Road to liquor privatization: Cheers!
A pro-privatization Liquor Control Board majority can't get Pennsylvania out of the wine and spirits business by itself, but it can — it must — renew momentum toward Gov. Tom Corbett accomplishing that goal.
The Senate must swiftly confirm Philadelphia lawyer Kenneth Trujillo, Mr. Corbett's nominee to replace privatization opponent Patrick Stapleton on the LCB. Along with Corbett appointee Joseph E. “Skip” Brion, the LCB's chairman, Mr. Trujillo will form a pro-privatization majority on the three-member board.
Getting the state out of a business it has no business being in still is up to lawmakers. A spokesman says House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, R-Bradford Woods — whose privatization legislation has yet to pass despite GOP control of the Legislature — hopes the revamped LCB “will no longer act as a block ... .”
Pennsylvanians surely hope so, too.
However, the new LCB can benefit the public directly by eliminating its CEO position, which pays $156,700 a year. Proving that job's lack of necessity, it was vacant for two decades before 2007, when Democrat Gov. Ed Rendell's appointment of Joe Conti as CEO in a political power play led the LCB's then-chairman to quit.
By eliminating its CEO post, the new LCB would send lawmakers a clear pro-privatization message and encourage long-suffering Pennsylvanians to press them to end the state's archaic monopoly.
Kenneth Trujillo can't be confirmed soon enough.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.