Share This Page

Privatization can wait

| Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2012, 8:52 p.m.

I see the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board is under attack again, in the column “The PLCB should not pass go” (Nov. 28 and TribLIVE.com) by Jay D. Ostrich of the Commonwealth Foundation.

Just on an ethical consideration, I don't think the state should be in retail sales, especially where it has a monopoly. Of course, I'm referring to the PLCB. But before we form a “wolf pack” to torpedo the PLCB, let's “up 'scope” and take a look around.

Pennsylvania has a Legislature that's too big, a Turnpike Commission that's too corrupt, a teachers union that's too powerful and too greedy, and two out-of-control public transit authorities that are too poorly managed.

That's five agencies that are an enormous financial drain on the state. We certainly should rally 'round to get those money pits cleaned up before we look too hard at the PLCB, which turns profit money back to the state yearly.

And while we're at it, maybe now would be a propitious time to demand that Penn State account for the money it receives from the state or it should be taken off the handout list. This just seems like a reasonable priority list to me.

Dave Reale

Collier

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.