Liquor 'reform': The big fail
What happens to those in the private sector who can't do their jobs?
What happens to Republicans in the GOP-controlled Pennsylvania Legislature who can't do their jobs?
They make excuses and go on vacation.
The effort to end Pennsylvania's post-Prohibition-era liquor monopoly is said to have died an ignoble death in the General Assembly because of, in part, intense lobbying by unions and “soft” support among Senate Republicans.
None should feign any surprise when public support for their re-election efforts turns equally flaccid.
The failure of the GOP to cut through the overflowing waste that is the Harrisburg septic tank has reached unprecedented levels.
Republicans in bed with organized labor.
Former high-profile GOP muckety-mucks-turned-lobbyists padding their pockets with hypocrisy and labor cash.
Republicans chastising Republicans for not supporting a massive gasoline tax increase (a supposed quid pro quo that informally but actually linked liquor reform with transportation funding reform).
And who knows what other shenanigans are ongoing.
It is the crap of those crapulous with power. And Pennsylvania consumers will continue to pay the price with a Soviet-style liquor system that serves only those intoxicated by their hubris.
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 Arneson firing: Legally dubious
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- U.N. Watch: Climate games
- Jesse White’s chutzpah
- Benchmarking questions: Fueling perversion
- Sunday pops
- A hunting question: A Pennsylvania proposal to limit the game that mentored youth hunters can take appears to be a solution in search of a problem
- Radar searches: Get a warrant
- U.N. Watch: Somalia aid sieve