The business of drink: Not a state function
Published: Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2013, 2:54 p.m.
Pennsylvania has no business being in the business of selling beer, wine and spirits. Period.
Post-Prohibition-era rules and regulations, government-designed for the public's “safety” and “security,” are broken artifacts of another age. They never served consumers or common sense but did serve a variety of special interests that have profited quite handsomely over the decades.
Gov. Tom Corbett formally announced his plan on Wednesday to get the state out of the business of drink. Hear! Hear! Bravo! It's about time! (Insert your superlative here!)
But the governor faces opposition. And it's not just from Democrats ready to do anything to preserve the rapidly waning power of the organized labor cartel. Mr. Corbett's fellow Republicans, who control both houses of the General Assembly, are rushing to the front of what easily could become an internecine war.
The GOP's Forces of Farce Preservation would like to either “modernize” the existing statist system — brings to mind the old Wendy's Soviet fashion show commercial — or nibble at the edges by allowing beer and wine sales in grocery stores (gee, thank you, “beneficent” overlords) but leave the sale of distilled spirits to the purview of the state (never mind, “beneficent” overlords).
Gov. Corbett has taken his lumps on a variety of issues and with good reason. But he's spot-on when it comes to beer, wine and liquor divestiture. And it's Republican House and Senate members who deserve voter lumps should they sabotage real progress.
Show commenting policy
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 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.
- Nelson Mandela: The real legacy
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- PSERS time bomb: Tick, tick, tick, tick ...
- Accord in Geneva: Smelly side deals, too
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- The IRS scandal: FBI games