To address mounting debt, strained budgets, and underfunded pension systems, lawmakers need to reexamine all aspects of government and seek new and innovative policy solutions. CF’s privatization work looks to apply the “Yellow Pages test” to all levels of government. This test says that if a service can be found in the yellow pages of a phone book, government should look to the private sector rather than public employees to provide it. In well-structured privatization initiatives, the government and taxpayers gain accountability, cost savings, higher quality services, and greater innovation.
As the partisan divide plays out in Washington, it's encouraging to see one policy battle in Pennsylvania with support on both sides of the political spectrum. Across the state, voters remain unified in their support of allowing private stores to sell wine and liquor. Unfortunately for consumers, inside the state Capitol, bipartisan unity on this issue has been harder to come by.
In a long overdue move, the PLCB is discontinuing its in-house wine, Tableleaf. As a refresher, Tableleaf is the PLCB's own government-branded wine, which it introduced in 2011. Tableleaf is made in California and directly competes with Pennsylvania's own burgeoning wine industry—and was backed by up to $10 million of taxpayer money in branding and marketing muscle.
The introduction of Tableleaf was an obvious bureaucratic overreach and squeezed out Pennsylvania entrepreneurs. Ending production of government wine brands is a win for taxpayers, consumers, and Pennsylvania wineries.
But that bad decision is only a symptom of a larger problem: The PLCB has sole authority over determining what wine and spirits are bought and sold in Pennsylvania.
The PLCB’s booze bureaucracy forces entrepreneurs to jump through a variety of hoops just to propose selling a wine or spirits product in Pennsylvania. It's a byzantine system, and here's how it works:
- In order to submit what the PLCB calls a "product proposal," you must first obtain a license from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), a federal government agency.
- Once you’ve obtained a license from the TTB, you must then apply for a Pennsylvania Vendor’s Permit, which costs $265, in addition to a filing fee that will run you about $700. According to the PLCB’s website, payment of these fees does not guarantee your product will appear on state store shelves.
- Now that you have both the federal license and the vendor’s permit, you can send a “listing proposal” (only twice a year) to the PLCB that must contain the following:
- A non-refundable listing proposal fee of $150 per item
- Two presentation packets that must include:
- Completed New Item Request Form
- Completed Standard Quotation and Specification Form
- Two copies of the front and back label of the product.
The packets and check must then be mailed to the “Office of Product Selection” in Harrisburg.
Congratulations! You have successfully completed the PLCB’s proposal process, that is, unless you’re required to make a presentation. If that’s the case, you must present your product to the product manager responsible for your product's category. Be sure to bring samples of your brand of wine or spirits.
Once the proposal process is completed, a decision follows. The PLCB's "Procedures and Policies for Vendors" states:
The Category Managers will make their recommendation to accept or reject an item based on several key factors, including price segment growth, category growth, projected annual profit per store, and marketing support being provided by the vendor/supplier.
The Director of Product Selection will submit recommendations to the Board for official decision.
Did you catch that? Even after completing the proposal process, the PLCB can still reject your product. And because the PLCB is a statewide monopoly, you do not have the option of pitching your product to another store. The PLCB has the final say.
Creating a successful business is difficult; state government should not make the process even more difficult by creating a bureaucratic maze for entrepreneurs to navigate just to sell their product.
The solution to this bureaucratic nightmare is full privatization. Entrepreneurs should not have their fate determined by a board in Harrisburg. Instead, they should be free to negotiate with private wholesale and retail owners on the market. That's true liquor liberty.
Liquor privatization has been a promise, a priority and even passed the House last year. And in the roughly 11 months since that historic vote, progress remains stalled.
But it's a new year. January 17 marked 94 years since the beginning of Prohibition, and the optimistic among us are asking, “Could 2014 be the year it finally ends in Pennsylvania?” Earlier this month, Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi expressed hope to get privatization legislation to the Governor’s desk this spring, but reports indicate that privatization plans being considered would only go halfway.
What does halfway privatization mean? In short, the government will still have control over wine and liquor sales, but consumers may have a few new options in terms of where they can purchase some types of government-selected booze.
David Ozgo, chief economist of the Distilled Spirits Council, warns that "Like most halfway measures, privatizing only wine is a phenomenally bad idea that would do great financial harm to the state and consumers."
According to the Distilled Spirits Council, a half-step which keeps the PLCB in control of the wholesale side of alcohol sales—responsible for selecting what can be sold in the state, warehousing and delivering wine and spirits, and setting prices—will be worse than the status quo for consumers. It would likely result in reduced tax revenues, operating losses, higher prices, less convenience, and increased border bleed.
Not only is halfway privatization a bad idea economically, but it flies in the face of what Pennsylvanians actually want. Survey after survey shows that voters and consumers on both sides of the political aisle want full privatization, not "modernization" or halfway measures.
Consumers have patiently waited to get the choice and convenience they deserve and demand—and only full privatization will satisfy those demands. Send a reminder to your lawmakers today.
It has been 94 years since the beginning of the nationwide prohibition on the production, distribution and sale of alcohol. Fortunately, states had the good sense to repeal the 18th Amendment, which proved disastrous. Yet in Pennsylvania, it’s like Prohibition never ended.
While almost every other state has been freed from the shackles of state-controlled liquor, Pennsylvania still remains stuck in the early 20th century. The state controls both the wholesale and retail side of wine and spirit sales, prohibiting entrepreneurs from opening up their own shops, which would give consumers more choice and convenience. And the prohibitions don’t end there: The state regulates where and how much beer can be sold at restaurants, convenience stores, licensed beer shops and distributors. And the state prohibits shoppers from purchasing booze across state lines and bringing it back to Pennsylvania for consumption.
Despite bipartisan, majority support, Pennsylvania lawmakers have yet to get government out of the booze business largely because of government union lobbying and political spending against taxpayers’ interests. The worst part? Taxpayers are forced to pay for it all.
In addition to profiting from higher taxes and higher prices on government-sold wine and spirits, the United Food and Commercial Workers’ union (UFCW) uses taxpayer funds to collect union dues, fees and campaign contributions directly from employees’ paychecks—an exclusive legal privilege granted only to government unions.
Much of this political money is then used to lobby politicians and make campaign contributions to squash the very liquor privatization legislation that is supported by the majority of Pennsylvanians. Taxpayers are forced to collect money that is then used to fight against their interests
Given the forces working against taxpayers in the battle for liquor privatization, it is encouraging to see lawmakers resuming talks over removing the state from the liquor business to the consternation of its well-funded, politically privileged opponents. It's time to end Prohibition completely and give taxpayers the full privatization they demand.
"Save the PA Lottery," "Seniors pay the price," and "Corbett's secretive scheme" are just a few examples of how government union bosses employed scare tactics to conduct a massive misinformation campaign and drive away billions in guaranteed lottery funding.
Over the past year, AFSCME union officials created websites, radio ads, billboards and more to convince Pennsylvanians that contracting out management of the lottery with guaranteed revenue protections was dangerous for elderly Pennsylvanians. Never mind that the waiting lists for lottery-funded services grew by 52 percent in 2011 and 2012.
Late last month, Gov. Corbett announced the contract would expire for good, leaving $2.3 billion in promised revenue on the table and no guarantees for seniors and taxpayers. That could put senior programs in jeopardy with a $530 million budget deficit projected for next fiscal year, never mind future years.
Even more appalling than the unions' hyperbole is their hypocrisy. In early December, AFSCME tentatively agreed to private management contract if workers could remain unionized. What does this tell us? All union bosses cared about was maintaining their special privilege to members’ money. Their opposition was just political posturing.
Meanwhile, state lottery workers will continue to pay approximately $100,000 in forced dues to fund six-figure salaries for AFSCME union bosses. Joseph Kleman, assistant to AFSCME Executive Director David Fillman, received $244,860 in 2012, while the average state worker salary is around $50,000.
The lottery misinformation campaign is strikingly similar to union leaders’ attempts to thwart liquor store privatization. No one can reasonably argue against choice and convenience, but union leaders will say anything to keep dues money rolling in to fund their lifestyles.
It’s time union bosses are exposed for all of the good they prevent in the name of padding their own pockets.
If you like a good deal, nothing beats shopping during the holidays. Retailers will do whatever it takes—sales, coupons, early bird specials—to get an edge over their competition, all to shoppers’ delight. But what if you have no competition? What if, say, you’re a government-run liquor monopoly?
In that case, like the PLCB, you simply pretend to satisfy consumer needs. The PLCB's half-hearted efforts were obvious yesterday, on Cyber Monday, when the PLCB offered free shipping for online purchases. Not free shipping to your home—but to the government store of your choice. How customer friendly! After you select the wine or spirits the government has decided you can buy as a Pennsylvania resident, you are then afforded the luxury of driving to a store to pick it up at their convenience, not yours. Imagine if your Amazon order was only available for pickup during business hours at a government agency.
Meanwhile, in Washington state, which privatized spirit sales over a year ago, stores are competing and consumers are winning. The Columbian reports, “Local spirits sellers are pulling out all the stops to compete for those sales. It's a contest that has some retailers expanding store liquor departments, others carrying holiday gift packs and some offering extra services such as online sales and abundant, well-trained sales associates on the selling floor.”
If that doesn’t put you in the holiday shopping spirit, perhaps the PLCB's Holiday Gift Guide will. In it, the government recommends what alcohol you should purchase for the “trendsetter” or “business associate” in your life. And don’t forget, the same agency that’s promoting the purchase and consumption of holiday-related booze is also the same agency tasked with educating and enforcing responsible consumption. Conflict of interest, anyone?
No matter how they try to mask it, the PLCB can’t serve consumer needs like the private sector can. But until we end the government booze monopoly, happy holidays from the PLCB—your only choice for seasonal spirits in Pennsylvania.
A change has come to Pennsylvania's state-controlled liquor monopoly that will improve the customer experience, according to the PLCB. Are we finally going to get liquor privatization after eight decades? No. According to the Times-Tribune:
Companies that sell liquor and wine to the LCB like Diageo, a British-based liquor supplier, now retain ownership of that liquor while it's stored at the warehouse. The LCB takes ownership of the inventory when it ships from the warehouse, a departure from past practice where the agency owned the liquor while in the warehouse.
The new arrangement is said to improve costs and efficiencies because companies now have the ability to ensure high in-stock levels at state stores, which will lead to more sales. But this improvement is like putting a Band-Aid on a broken leg.
If you have been following our work on the PLCB, you'd be rightly skeptical of inventory system improvements. The PLCB has already had its fair share of inventory problems. Not long ago, they poured $66 million in taxpayer money—nearly two-and-a-half times the estimated cost—into a "state of the art" inventory system that failed to allocate adequate product levels, causing widespread shortages at retail outlets.
Regardless, a simple inventory improvement doesn’t change the fact that the current system still cannot adequately serve the business community or consumers. The PLCB doesn't deliver to restaurants, bars and taverns. And it contracts with private companies for warehousing and even delivery to their own state stores. One of those companies is Kane Warehouse, Inc., owned by the husband of Attorney General Kathleen Kane, which received more than $12 million in payments from the PLCB last year. And the PLCB's economies of scale, which are greatly exaggerated, have not been effective at holding down prices, as compared to other states.
PLCB officials announced, “The goal of the distribution system is to get the right product to the right store at the right time so customer needs are satisfied.” If that is truly the goal of the PLCB, then privatization is the real solution. Entrepreneurs—not a mismanaged government agency—can better serve consumers in their communities.
Public safety improved in Washington state after liquor store privatization, we told you back in July. As further data comes in, the results continue to impress: Most state alcohol-related arrests continue to decline. DUI collisions and charges for “minor in possession” both improved following privatization.
But what about preventing sales to minors? Pennsylvanians have heard the UFCW claim they can do it better than the private sector, though state police don't peform sting operations in PLCB stores. Here's how they've fared in Washington:
Judging from the first year of data, the private sector has stepped up to this challenge. According to the WSLCB’s “Compliance Rates for Retailers Since 2012,” those private sector stores with at least 10,000 square feet (as required by Initiative 1183) or former state contract stores have averaged just over a 92 percent compliance rate. The most recent check for August 2013 showed a compliance rate of nearly 94 percent. These numbers do not show a significant drop in compliance rates with private liquor sales.
Using data from the Washington State Patrol, the Washington Policy Center has found that the improving trends of alcohol-related arrests in their state were not reversed, to the consternation of privatization opponents who claimed otherwise.
State control wasn’t keeping Washington residents safer. And now residents are enjoying improved public safety reports, in addition to increased sales and tax revenue, thanks to ending their government alcohol monopoly.
Public support for liquor privatization is as strong as ever, as our recent survey makes clear. So what’s happening with legislation that hit a snag in the Senate this spring?
Marcia Lampman, Executive Director of the House Liquor Control Committee, joins us again to discuss compromise language that could put privatization back on track for success. Click here to listen.
Marcia explains new licensing and permitting changes, revised store closure language, and a fast-tracked valuation of the state’s wholesale system that feature prominently in the new proposal outlined below.
In case you missed it: Marcia joined us back in June to explain in detail why the wholesale side of liquor privatization is so crucial.
Joe Conti, who once cosponsored legislation to privatize the state liquor store system, keeps finding a way to profit off of the state's monopoly on wine and spirit sales.
After retiring from the state Senate following the pay raise debacle, then-Governor Ed Rendell appointed him to a six-figure job as Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. Who did he replace? No one. The position was created just for him.
This year, Conti resigned under the cloud of an ethics investigation into allegations that he took gifts from PLCB contractors. Where did he go next? He took a job as an "emergency consultant" for, bizarrely, the PLCB. The only emergency was that Joe Conti needed a job. As it turns out, he earned $67,000 in six months as a consultant—while collecting a state pension—but such double-dipping is limited.
Now Conti has a new gig—lobbying for the union representing state liquor store workers, otherwise known as the UFCW. The UFCW recently put a million dollars into anti-privatization ads, paid for with taxpayer-collected union dues, so it's no shocker they would hire another high-priced lobbyist. Of course, Conti won't be doing anything different from his previous job on the state payroll—see his "Alternatives to Privatization" memo as an example on how he violated the PLCB's supposed neutrality on legislation.
Ladies and gentlemen of Pennsylvania, this is our government liquor monopoly.
Today, Jon Geeting of Keystone Politics joined CF's Matt Brouillette to unveil a new survey showing strong bipartisan support for liquor store privatization. The following are Jon's comments from the press conference which are posted on Keystone Politics.
First I want to stress that nothing Matt just said is at odds with progressive political views. In almost every other state, the Democratic Party’s position is that allowing people to buy beer, wine, and liquor at the grocery store is perfectly compatible with liberal economic policy views. This is a no-brainer, and it’s why 54% of Pennsylvania’s Democratic voters and 70% of independents support our position.
We’ve all visited other states at some point in our lives and we’ve all seen that grocery and convenience store sales are more convenient. Many of us have been to Wegmans in Pennsylvania, and have already seen how regular grocery store beer sales work. People simply are not buying that their towns will turn into lawless hellscapes just because people are allowed to buy a six-pack at the gas station.
Democratic voters aren’t buying that, and privately, I’m sure Democratic lawmakers don’t buy it either. My House representative Brian Sims and my state Senator Larry Farnese must know that our neighborhood in Philadelphia would get excellent specialty wine and liquor stores. They must know that entrepreneurial folks in our area, the kinds of people who have been investing in new restaurants and bars, would love the opportunity to open some nicer stores that host wine tastings and all the rest. It’s simply undeniable that lowering barriers to entry for these small business people would be great for our district, and so many others in our big population centers.
And that is really the problem with this debate. If everyone simply voted their district interests, retail alcohol reform would have passed a long time ago. A coalition of urban Democrats and suburban Republicans have every reason to get this done if they’re putting their district interests first.
Unfortunately our friends in the Pennsylvania Democratic Party are choosing to play a very cynical game rather than negotiating a win for consumers in their districts. They are ignoring the wishes of their voters in favor of coalition maintenance concerns. Party-aligned special interest groups like the UFCW are asking Democrats to support an unpopular position which protects their narrow interests, and Democratic lawmakers are unanimously standing with this small group of rent-seekers over the broad interests of consumers and most Democratic voters.
But in case any of our friends have convinced themselves that their voters and the special interest groups all want the same thing, these survey results should make it clear that is not the case. Registered Democrats were 50% of our survey respondents, and 65% of those respondents want to buy beer, wine, and liquor in grocery stores along with various other private stores. Only 33% support giving the beer distributors exclusive rights to wine and liquor sales, or some of these other half-measures that have been floated by Senator Jim Ferlo and others.
Democratic voters are not impressed with any of these “modernization” plans because they are rightly suspicious of arbitrary economic power. This is core to progressive politics. If we were talking about a natural gas monopoly, every Democrat would immediately recognize the problem with letting a single company sell and regulate the same product. In any other instance, Democrats would be the first to tell you that a big business can’t be trusted to self-regulate. It may be that the unified front among Democratic elected officials and unions, or the fact that the LCB a public monopoly and not a private one, has confused some people about what is happening.
Because the reality is that we cannot trust a public monopoly to be a virtuous self-regulator any more than we can trust a private monopoly. Monopolies with unaccountable power always breed corruption. There is nothing remotely surprising about the ethics complaints we routinely see about PLCB officials accepting personal gifts and favors from alcohol vendors. If the Department of Environmental Protection officials were caught accepting gifts and favors from the natural gas companies they are supposed to be regulating, progressives would be flipping out. This thing stinks, and nothing short of separating the retail business from the regulatory role is going to change that.
This is a very important point, and it’s one of the main reasons why retail alcohol reform deserves Democratic support. The evidence that Pennsylvania is getting any kind of public health and safety benefits from these anti-competitive regulations is extremely weak. Pennsylvania ranks near the top of the list for drunk driving fatalities, binge drinking, and underage drinking. All this inconvenience, and not only do we have nothing to show for it in terms of improved public health outcomes, but we’re actually doing really bad on some of these metrics.
Our regulators are basically out to lunch on the most commonly-abused drug, and there’s even some evidence that they’re actually making things worse on the underage drinking front with their marketing campaigns. Ideally the LCB’s focus would be on cracking down on things like alcohol marketing, not doing it themselves. But until we stop distracting the PLCB with non-governmental duties like centralling planning a statewide retail sector, we’re going to have inadequate regulation of liquor sales and pathetic compliance with our alcohol laws.
posted by JON GEETING | 04:45 PM | Comments
Total Records: 171
Who are We?
The Commonwealth Foundation is Pennsylvania's free-market think tank. The Commonwealth Foundation crafts free-market policies, convinces Pennsylvanians of their benefits, and counters attacks on liberty.