Disserving Pennsylvania: Last call
Democrats call the liquor-reform plan put forth by a Senate Republican on Tuesday a “cruel hoax.” And it is. But so, too, has been each and every “reform” plan proposed by this Legislature.
The latest flaccid measure to end Pennsylvania's Soviet-style state liquor monopoly comes from Sen. Chuck McIlhinney, R-Bucks. His dead-on-arrival plan, while allowing hotels, restaurants and beer distributors to sell liquor and wine, preserves the state store system and the state's wholesale supply system for a loosey-goosey interim.
The House-passed plan that won't go anywhere is one big sop to the equally archaic Soviet beer distribution system, giving beer distributors a perverse favored monopolist status to add wine and liquor sales.
And there's still talk of getting a bill to Gov. Tom Corbett by the June 30 end of the legislative session. God forbid what road kill of a measure that might be.
This cluster-cluck has to stop. Unequivocal legislation must be passed to remove the state from the wholesale and retail liquor business. Equally unambiguous legislation must be passed that would put up for auction licenses to sell beer, wine and liquor in any configuration the auction winners deem fit. Anything less is unacceptable.
And if those in Harrisburg disagree, voters will have a stern message the next time they seek re-election. No one should be spared.
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.
- The revolving door: Washington’s ‘gift’
- U.N. Watch: Another jaded ‘inquiry’
- Expanding Medicaid: Gov.-elect Wolf embraces a false premise
- The regulatory state: EPA picks a fight
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- An NLRB ambush
- Ford City’s solution: Good side to cop cuts
- Obama’s Cuba deal: More appeasement