof_state_should_exit_l.html

Great article - not that there needs to be a reason to get government out of any retail business other than it has no business being there...

Does anyone really beleive there is a chnace this will happen?

Not as long as we continue to elect state representatives and senators who support this system. It is up to us to determine where our individual legislators stand and vote appropriately. A quick e-mail inquiry is all it should take; you can find contact info for yours here:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/index.cfm

I crossed party lines last November to help elect a representative who took the time to respond to my e-mail with a snail mail packet of info on pending legislation that he supports to allow direct shipping.

This is going to sound crazy, but hear me out. I do not have a big problem with the State Stores and I'm not all that eager for private wine stores. I agree there are significant issues with the state's liquor laws, most notably on direct shipping and even more so with beer sales. Have you ever tried to pick up a six pack? A six pack of Yuengling for $12, are you kidding? Can't get beer in a supper market? Why the hell not? But I digress.

I think you are all highly overrating private wine stores and perhaps sales people in general. Maybe it is just here in Philly, but the days of educated sales people, who are fluent in their product, at any establishment has long since passed. Have you been to a CVS lately? How about a Home Depot or a Loews? If you can even find anyone, it is always "Yea it's on aisle 7 or maybe 3 somewhere."

I have been to those big wine stores in Delaware and NJ. Their selection of yellow tail is quite impressive. But seriously, they often do have slightly better selection than the premium PLCB stores and at least different products. Are their prices better? Only sometimes and their pricing and sales are far less transparent. How about the sales staff? - They are no more or less disinterested than state employees. Sure, there are boutique wine shops. But you better be prepared to pay through the nose. For those of us in this corner of the state, we already have access to those so this is a non-issue.

I know we are all apt to glorify capitalism and all its glory, but the wallmartification of the U.S. has really negated many of the differences there used to be in public and private enterprise.

The PLCB was established in 1933 "...to protect the peace and morals of Pennsylvania citizens by regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages." As such, the State store system is 100% owned and operated by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth has passed laws protecting the franchise by making it illegal to for anyone to compete with the franchise or to buy from any other vendor. In simple terms, they have created a monopoly under the guise of protecting our morals.
I ask those that favor this type of arrangement in Pennsylvania, how are our morals being protected when the PLCB markets items such as Riedel glassware and wine cellar refrigerators? Does the PLCB think that selling issues of Wine Spectator in any way is helping to regulate the sale of alcoholic beverages?
Basic business sense tells us that any sale of such items at the PLCB branches deprives other local business owners of the opportunity to make such sales. I ask those in favor of the present system, by what mandate, law, or charter does any department of Pennsylvania have the right to compete with the Commonwealth's citizens (taxpayers)?
For this and many other reasons, I, too, am in favor of the privatization of the sale of alcohol in Pennsylvania.

"I ask those in favor of the present system, by what mandate, law, or charter does any department of Pennsylvania have the right to compete with the Commonwealth's citizens (taxpayers)?"

Umm, the plain meaning of the second clause of the 21st amendment.

Now is PA's argument from 1933 still relevant? Naaahh, the regulation of liquors for morals at this point is just a guise. It's about revenue plain and simple. But the power granted to the states is plenary, so they could change the justification if they chose.

Direct shipping is another matter, because the state can't discriminate against out-of-state actors. This is the whole dormant commerce clause thing. This means that if we allow our wineries to direct ship to out of state, we can't disqualify others from doing the same to our state. Unfortunately, there's just not a great clamor for direct shipping Chaddsford wines.

Heh, to be clear I wouldn't have a big problem if the PLCB was dismantled, but I'd rather not pay higher taxes to do so. I also don't feel too sorry for Canal's, Moore's or Total Wines or other Walmart like corps. If you think small mom and pop shops are being impaired, I think you should look outside our state. Mom and pop businesses are dying everywhere and it ain't the government's fault.

Also, PLCB uses its monoploy power to pay higher wages to workers with benefits, while also buying wine cheaper, harnessing its power as the world's biggest buyer of booze.

I know we are all apt to glorify capitalism and all its glory, but the wallmartification of the U.S. has really negated many of the differences there used to be in public and private enterprise.

I don't spend much time in Wal-Mart, but I can assure you my experiences there, or at Target, are vastly superior to my experience with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania - when I moved here three years ago it took WEEKS to get a license plate for the car. And the driver's license bureau was not much better. Overpaid, unmotivated employees (with benefits) who have no incentive to be of service to customers fill all government sponsored organizations.

We'll never agree on this - I'd like a smaller government that stays out of my (and everyone else's business) and you prefer to turn a lot of your freedoms over to them. To each their own.

danner92:

I agree with you that it is all about money, and that is the reason why they need to reassess their position. The problem is that once our elected government officials (federal or state) decide to ignore the constitution, that is the moment we need to be concerned. We are required to follow the rules, aren't they? If our elected officials think that they should "take matters into their own hands" regardless what the constitution (rules) state, they then have proven that they are not fit to govern.

In referencing the 21st amendment, you have cited Federal law, not the laws of Pennsylvania. You seem to have missed that fact that the United States is a federation and that states rights are still sacred. Do you know of any "mandate, law, or charter" enacted by the Commonwealth that would allow Pensylvania to compete with private enterprise in commerce relating to magazines, appliances, and glassware?

Our PLCB has decided that their well being (profits at all costs) is more important than the well being of the citizens (specifically the businessmen that are being deprived of the sales) that elected them in the first place. They have seemed to have forgotten that they work for the people.

You also stated that the PLCB "uses its monoploy power to pay higher wages to workers with benefits". I didn't know the the Pennsylvania government existed to make sure that it's PLCB union employees were afforded high paying jobs. I thought that the government was there to serve the people of Pennsylvania equally. (If so, then where's my high paying job!) Could you please tell me where I'm wrong?

BTW, are you a union employee of the PLCB?

I'll try not to be rude here, because there is definitely an ideological difference between us and that is fine. But I can't let Winejunkie's mistake go because that's not an opinion, it is a question of fact.

An opinion like Dontime's that I don't agree with is fine. Hell, I think it is problematic even dangerous to only listen to ideas that coincide with your beliefs. I like to hear the other side of an argument. I know there's a lot of resentment for unions out there; I know this SEPTA strike didn't make any of us any happier. But I will have to agree to disagree. Microeconomic theory is dedicated to profit maximization, but profit is a market distortion because in perfectly competitive markets, there is no profit. Not to get too technical here, but profit maximization requires economies of scope and scale as well as barriers to entry, such as advertising, equipment costs, etc. Liquor stores, much like any other industry, profit off of monopolizing distribution networks and maximizing economies of scope (all kinds of different kinds booze and different booze related stuff like, wine fridges and those wine spectator mags) and scale (holy Jesus some of these stores are huge).

This is not very different from the PLCB, the difference is that the profit is shared by PLCB employees and not higher ups. I don't have a major problem with that. Most consumers are the same way. That's why these mega stores don't care about service just price. Consequently they pay sales people nothing and ask nothing of them. As an aside, I have been to Target, I don't see them as being any better. Anyway, as a modern educated consumer with the internet and ample sources of comparative data, more and more, I just want the product as cheap as possible. I don't really care too much about the service I receive. I'll make my own decisions on what I like. I think that's freedom as well.

Oh, yea, but as for the legal question. Of course, PA has a statutory scheme that authorizes and enables the PLCB comprised of various laws voted upon by your very own state assembly – it is in the Liquor Code codified in title 47. It is not too difficult to find, it is on the PLB website. Anyway, a link for it is here http://www.lcb.state.pa.us/plcb/cwp/view.asp?a=133 4&Q=546255

Look, I could've been a little nicer in my initial post and I apologize. But you can't say the PLCB is unconstitutional or illegal just because you don't like it. It may simply represent unwise legislation which you want changed. Facts are facts, opinions are opinions.

And logic is logic, and notably absent from certain ideological stances.

I have no real issue with who supplies me with goods and services. I care about the end result, meaning quality and cost. And overall I drink better because the PLCB exists than I would if it didn't.

As a taxpayer, I'm also pleased that revenues from said organization go to the coffers of the Commonwealth, rather than overpaid executives and overpriced marketing campaigns.

Is it perfect? Heck no. But then neither are any of the alternatives.

One other point: the notion that PLCB employees are uniformly uninterested and unhelpful strikes as badly out of date: I'm sure there are many who fit that description, but there are many who don't. I can't speak for every State Store, but at my neighborhood store, at 19th and Chestnut, the vast majority of the staff is helpful, and has been for a while, and have become noticeably more knowledgeable about wine in the last couple of years. The same seems true at 12th Street, though I'm not as familiar with that store. In fact, I cannot recall the last time I had bad service at a State Store. Things have gotten screwed up (rarely, and nowhere nearly as badly as at a certain Garden State liquor store), but the staff has always done their darnedest to make things right.

In fact, the only retailer in the area who might match the service I get at my local PLCB store is Moore Bros., and they charge dearly for it.

Seems a little clarification of the clarification is needed. The 21st Amendment had 2 simple sections that shaped law. The 1st overturned the 18th Amendment (prohibition) & the second section banned the transportation or import of alcoholic beverages in violation of state laws. The subsequent judicial interpretation of section 2 gives the states the jurisdiction over alcohol sales etc (which is why some stayed dry). The Constitution is a federal document but it delegates to the states much of the governing that occurs day to day.

Philosophically I am with Don - government has invaded too much of our liberty & it has rarely been managed in a way that encourages customer service from its employees. The SEIU & AFSME have only institutionalized that stereotypical behavior.

However, my experience as an avid buyer/drinker of wine since moving back here in '91 has been that the PLCB at least attracts some people who like wine to work for them. I have had my share of blank stares when asking questions but when I try to think of examples like Cap gave above I'm unable to name just one or two stores. For Pittsburgh buyers you can find good people at McIntyre, Monroeville, Sewickley, Robinson, East Side, Perrytown, etc. Maybe it's just a 'city of champions' thing.

Not to minimize the importance of this argument, but the article dwinfield cites is correct: the budget balancing plan of the nimrods in Harrisburg is to hope for a recovery soon. Let's us taxpayers see if we can give an enema to the legislature & get some fiscal sense restored to the budget before we take on the fight for alcoholic sales liberty. PLCB at least buys enough good wine to hold us over while we wait.

daner92:

Thank you for your very clear perspective on the issue. I found particularly enlightening your following comment:

...the difference is that the profit is shared by PLCB employees and not higher ups. I don't have a major problem with that.

If I understand you correctly, you are OK with the 800 or so "Liquor Store Clerks 1" reaping the profits of a $1.7 billion enterprise. Unless you are one of these employees, I find it strange that any owner (the taxpayers) of the enterprise would advocate such a position.

If one accepts your premise and does the math, Pennsylvania has committed $2.1 million of taxpayer monies without cost or obligation to each of the roughly 800 liquor store clerks.

If I understand your point correctly, you are saying that $2.1 million is being given to each liquor store clerk under the current system. I think I, and all commentators here, have agreed that the PLCB is a revenue generator for the state. Meaning that while the unionized employees get a better share of the profits than in private enterprise, the lion's share of the profit goes to state coffers (i.e. to the taxpayers). In a sense, the PLCB is just an extension of the "sin" taxes on liquor and cigarettes. The argument above on Pennlive appears to be that by selling the PLCB stores to private actors, the state could gain a short term windfall that might help alleviate the current budget crisis. Absent from that analysis is consideration of the continuous revenue stream that PLCB generates in the long term for the state.

I really don't think continued discussion is merited here, as it appears you are determined to simply build strawmen.