It’s been tried several times before but I wonder if this latest bill - with new endorsement from the governor - has teeth. The unions are up in arms of course - shrieking about the loss of 5,000 jobs should the system privatize.
I am not as learned as some in this regard. I am curious if anyone has a hunch that this time may be the charm. The distributors have always had Harrisburg’s ear and the Flood tax makes it hard for many to think about voting for the proposal.
Honestly, if the pony express existed today and abolishing it put 5000 horseman out of work - no one would think to keep the archaic institution for that reason. To me, the PLCB is analagous.
wouldn’t most of the jobs shift to the private sector–probably less, though, since the private sector would likely be more efficient? Hank’s opinion will be interesting.
alan
Jobs would “shift”. The unionized state employees are highly unlikely to. In most cases, they have no qualifications re: knowledge, enthusiasm or customer service instincts. With some exceptions.
It doesn’t seem that this bill is going anywhere. It was introduced after the legislature’s business was done for the summer. It might be a publicity test run to drum up awareness. The real problem is still what replaces the system. Getting “rid” of it is the easy part. And, there have been no real proposals for a new system yet.
My gut says Stuart is right. Doesn’t seem to be going anywhere fast. The original lip service has faded in volume and there seems to be no consensus plan/direction for a transition or replacement. Turzai’s plan is just being hatched. The Governor is appointing a commission to study the issue…snooze. Nothing will happen until September…snooze. It’s not a burning or even smouldering issue for a large % of Pennsylvanians. There’s still a chance of success before 2015 but the issue doesn’t seem to be near any front burners.
Evan. Always good to see you here and hope you and the family are doing great.
No.
It won’t happen. And stop blaming the unions because they have little to do with the fact that this won’t happen. Yes, they’ll be loud, but there are things proposed that would make it very advantageous for them if it happened. No matter, it won’t happen. With a Republican controlled house, senate, and governor’s mansion, you can forget about it. politically, it will be unpalatable for them.
The only way this would ever happen if it is done in a bi-partisan way, and that is nto in the cards right now, and I showed an example of why on eBob back in the 2008 election.
If you think that this is a partisan political issue (i.e. each party on each side of the issue) not only are you not correct, but that mistaken belief is part of the problem, because you can’t solve a problem unless you understand exactly what is going on.
I don’t know much about the situation, but it is interesting that you claim the Republicans want to keep your socialized wine system instead of using free markets.
I am claiming that neither Republicans nor Democrats are interested in changing it. Neither. There are plenty of big business interests lining the pockets of GOP (and Democratic). The problem is that when people assume that this is a partisan issue, they think something will happen when it reality it won’t. For example, I posted on eBob about a Democratic candidate who was invested in getting rid of the PLCB. I could not get any Republicans to vote for him, and I can promise you that these same voters will complain when nothing gets done now, either. But it is all those same voter’s fault.
There is plenty of GOP and Democratic interest in keeping the PLCB in place. If anyone thinks the problem is one party or the other, than the real problem is you.
Honestly, I am wondering why I am even posting about the PLCB at all. The system is never goign to change, and I have long since given up caring about it (the 2008 election kind of sealed the deal for me). If things can be changed so I can get wine shipped to me, that is all I care about. I support strongly the few California wineries who will ship directly to me. If I can get the rest of my wines shipped to me, screw the PLCB. I’ll go browse real wine stores when I am on vacation in other states.
I would think that as soon as Southern Wine and Spirits makes it rain Benjamins in Harrisburg the law will change. Hopefully they will make wholesalers optional if the LCB is abolished but I doubt it. There are too many favors to sell to do the rational thing.
And if you read this analysis you will see why this bill is dead. No retailer can possibly make money with this tax structure.
Also - the distributors probably want to keep the system. It is much easier to call on one customer and cover the entire state.
And the state does the distribution. And you get to dump crappy wines you can’t sell elsewhere.
I agree with Dr. Hudak. If they just allow shipping who gives a rat’s ass what they do with liquor.
I have urged Turzai (the author of the current bill) to just allow shipping without too many strings and no 18% flood tax and then allow some “private fine wine” stores to open as an experiment. Once there is a small crack in the system, the bigger changes might be easier.
The real issue will be how to replace the existing onerous tax with something that will allow a thriving retail trade and not kill the state budget. We have a governor who won’t even consider a small tax on the gas frackers because they contributed so much to his election.
No myabe about it. Southern wine and Spirits makes a TON of money from the PLCB, and they spend tons of money lobbying to keep the system we have in place in every single way (they are also strongly against the shipping, and are quoted against it in virtually every article I read). It is why I think it is so erroneous to call this system ‘socialism’ when you have private companies enjoying near monopoly power and making money hand over fist.
the Post gazette commonly mentions that the legislature has not yet complied with the Supreme Court decision regarding shipping, and it has been years now. Of course, the legislature is not exactly sweating the issue, even now.
Until there is an appealing plan re: what would come next, including what the tax structure would be and who/whether corporations like convenience stores, drug chains, supermarkets, etc. would be eligible the discussion is pointless, as there is nothing to discuss.
Everyone wants a piece of the pie…and this comes up every time the issue does. Of course, the larger distributors and brands don’t want any change. Nor do the unions. But, no one can support change without a plan for what comes after. To that limited degree, Bob is on target. It is more complicated than purely the political parties. The unions are the reason the system remains unchanged. They would lose in any replacement scenario. The rub is the other special interests.
The key is having a governor who will support change is the legislature does. Bob Casey vetoed everything proposed; Ridge had so many corporations/industries trying to grab the spoils that he gave up; Rendell carefully maintained the status quo; Corbett is supposedly interested. But, being “interested” and doing something about it are very different things with this issue. You can’t imagine how complex the “what next” issue can be. First, what has to be determined is what would work best for service/revenue, etc. Then, how close the special interests potentially enriched will allow that to be.
Talk is especially cheap with this issue. Wanting to get rid of the State Store System is the tip of the vineyard. The real issue is in the bottling.
Some of the previous “proposals” for replacing the system are appalling: “why bother” stuff.
Aren’t there models from other states that switched from state control to free market? Why wouldn’t they try to model change after one that was deemed to be successful? Maybe I’m overly naive, but PA isn’t the only state that had this type of system.
Bud, what state do you think is “successful” to model after?
Many have evolved, of course. But, for maximum realization of tax revenue and sale of licenses of whatever kind…all states have their issues. If you take a [non-state] jurisdiction like DC, there are great stores selling wines and spirits. The drugstore chains, convenience markets aren’t involved. Get them involved in the mix and the stores become a whole lot less valuable. Beer is not even part of the state store system and raises other issues.
What I’m saying is that, with the competing special interests involved…it is unlikely that any state’s system can really be a model. “Success” is not the only factor in such decisions when hunting opens. Part of the problem of what comes next. Gov. Ridge , I think, let the drugstore chains finance/do the study in the '90s…guess what happened?
I don’t know about “overly naive”, but…“naive” is certainly apt.
Given how the slots were done in PA I would assume that privatizing the LCB would be just as political. For example, the slots law required that the machines could not be purchased directly from the manufacturer but that there had to be a middle man. Sound familiar? Does that make any real economic sense? No, but it makes sure that connected pals of politicians get a nice income for little work. That income then goes back as campaign contributions and everyone is happy.
![[scratch.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/42a16863a8714da3c1604419e3eb9206bb87aa50.gif "scratch"){kind=small}
![[berserker.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/8/8600bbd4810d342b8fbd4ffb62b4f0026275fd37.gif "berserker"){kind=small}
It is more complicated than purely the political parties. The unions are the reason the system remains unchanged. They would lose in any replacement scenario. The rub is the other special interests.![[highfive.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/d/db21b9263a9105e51f6f8b11e61dd4de095611f9.gif "highfive"){kind=small}