Corbett to Propose Privatizing Pa. Liquor Stores
Gov. Tom Corbett will announce plans to privatize Pennsylvania's state store system
The big issue of whether to privatize Pennsylvania's liquor stores will take center stage today as Gov. Tom Corbett announces plans to sell them off.
Corbett will call for liquor store licenses to be auctioned off, according to multiple sources. Sales of beer and wine could be opened up to various retailers including drug stores and big-box department stores.
Related story: Pa.'s Prohibition Era May Finally End
The Republican governor is expected to announce his plan at 2 p.m. Wednesday in Pittsburgh. This move comes on the heels of plans to privatize the PA Lottery -- another controversial move.
Pennsylvania has about 620 state stores.
Union groups have argued that more than 4,500 jobs will be lost if the state system is privatized, but Republicans have countered by saying that the 1,600 private sector stores will create additional opportunities for jobs — including union jobs.
Liquor store unions gave $140,000 in campaign donations to state-level candidates last year, according to a Pa. Independent report.
Corbett has supported privatization since he took office in 2011.
Polls have consistently shown a majority of Pennsylvanians are in favor of privatizing the liquor system, but the state monopoly set up in the wake of Prohibition has remained stubborn despite numerous attempts to end it, including efforts by the past two Republican administrations in Harrisburg during the 1980s and 1990s, accoring to a Pa. Independent report.
Gene Barr, president of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce, was one of several people invited to the governor’s office recently to weigh in on the liquor plan. He said Pennsylvania needs rethink how alcohol is sold.
The final plan should include more retail locations, including grocery stores and convenience stores, he said.
“Our view is that simply changing the person behind the counter isn’t good enough,” Barr told the Pa. Independent.
unknown pundit
11:17 am on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
If the goal is to create jobs, the liqour liscensing procedures and cost for restaurants and bars also need to be addressed. If their process was easier and more affordable more people would open restauarants and bars creating thousands of jobs.
Augustine Auch
11:46 am on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Yeah, Corbett's a moron. He's going to get a big one-time 4 million dollar infusion into the states revenue with the sale. But the Liquor industry brings in an annual revenue of 2.2 million a year. So he gets a bit more the year of the sale but loses in the long run. What a moron!
Stephen Eickhoff
12:39 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
So you think the liquor licenses will be free? And there will be no taxes? Stop repeating false information from Huffington Post.
Michele K
2:11 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Augustine is right, I'm afraid. Just ask Chicago how well privatizing parking meters worked for them. One time payments sound good in the short term - and cost big over time.
Greg Czar
2:33 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Augustine,
You are so right on all counts.
Steve
3:11 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
$4 million ?? Are you kidding me ? I'd be happy to buy the liquor store near me for $1 million. I know I won't get it for that.
According the the financial reports, sales of wine and spirits were $2.079 BILLION last year. Of that amount the 6% state and local sales tax and 18% state liquor tax totalling $422 million was earned. In event of a sale of the stores, this $422 million continues to feed the state treasury.
These financials are filed on their website.....did you at least look Augustine before you spewed numbers ?
TrickyDicky
3:25 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
The only morons are anyone who thinks we still need State Stores. Pennsylvania is one of 2 states that have them. But it's not going to save Corbett in the next election.
Jane
3:51 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Exactly, agreed 100%. And what does Corbett care about the long run? Many "cash now, consequences later" deals have been made over the past few decades that are a compelling part of why federal, state and local governments are so cash-strapped now.
David Neamand
1:46 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
@Augustine Auch
To the detriment of the public who that purchase wine and spirits. I can find a much wider verity at a lower cost in surrounding states
Jane
1:51 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
Speaking of detriment to the public - are those states seeing a dramatically improved financial picture versus ours that demonstrates an ongoing benefit to the loss of this revenue stream, or are they basically up the same creek we are? If so many have given up the revenue, we have an easy test case to see the long term outcome. It doesn't appear to me to be any better for the public in general, beyond the potential of a buck or two here or there in liquor prices. My family buys craft beer, hard liquor and wine on a decently regular basis, so I speak as someone who would benefit from the price changes - if they happen at all, which is no sure bet. If consumers have shown they'll pay $x, a private retailer has little incentive to charge $(x-1).
ASR
11:50 am on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Good luck, been trying for 20 years!
mark wood
12:13 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
The idea is to stop the monopoly and keep the union money machine flowing into the coffers of the Democratic Party bosses.. Maybe the dry counties in Pa. will finally get the right to sell alcohol. 2 of the local beer stops near me went out of business, and now too many of us have to drive quite a distance to purchase our beer of choice. I welcome privatizing, if the grocery carries beer, great for those of us who can't get time to go 20 mins out of our way, (both ways, up hill) the grocery is 5 mins away. Do the math, with gas cost and the longer drive, I welcome it, Union pension is all this is about, a small member organization , throwing its weight around like we can't live without you.. You have out grown your usefulness, The citizens of Pa. deserve better than what you deliver.
Chris
1:45 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Today I learned that there are dry counties in Pennsylvania. Where are they?
Starship Trooper
10:42 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Mark...nice commentary and all but true. Retail Clerks 1776 is sucking wind now that Acme has been sold ..Wendell Young will miss all those Union dues from the Acme people and will have significantly less in his war chest to fight this battle with the State. He needs to protect his $350 ,000 salary as well ! The timing couldnt be better for the PA. Legislature to once and for all end this charade.
Carol
7:20 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
There are no dry counties in PA
Earnest
1:01 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Since when are the Republicans concerned with monopolies? I personally would like to purchase wine or beer at the grocery store and I have always thought that a beer distributor should be able to sell six packs. However, your comment about unions contributing to the Democratic Party "bosses" completely ignores that the Chamber of Comerce has acted and increasingly has become union for business that fills the coffers of (only) republican "bosses" your choice of words. Go to any small town and you will find that the Chamber of Commerce is like a mafia don to those who wish to own a business.
Trolllman
12:18 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
What next will this guy wanna get rid off? Will it be the whole commenwealth o wait every country is just about here anyway.
Earnest
1:01 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Hey he wants to hand over the lottery to a British company that is Canadian and invests in businesses to pay for the Canadian teachers pensions. If he does this every PA lottery player will be contributing to Canadian teachers retirement.
bigben
4:09 pm on Sunday, February 3, 2013
all consumer goods and services should be privatized. You want state run supermarkets ?
Ann
1:26 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
I say PRIVATIZE whatever you can!
Randeroid
1:54 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Fair enough, the question is whether it makes sense for the tax payer. When politicians privatize government functions it is often meant to enrich their friends and in that case the tax payer usually loses. We should never let them privatize prisons, fire departments, the police, the military, etc. If this is a cash cow that works fine today, then why do we want to 'fix' it? What is in it for the tax payer?
sharon
2:55 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Some PA jails ARE privatized, like delaware county....with horrific results!
Charlie D.
4:26 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Privatization, in the case of liquor stores, is shrinking the size of the government....I'm all for that in almost every possible case (excluding safety related agencies). Too much government means higher taxes, more government employees & their outrageous benefits/pensions and more unions that drive costs up. Let the free market work.
Elyssia Mathias
5:22 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Amen, Charlie D. and Ann.
Joe
1:38 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
@Augustine: I think you mean billions of $$, not millions. Let's read the whole plan before calling him a moron. I think one of the problems will be the cost of the license, which will preclude small business from buying them. We will see liquor stores owned by big businesses like Walmart, Wegmans, etc. While I am for privatization, I'm not sure this will be a boom for "small business." Who will control the wholesale business??
kevin
2:28 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Would a license necessarily have to be at a flat rate that's too large for small business to swallow? The state could create a sliding scale with a rate proportional to the estimated amount of sales per year. A license for small business to sell X number of units per year is Y dollars, while walmarts' license to sell 1000X units is for 1000Y dollars.
Neil
3:56 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
I used to live in Virginia where wine is privatized and sold at liquor stores, grocery stores, gas stations, and so on and so forth and many small business open up to just sell wine and do fairly well. Also it breads diversity and results in more options for the consumer. I also don't mind paying a higher tax/price to buy a six pack, as is now I have to pay around $50 a case to get decent beer which I don't have room for in my fridge. I see this as doing away with a headache of a problem and more options for the consumer.
Roy Martin
1:38 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
"State Store"..That's what they have in Cuba and used to have in communist countries. The "State" running what should be private enterprise. I guess the majority of us who don't like them are "enemies of the state"...lol
The retail clerks union will likely stop this latest try. You know and I know the ignorant people who work at "State Stores" wouldn't be able to get a job at Burger King.
Rosemary B
12:37 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
agreed!
Ann
1:50 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
In the past I never really thought much about unions. Now I hate them. They are like the dinosaur...they should be extinct! Do a cost/benefit analysis. They are NOT worth it!
Pat
4:03 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Unions gave ALL of us minimum wage; vacation time; maternity leave; and child labor laws. The greatest victory of the Wealthy White Men was driving a wedge between blue collar and white collar, making workers think they had different goals and areas of self-interest.
Have unions failed to keep u with the times? Yep. Have they have enormous corruption scandals? Yep. That does not mean unions are bad. They just need to be fixed.
I would like to see the cost/benefit analysis you speak of. If it is too long to post here perhaps you can provide a link.
Steve
8:23 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Pat you said "The greatest victory of the Wealthy White Men was driving a wedge between blue collar and white collar".......who created this wedge between blue collar and white collar ? Answer: THe unions themselves..... by acting like they never have enough for themselves, by bankrupting our cities and states, by forcing manufacturing to go overseas, by forcing us to pay for the inefficiencies that they create to benefit themselves.
Jane
8:25 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
"Acting like they never have enough for themselves" sounds a heck of a lot more like the CEO class to me. The middle class needs a living wage, our society is falling apart without it. Wall Street is swimming in cash, but non-union employees are getting slashed. Steve is full of it.
Lower Saucon Brother
11:04 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
Yeah... Let get rid of all the unions... All blue collar americans should be making 12 bucks an hour!
Chris
1:51 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
What benefit do we, the alcohol consumers of Pennsylvania, stand to gain from privatization? To anyone who thinks they'll save $, go visit NJ, MD, VA (listing only states I've visited) and you will see that Pennsylvania's buying power gets us some good prices. Delaware is the ONLY place I've ever been with lower alcohol prices than PA.
Ann
2:02 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Chris, I don't know what you are talking about. The wine I purchase in N J is @$3 less there!
Chris
3:56 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
I don't drink wine and am basing my comment on hard liquor.
Neil
4:23 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
I don't think you know what you are talking about. PA has some of the highest prices I've seen and the worst selection too. We stand to gain variety and options as a consumer. We also stand to gain more locations to purchase our goods and possibly at more times. I think the only advantage PA has over the states you listed is that we can get beer to go from a bar/restaurant when the state stores are closed.
Lynn B.
9:58 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
beer is cheaper in NJ too. I always bring my favorite brew home from the shore in the summer.
David Neamand
1:50 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
Chris
You must not be a careful shopper. Both NJ and Md have lower prices on both wine and spirits.
Spud
1:57 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
you can legally buy and smoke weed in certain states in the US, but here in PA were are so antiquated that you not only can't buy alcohol at a grocery store, but you can't even buy beer and liquor in the same store! PATHETIC!
middleman
1:59 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
The state will still be getting it's income in taxes (i.e. Johnstown Flood 18% tax & it's $200 million in revenue each year). The government is sogreat at overseeing eveything it does as we speak.... which is why the post office and social security are doing so well. The government can't tie it's own shoes... get anything & everything out of it's hands before it spoils!!! One time payout of 4 million & 2.2 in annual revenue? Are those figures from the 60's? Someone is pulling numbers out of the air!! Privatize it!! The state will have zero overhead (storefronts, inventory, employees, etc..), and a windfall of tax revenue! As far as loss of jobs go... wrong again!!! Unions jam that garbage down your throat... I don't believe robots will be stocking shelves and packing my vino in the boxes!!!
Earnest
2:04 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Couple of questions:
- I had read that beer distributors would be able to sell six packs. I don't see that in the press release.
- How much money will the State of PA loose with this privatization on a yearly basis?
- What is Governor Corbett proposing to in an effort to make up that loss of PA State revenue?
- I also read that Governor Corbett intends to have a higher wholesale tax on gasoline sales. Is that how he intends to replace the State of PA's income when he privatizes the liquor stores?
- I also question sales being made in box stores. Won't the box stores end up being a monopoly in many PA communities, that will destroy any attempt of the real small business (the mom and pop stores) of the ability to be successful like they have done to so many retail owners?
Pat
4:06 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Good points. There will be very few, if any, small businesses generated by this initiative. The business will all be snapped up by existing big box and grocery stores and there will be chains of liquor stores taking over within a few years.
Jane
4:36 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Agreed with Pat - and those private stores probably won't pay a living wage, so we the taxpayers would end up essentially bound to continue to pay benefits for those employees who will likely be low-wage enough to qualify for poverty benefits. So I foresee we'll loose the income, but keep the personnel costs.
Luray
12:57 pm on Sunday, February 3, 2013
The state won't "loose" anything; it still will collect its sales taxes and its liquor taxes. It will no longer have to pay pensions and benefits for its liquor store employees.
The higher wholesale gas tax will go toward roads, not toward the general fund.
In other states, alcohol sales at big box stores co-exist peacefully with smaller, locally owned business. Anyone who has ever stepped foot outside of Pennsylvania knows that.
Bradford J. Crompton
2:05 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
The greed extends to both sides of the aisles always both Republican and Democrats alike have their greedy mits out and could care less about the revenue, people or jobs as long as their palms are always greased.
Chuck
2:10 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Like paying $5 extra a bottle in Newtown for wine and spirits? That's what's going to happen with Corbett's plan when the "Newtown premium" hits the statewide-mandated prices on wine. If you buy wine regularly, voting for privatization is like voting for a tax increase.
Ann
2:34 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Chuck, where are you getting your facts? Our Jersey relatives always supply the alcohol for family parties. Those of us in Pa. never do. For example, my mother-in-law saved me $16 on 4 bottles of wine for our Thanksgiving celebration.
Charlie D.
4:31 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Chuck is completely wrong. Whenever I travel to DC I make sure to load up the trunk of my car with wine, beer and alcohol from Virginia or Delaware.....I always save a lot of money as compared to PA State stores.
Chuck
5:13 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
DC and Delaware have "low prices" because they are two of the states with the lowest excise tax rates on liquor in the country. As for VA, that's the other state with state-run liquor stores!
Stephen Eickhoff
5:38 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
There are a total of 19 states that have a partial or complete monopoly on alcohol sales. Virginia only sells hard liquor in its state store, unlike PA.
ted.dobracki
8:52 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
North Carolina also has state run liquor stores.
Newtown Town Drunk
2:33 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
The Commonwealth of PA is the single largest alcohol buyer in the country. With that buying power, you would think that the prices would be competitive with NJ and other areas, but they are not. Why? The state stores have to overpay for their help and give their workers a pension. Why should a liquor store bozo get a pension? He shouldn't, and thats why we overpay for booze
I_Love_Delco!
1:05 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
They used to, when Jonathan Newman was chair. He established te Chairman Select program and the state used its massive buying power to get some great deals on good products. Then it was PA politics as usual and Rendell appointed a crony to be his boss. He quit and the program, although not abandoned, went downhill.
Greg Czar
2:40 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Why is Corbett so all fired in a hurry to privatize? There definitely is an ulterior motive.First the Lottery now Liquor, why not the State police they did such a great job under AG Corbett when investigating Sandusky? O r was that because Corbett didn't want to get his hands dirty with Penn State voters? This man Corbett is a wolf in wolfs clothing and I believe he is worried that he can't do pay backs because he may not get a second term and he shouldn't.
David Neamand
1:54 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
Because Greg, anything taken out of the hands of government and placed in the hands of private enterprise can be operated at a lower cost and with more customer service in mind
Jane
1:56 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
Oh like the low prices and high customer service of Comcast? Of Bank of America?
I_Love_Delco!
1:05 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Because most of his base thinks like David and he's working to please them.
Luray
12:59 pm on Sunday, February 3, 2013
There are things the government should operate: transportation, education, etc. Liquor sales is not one of those things.
Newtown Town Drunk
2:42 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
hey greg, have another beer
Ann
2:46 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
@Chuck, at least he is a wolf in wolfs clothing, unlike Obama....the wolf in sheeps clothing!
Ann
2:59 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Whoops! My comment was for Greg.
Assaggiatore
3:20 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
the system is broken in PA. I had no choice to go to Delaware, illegally I might add, to buy the Scotch I wanted because the state makes it a special order requires an insane minimum order of 12 bottles for them to ship to the store. Kinda pricey when it costs over $200 a bottle. There was also a bottle of sherry I wanted and the state doesn't even carry it. Another trip to Claymont. Arguments of lost jobs are ludicrous because this will allow even more jobs with more stores opened and no caps on the number or workers the former state workers can have seniority. It will allow for a much better selection which means no more risking arrest for going out of state to buy something not available here. Pennsylvania's wine selections are pathetic and the laughingstock of the East coast. Only Utah has more antiquated laws than we do.
Intheweeds
3:57 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Privatization will raise billions of dollars for the state in the selloff of licenses. Privatization will reduce costs the state incurs from state store employee salaries and significant real estate expenditures. Privatization will improve service and selection for PA residents, thus likely increasing tax revenues. There is nothing but good that would come from privatization.
Michael R. Zomber
4:19 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
State stores feature limited selections of wine at high prices. It is long past time to privatize these fossils.
Rosemary B
12:42 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
One would think that competition would lead to lower prices and better selection. As long as they are not taxed to death by the state and feds!
craig
4:30 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
ok let me just say this, Corbett is a liar, after paying off everything if this works they will be lucky to have 500mil (which is a yr of payments with the current system) so after a yr taxes will go up to cover the loss and prices will go through the roof look at wash state. also anyone dumb enough to open a new store will be closing in 6 months once the big stores knock prices down till the little guy is closed
Stephen Eickhoff
5:39 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Because this totally happens in NJ and DE.
Charlie D.
4:31 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Privatization, in the case of liquor stores, is shrinking the size of the government....I'm all for that in almost every possible case (excluding safety related agencies). Too much government means higher taxes, more government employees & their outrageous benefits/pensions and more unions that drive costs up. Let the free market work.
Richard Lane
4:45 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Soon it seems, Pennsylvania will be left to drunks, gamblers, and seniors playing the lottery for a slim to nothing chance to win. If the Governor or the legislature's pensions could be raffled off, I'd be one of the first to buy a ticket. Has anyone thought about paying attention to Pennsylvania's deteriorating infrastructure? No, privatization of anything worth selling for quick cash seems to be the Number 1 short term goal.
Stephen Eickhoff
5:40 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
False dilemma. I think the governor and legislature can handle a few issues at a time, this being just one of them-- and one that has been kicked around for decades. This is not something that happened overnight, as the reactionary left would have you believe.
Frightwingslayer
4:48 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
If it were up to Corbett, everything would be privitized..After next year's election, Corbett will be back working in the public sector...He's a jerk! If he wants money for Pa. coffers let him do what every other state in the union does, hitting the gas companies with an extraction fee..However, since they gave him a cool million, he refuses to do so..This is just another way for him to dump public sector workers for a private entity..he can then hit them up for millions in campaign donations..The guy is a crook..His popularity rating is in the dumps and they should be!
Starship Trooper
10:25 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Frightwingslayer...I wont comment on your feeling for Corbett but need to correct you. The Gas companies are paying an extraction fee .The left doesnt think its enough. Pa had to attract Shell to set up their plant here with competitve tax rates to insure PA felt the result of the positive economic impact otherwise they could have easily went to W. Va or Ohio. Gas extraction has turned around the economies of many slumping Pennsylvania towns. Regarding Public Sector union employee's particularly Retail Clerks Union 1776 who represent the State Store employee's . Where do you think most of their union dues go ? Into the coffers of PA DNC To support Democratic politicians to champion the existence of the State Stores.
There is nothing more crooked than that !!!!
charles hampton
5:52 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Corbett is trying to do the right thing, albeit for the wrong reasons.
Ann
7:20 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Pat, unions served their purpose and now they need to go! Costs...bloated pension plans, inability to fire subpar employees, how about the inability to fire a teacher who has been inappropriate with a student, bloated wages, corruption.....the list can go on.
Earnest
10:21 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
And the Chamber of Commerce is one of the biggest unions in the United States.
Jack Daniels
6:59 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
If you want to run the state more like a Business, Keep them!
Why would anyone sell a "cash cow"
Income received by the state
1- sales tax on liquor sales
2- profit from the actual liquor.
Why would you sell a monopoly?
All they have to to is renegotiate some of there leases to keep expenses down!!
Even if the state closes Or moves a
Few locations in the renegotiation process, people always drive by a state
Store.
Starship Trooper
7:08 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
Paid for and approved by Wendell Young III
Stephen Eickhoff
1:27 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
Look at the store locations: http://www.lcbapps.lcb.state.pa.us/app/retail/Storeloc.asp
There are multiple COUNTIES with fewer than three stores! This is not proper management. And regardless of profit, it is simply not appropriate for the State to be selling liquor.
Stephen Eickhoff
1:27 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
Wyoming county has ONE store!
Luray
1:01 pm on Sunday, February 3, 2013
Why would you think the state would no longer collect taxes on liquor sales? Duh.
Ida Marre
7:39 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
I agree with almost every commenter here. It is high time for privately owned liquor stores. I seems to work well everywhere else. We were one of the last states to hang onto the blue laws, now most people don't know what that means. If Corbitt goes throught with this plan I will vote for him again just for having the gonolies to do it. The current employees have a bloated pension plan that is sinking Pennsylvanians with taxes that will need to be raised 25% to fund the program, it is like over the top and they all know it. How much training does it take to put a bottle on the shelf and bag the bottles on the way out? Go for it Corbitt!
Amend Wun
9:14 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
I'm on the fence with this proposal. If the state stands to lose revenue annual revenue from the sale, then that's not really worth the one time cash infusion, but then that means that they should do more to be the best they can. The anti union talk sounds more like a separate bias. I guess it's ok to put people out of work for cheaper alcohol, but I wonder how those deriding those union workers would feel if their jobs were in jeopardy. I also don't see how existing mom and pop shops will be able to compete with big box retail or convienence stores. just saying, those stores don't have union workers. In the end tho, it's about numbers. What are the savings vs the lost revenue?
charles hampton
10:58 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
Mom and pop stores seem to do just fine in neighboring states. Their game is to build a customer base and providing the product they need. Most consumers are not foolish enough to drive out of their way simply to save a couple of bucks on a bottle. Any overall decline in revenue can likely be made up in license fees and an increase in tax at the wholesale level. As for the loss of jobs? It happens every day, all across the spectrum. I am no fan of the governor, and he may be acting out of self interest, but I have to back the plan, overall.
Ann
1:42 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
Amend, yes that is exactly what we want. Put people out of work so we can get cheap alcohol! Are you kidding me? Why do you always have to make outrageous claims? The jobs won't disappear. We will still need people to sell us our CHEAP alcohol! Lol!
Amend Wun
12:57 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
@Chuck Hampton- going by this thread, there seem to be plenty of people who drive across into NJ for cheaper alcohol. Just saying, there's a cause and effect to everything. If the end result is that most alcohol is sold by national franchises, is that really a net benefit to the state? i'm not trying to contrarian. I'm just curious what the end benefit is other than getting the state out of the business of alcohol.
Amend Wun
12:57 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
@Ann- i'm not sure how that's an outrageous claim based on the comments here that state that the union is a bunch of lazy lay-abouts driving up costs to the consumer. I'm not specifically against the proposal, but comments like those taint the discussion. The real question becomes how much money is saved vs. loss in revenue, not whether or not unions are good or bad. And there is no denying that people will lose their jobs. It's assumed that those getting the new licenses will hire some of those people, but that's a large assumption. I can't foresee grocery and convenience stores hiring more staff just because we hope that they will. Again, just discussing cause and effect.
Luray
1:04 pm on Sunday, February 3, 2013
There will be no lost revenue. The state will still collect sales and liquor taxes. The state will collect license fees on more than a one-time basis.
Existing mom and pop shops will co-exist with supermarkets, convenience stores, and large chain liquor stores. This happens all over the country. Some of those mom-and-pop shops specialize in higher end products, and make quite a pretty penny.
The savings will come through the state no longer paying benefits and pensions for liquor store workers. That will be left up to private enterprise.
MA
10:10 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
Q. I’d like to buy some beer.
A. How much beer do you want?
Q. Why does it matter?
A. Well, if you want a single beer, you can go to a bar. If you want a 6-pack you can go to a ‘package store’. If you want a case, you can go to a distributor. However, you can’t get a 6 pack at the distributor, only cases. Oh, and you can’t get a single beer either. And no more than 2 six packs at a time from the package store. So you'll have to make a few trips to get what you need. So if you want a mix of beers, you have to make a few trips or find a specialty distributor that will let you mix and match a variety into a single case. Buy the way, its Sunday and they might not be open.
Q. Well, I’m having a football party, and I thought I’d get some wine too.
A. Well, for wine you have to go to a State Store. But you can’t get beer at the state store, not even cases. And you can’t get wine at the package store or the distributor.
Q. .... and some Vodka?
A. State store.
Q. I see. Who came up with this system?
A. The government. They believe it will stop you from drinking to much, and it provides patronage jobs to administration cronies and unions.
I think I need a drink.
Well, you can drive always drive to Delaware.... You can buy it all in one store, on Sunday.
charles hampton
10:12 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
MA, your post says it all!!
H10B
1:36 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
You got it! Current process is nonsense! I cannot wait for a change...
Jeff Lugar
1:05 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
The same scenario I always use. And if you substitute big bag of potato chips, small bag of potato chips, and bag of pretzels as the things you have to go to three places to get, the lunacy of it all becomes even more clear.
Kevin
10:16 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
I'm all for privatizing booze in PA. Privatization will undoubtedly increase our access and availability to the hootch we all crave. Unfortunately, prices will also increase as a result of the taxes imposed on these new businesses. Washington State just recently privatized and they are seeing a jump in consumer prices for liquor and wine.
MA
10:19 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
.... and we'll go back to Delaware.
Stephen Eickhoff
1:30 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
This is because Washington also got greedy and increased the taxes to satisfy the left-wing's demands.
Kevin
10:28 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
No ones stopping you from going to Delaware. Go to Delaware if you want. Heck buy it duty free on your next trip out of the country. The grass is always greener... We are fortunate to live in SEPA because we have the option of going to DE for our booze if we want to. But theres much of this state that doesn't have that luxury.
MA
10:34 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
no, competition from Delaware will keep prices down in our area. Something that a centrally administered, government system does not do. Competition from the surrounding states, and other INDEPENDENT business will force competitive prices. Something a state monopoly doesn't have to contend with.
Kevin
10:44 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
sure it will... DE and NJ have certainly reduced our consumer pricing for cars, electronics, luxury items, clothing, gasoline and tobacco.
Earnest
12:13 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
While the title on this article is about Corbett's announcement on privatizing the State's Liquor stores, there is also another announcement to be made by Corbett, which is extremely controversial as he intends to privatize the PA State Lottery, by giving it to a foreign company to run, a British company called Camelot Global Services, which is actually owned by The Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan.
This description can be found on Northern Star Generation home page:
The Ontario Teachers's Pension Plan ("Teachers") is one of Canada's largest financial institutions with net assists of C$96.4 billion as of the end of 2009. It invests globally to secure the retirement income of 289,000 active and retired teachers in the province of Ontario, Canada....
So while Corbett will cause untold numbers of Pennsylvanian job losses, by turning over our State Lottery profits to a foreign company, it looks like he has also found a way to funnel PA citizens money into the retirement incomes of active and retired teachers in Ontario Canada.
Interesting information as Corbett is all about privatizing our public schools and bashes our own teachers, because of unfunded pensions that are not their fault, but the fault of the politicians, who chose to gamble our tax dollars, rather than contribute those tax dollars for which they were intended.
David Curran
1:03 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Thanks Earnest, just one more reason to feel this guy is a total bum.
Jeff Lugar
1:05 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
He's not "giving it to a foreign company"; there was a bidding process and only one final bid (out of a handful that started the process). If a Pennsylvania or U.S. company wanted it, they could have gone after it.
H10B
1:35 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
The current set up is READY for a change! I will open a bottle of wine to celebrate when the time comes I can go to one establishment and buy wine, beer and liquor. Pennsylvania needs to get with the times...
brian
12:57 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Who cares about the money for PA from liquor. What business does the state or any locality have running any kind of business? none. that's the only argument one needs to make. all governments' stink at managing anything.
Mr. Wynnewood
12:59 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
In my humble opinion - the state should not be in the liquor business. Frankly, it's rather rather silly and reflects the sometime backwards nature of our dear Commonwealth. The PLCB came into being 4 days before the repeal of prohibition (1933). It's purpose was stated by then Gov. Pinchot: "discourage the purchase of alcoholic beverages by making it as inconvenient and expensive as possible."
LOL......well, the Governor succeeded. The PLCB is also a patronage haven - second probably only to the Turnpike Commission.
If the state is going to be in the liquor business - why stop there? State owned gas stations? Movie theaters? Bagels?
By the way...........I'm a lifelong Democrat so please spare me the "you just want to privatize everything" argument.
Time for Pennsylvania to join the.............20th Century?
Dan McGovern
1:01 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
If this means I can grab a 12 pack as I do my food shopping, as I have done many times in other states, I'm all for it.
Earnest
1:01 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Oops! Corbetts son-in-law relieved of duty and under federal investigation as a result of a sting operation.
ro
1:06 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
PA Wine & Spirits stores generated approximately $2.1 billion in revenue in 2011-12.
factoid!!!!!!!!
Les
1:09 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
I hope it can happen this time. There is a poor selection of wine in this area and the prices are high. I moved back to PA after living in Virginia for 40 years and I miss the convince of purchasing beer and wine at the grocery or specialty stores like Total Wine.
Martin Heldring
6:14 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
i lived in Illinois for years and miss the same convenience, service, selection, quality and prices.
Amend Wun
8:39 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
@brian- so, if the end result of privatization is that taxes have to be increased to make up for lost revenue, you'd be ok with that? Plenty of municipalities run enterprises that would be considered businesses by most, such as sewer & water authorities. Again, I'm not against privatizing alcohol sales. I'm just wondering about the numbers. If the state ends up losing money in the long run, what's the point of privatization? This plan would make sense if we had a budget surplus, but that isn't the case. One time cash infusions may plug a hole now, but what does that look like long term?
Martin Heldring
2:38 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
Hurrah and thank you Governor Corbett for taking on this silly law!
In reading all of these comments, I cannot find a single logical reason why the state should be in this business. But to continue laws that suppress competition simultaneously creates an environment akin to something out of the Soviet Union.
But if people are so convinced that the state stores provide good product and service at competitive prices, then keep them But at least, let’s see how they do in a competitive environment. My guess is not so well.
As to the potential loss of revenue, a closer examination shows the state stores are basically break even when the pension and health care costs are included and that trend line is not favorable to taxpayers. One must also consider the lost revenue of sales in other states. For thousands of people who are located near adjoining states, they can easily do their shopping there. And the bulk of the revenue form the state stores comes from the tax revenue and that would remain if the store were privatized.
No, it’s time to put an end to this anachronism and I commend the Governor for trying.
Jim
3:32 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
Keep PA Liquor Stores! I like my booze and wine fresh. I used to sell to Ma and Pa stores in New Jersey where you can buy liquor at convienient stores. There is no rotation of stock, dusty bottles, hot/humid stores (not good for wine), low product turn over, absence of selection, and the price was no cheaper than PA. If I have a technical question about a $100 bottle of wine do you think a 18 or 21 yr old kid is going to be able to answer me. Plus don't you think they will sell to thier under aged friends. We don't need 24 hour access to liquor. There is the problem of higher crime, more DUI's costing tax payers more in law inforcement, insurance premiums, hospital care. I don't need to be going to Walmart at 3AM to "buy me a gun and a six pack", but there are people who will and I don't think we need those people on the street. The retail cost of liquor will go up because private companies will not be subsitized. Our taxes will not go down and to think the $$$ will go to schools...bull...Corbett cut education. Instead of losing qualified jobs work on creating new jobs. Every isle I walk down there is a salesperson...we'll end up with one inexperienced cashier. What we need is reform. Mix and match cases at beer distributors, full bottle wine sales at bars/restaurants, wholesale prices to restaurants, if it ain't broke...don't fix it!!!!
Martin Heldring
3:38 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
Jim, can you provide any evidence to your assertion that privatization will result in higher crime and more DUI's? Please be specific.
Ann
4:41 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
Jim, obviously some people do think its broke.... henceforth the debate!
Jim
9:00 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
I've never belonged to a union, but I approve of unions or otherwise your wages would be lower and you wouldn't get any bennies. Unions raise the bar. I've worked in retail and wholesale in executive positions. Don’t think businesses care about you. It's all about the bottom line. You obviously don't drink high end liquor or wine. If a quality bottle of wine is stored in an upright position the cork shrinks and air gets in the bottle. I've lived in states that are privatized. I had to travel from one store to another to get the products I want because not all carry the same product. I have my own business as a Gen Contractor; experience first hand people who’d go buy a six pk after bars close. I drive workers home do to DUI’s or a crashed car while drunk. I didn’t take a scientific study of DUI increase it’s my opinion and common sense from my everyday contact with the abusers of alcohol. Why give them more opportunities. I guess your pro for legalizing pot to then we have something in common not one record of DUI anywhere. If you guys are so down on Govt live in another country. The Police, Paramedics, Nat. Guard, Armed Serv’s, etc are all Govt run divisions and are doing just fantastic. Fact I don’t need a gun to protect myself. Save your money don’t drink it you too will have a retirement plan! Favorite Vodka is Vox 19.99 in PA in NJ its 27.99! It's about PROFITS! Taxes won't go down after the sale of PA Liq. stores! Fact Corbett cut educ 1.1 billion
Rosemary B
10:52 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
Jim, if you are so in favor of big government in control of everything maybe it is you who should go live in another country. Cuba, North Korea, China all come to mind. There are some things government should not be involved in. I think the sale of liquor is one of them.
Ike
4:07 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
Governor Corbett SHOULD QUIT.
Ann
9:57 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
Jim, I don't know what you're talking about. Unions raise the bar...doubt it. The guys smoking pot and drinking on thier lunch break didn't even loose their jobs. I don't see bad teachers losing their jobs. The woman that helped me at the post office the other day was not someone who set the bar high I can tell you that! I don't believe you are not a union guy. I have had various jobs throughout the years, I have been lucky enough to get paid a fair wage and get good benefits. I never felt that my bosses were looking to stick it to me. In regard to your drunk friends, you need to get new friends. I haven't had to be someone's designated driver in 25 years. Who are you hanging with?
CivicRepublican
11:15 am on Sunday, February 3, 2013
If teachers back this, they are fools! Corbett will still - by executive fiat?! - destroy their pension system. Their unions & legislative friends - should elicit the promise - in writing - that he will not do so. We will see then if he is an honorable man.
Jim
11:49 am on Sunday, February 3, 2013
Wow! Education is the key, I’m sorry Ann you can’t comprehend what you read. Since you want to attack me personally, I refrain replying to your comments. Back to the issue and Facts. PA's liquor revenue is generated by taxes not markup on the product. PLCB is the largest purchaser of liquor in the USA passing on the savings to us. Cumulative buying power. Private will not. Taxes remain as is under privatization. Private companies need to make a profit hence raising retail price of product. PLCB 2011-12 sales $2.1 billion profits of $494 million to help finance other state services. Again, cost of Vox Vodka in PA is $19.99 in NJ its $27.99. Three private, key word "private", distribution companies supply liquor to PA. In ’09 they stored product in trailers exposed to heat, breaking contract with PLCB re:cost/profits. Suppliers and PLCB suggest 75 degrees preventing spoilage...PhillyBoy.
Ann
12:43 pm on Sunday, February 3, 2013
Jim, How did I insult you personally? I stated that I believed you were a union guy. Is that an attack?
CivicRepublican
11:50 am on Sunday, February 3, 2013
Watch closely! Will the lucrative pension system be preserved for legislators, municipal & county politicians, and their so-called "aides", while teachers, police, firefighters, & other public employees pay up for the budgetary malfeasance of the former? Wanna bet?!
Jim
11:53 am on Sunday, February 3, 2013
Fact: Corbett cut edu. $1.1 Billion. His approval rate just drop’d again to 38% among the lowest in the nation. Canada study shows 27.5% increase in alcohol related deaths since privatization retained from death certificates. Undercover studies also found private more likely to serve underage consumers. 1/3 of all traffic accidents are caused by drunk driving. Not including traffic accidents Alcohol abuse is the 3rd largest cause of deaths of 9% underage. Colorado tax revenue from pot sales $2.2 million. FDA reports ZERO deaths from pot use. Benefits: Save billions fighting it. Reduce Mexico border problems. Cost reduction in jails. High revenue from farming to taxing. Remember prohibition? Instead of getting rid of PLCB stores we add the revenue of marijuana sales under a proven controlled environment with same laws as alcohol. My sources are from Government statistics not partisan groups. But you Righties keep coming with your ridiculous comments and the Dems will control the House, Senate, and the President’s office. Corbett is next. 1.1 million more Dems than Rep in PA. with 1.1 million independents. Now you know why the Right wants to redistrict and change voter registration laws. CHEERS! SALUD! SALUTE! PROHST!
Martin Heldring
12:20 pm on Sunday, February 3, 2013
Jim- are you suggesting that there is not a single study among the 48 states that have privatized liquor sales in the United States that shows it results in higher DUI's or deaths due to drinking? Please tell me if there is one and what it shows.
Can you also tell me what the liquor board revenues are after fully loading all expenses including pension and health care benefits?
Lastly, I think you are suggesting that the state should also be involved in the sale of pot. Do you see any limits to the businesses in which the government should be involved? For example, should prescription drugs be brought under the liquor control board? Would Pennsylvania get better prices as a result of Pennsylvania’s buying power? Would they be satisfied with the more limited access to their prescriptions? I assume you would say no but what exactly is the difference then alcohol and prescription drugs?
Thank you.
Jim
2:04 pm on Sunday, February 3, 2013
MH: Gave my opinion/some facts. No need for more research to satisfy your needs. I’ll voice my opinion come Elect Day as I did voting for Pres Obama. Seemed to work just fine. Yes I'm suggesting legalizing marijuana same as legalization of alcohol 1933 cause it cost billions with prohibition as billions are costing taxpayers to fight marijuana. Grain/corn farmers switched to harvest marijuana in approved states, now millionaires instead of a negative income boosting the economy. Not suggesting you use pot but maybe you should try it. More control of your body/mind vs booze, can come out of a high almost immediately can’t say the same for booze. Yet still no proof to auto/over use deaths related to marijuana. Don’t get me started on Prescript drugs. 80% of the worlds anti-depressants/pain killers sold in the USA causing more automotive deaths. Science is able to take natural elements out of marijuana to pill form targeting specific illness w/o synthetic side effects, but can’t use it until pot is legal. I’m not a stoner nor an alcoholic. I’m a successful mid-aged businessman, father, grandfather and neither booze or pot effect my lifestyle or success. Moderation. My daughter lives in CO, uses medical marijuana for her Crones disease, for the first time she experiences a normal life, she’s a corporate executive, community leader, musician, music therapist for children with mental disease and mentor for abused children. As they say in Jamaica, “Ire”. Peace out!
Martin Heldring
3:16 pm on Sunday, February 3, 2013
No worries Jim. I just think this is important conversation where facts are more appropriate than anecdotes. I asked because I cannot find any studies to support your assertions. Thought you might have them but I guess not.
Jim
2:33 pm on Sunday, February 3, 2013
Ann: I stated I own my own business how can I be a union worker? Basically you called me a liar...plus you suggested I get new friends..again you didn't read, these "drunks" aren't my friends its the work pool I have to hire from...not all...but high percentage. I call it "construction mentality". Shame they are skilled workers with bad habits.They get their paycheck on Friday and drink it on the weekend. They are the ones who stated to me they're excited to get their six pack a Walmart to drink more after the bars close. Retract: mini mart because they have a DUI and have to walk hence why I have to drive them home after work. Too bad Unions aren't present in my line of work cause I could charge more and pay my guys more but instead I have fly by night guys charging $10 an hour w/o liability or workerscomp insurance making me reduce my price to be near competitive. Why do you thing you get a fair wage? Do I have to remind everyone why unions where established in the first place. I do agree they go over board, but they have made concessions and are more in line to my beliefs. Thanks for the conversation eveyone but I'm out of here. I have a business to run.
Ann
2:54 pm on Sunday, February 3, 2013
Jim, Believe me, no one wants to get you started if your past comments are you in neutral! You seem to have the opinion that everyone needs to see things from your point of view and what works for you and your family should work for all. News flash...people have different views and different life experiences. Try to get out f your box.
Mike legacy
10:24 pm on Sunday, April 7, 2013
Open the state to online sales. I'm sick of having to order 6 bottles of the scotch I like because the dumbass state PLCB won't let me buy online (where prices are up to 30% cheaper on a lot of things, including my favorite scotch).