Editorial: State of antiquity
Share with others:
Pennsylvania has its share of monuments. Independence Hall in Philadelphia. The battlefield at Gettysburg. Soldiers & Sailors in Oakland.
But the system headed by the state Liquor Control Board is a different kind of monument -- one that stands in mock tribute to government monopoly, inefficiency and paternalism. A relic of Prohibition, the state-owned and state-run liquor operation is one of the biggest obstacles to Pennsylvania's joining the pantheon of progressive states.
Newcomers to the state always face the same shock and surprise. You mean private merchants are prohibited from selling wine and spirits? You mean government employees decide what Pennsylvanians buy and drink? You mean stocking up for a party with food, beer and wine requires stops at three different stores?
.........................•
In a state where the law allows private enterprise to sell pistols and prescription drugs, the government maintains that only it is fit to dispense bottles of bourbon and Burgundy. While both Democrats and Republicans protect the lumbering monopoly on behalf of different constituencies, forward-thinking lawmakers would do well to explore the bill introduced Monday by state Sen. Rob Wonderling. It's the latest plan to take the state out of the retail liquor business.
Till then, the state should dust off and tweak its old tourism slogan because "You've got a dinosaur in Pennsylvania." A Post-Gazette series last week by reporter Steve Twedt, "Monopoly Money: The Control of Wine and Spirits in Pennsylvania," revealed the ongoing excesses and shortcomings of government operation of a statewide industry.
• One of the chief selling points of the state store system has been the revenue it makes for government, yet 68 percent of the $482.7 million it sent to the state treasury in 2006-07 came from taxes. Makes you wonder if free enterprise, under the same tax structure, could do as well if not better.
• Despite the government's effort to close money-losing, under-performing or badly located stores, some remain open because they are connected to, or in the district of, politically influential individuals.
• The monopoly claims that because there is one merchant -- the state -- it can achieve efficiencies that elude private business. That's not the case with the state's three-warehouse system that sends all product through Pittsburgh, Scranton or Philadelphia before distribution to retail outlets -- even if it's bottles from Erie County wineries ultimately bound for Erie liquor stores.
• While most states permit the shipping of wines directly to the customer, Pennsylvania allows only in-state wineries to do that. Three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states must put in-state and out-of-state wineries on equal footing for shipping directly to consumers. The Legislature, the chief enabler of the LCB's archaic ways, has yet to pass such a law.
• One of the selling points of a government-run system ostensibly is tougher control on illegal drinking and fewer alcohol-related fatalities. That's a complicated issue, however, and indications are that quality of law enforcement is a bigger factor than any system of control. For instance, Mothers Against Drunk Driving ranks Iowa, where private franchises sell alcohol, as having the nation's 10th lowest percentage of fatalities with a drunken driver. Pennsylvania, with its looking-out-for-the-public monopoly, is ranked 32nd.
In short, the Post-Gazette series is more evidence that the prime beneficiaries of the Liquor Control Board system are not the customers it serves, but special interests that milk the monopoly at public expense.
Why is the need to replace this monument to bureaucracy more obvious to consumers than those who hold the seats of power? Why is government's stranglehold on the liquor trade greater in Pennsylvania than in any other state?
These questions deserve to be answered. When they are, the Legislature and governor may finally agree that this monopoly has no place in the 21st century.
First Published February 6, 2008 12:07 am
