BCT Editorial – 4/24/07

This page was last updated on April 24, 2007.

Tough sell; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 24, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“What’s good for the turnpike should be good for the state stores.”

[RWC] If your first reaction is this sentence makes no sense, trust your instinct.

“State Sen. Rob Wonderling, R-Montgomery County, plans to introduce a bill calling for the privatization of the state-owned liquor stores along with their annual $1.6 billion in wine and spirits sales.

“To a great degree, Wonderling is tilting at wind mills. Efforts to privatize the system went nowhere when the GOP controlled the state House and Senate and a Republican was serving as governor. With Democrats in control of the House, a Democrat in the governor’s mansion and the union representing state store workers opposing the measure, Wonderling’s bill is going nowhere.”

[RWC] Oops, the editorial committed a liberal faux pas by acknowledging opposition by labor union management.

“Even some conservatives don’t support privatization. The Associated Press reports that one reason past efforts to sell off the system failed was because they were opposed by groups that want to limit the availability of alcohol.

“One more thing makes Wonderling’s efforts a tough sell. In recent years, the Liquor Control Board has done a terrific job of making state stores more user friendly.

“Some stores are open on Sunday, credit cards are accepted and store employees are allowed to make recommendations to shoppers.

“In the past, we’ve supported privatization of the state-store system as part of the modernization of the commonwealth’s post-Prohibition liquors laws. (The way beer is sold in Pennsylvania defies logic.)”

[RWC] There’s no question the Commonwealth should get out of the alcohol selling business and should come into the 21^st century regarding the sale of alcohol in the state. I lived in Texas for over 18 years and I can testify the ability to buy alcohol in grocery stores, private liquor stores, et cetera and the lack of state stores didn’t bring about the end of the world.

I love it when editorials talk about “logic.” <g>

“On the other hand, we’re not big fans of selling or leashing [sic] the Pennsylvania Turnpike, as Gov. Ed Rendell has proposed. This is a short-term budget fix that could have long-term implications.

“But if the state is desperate for cash, the state stores should be treated no differently than the turnpike. Both should be on the table or off it.”

[RWC] The editorial was going along OK until the penultimate paragraph.

State stores and the Turnpike are two completely different situations.

In the case of state stores, the Commonwealth never had any business getting into the sale of alcohol. By no stretch of the imagination is the sale of alcohol a government responsibility.

Public roads, on the other hand, definitely are a government responsibility.

Does it make sense to lease the Turnpike to private investors? I suppose that depends on the terms of the lease.

Linking abolishment of the state store system with leasing of the Turnpike defies logic.