Given the errors in the Commonwealth Foundation's most recent attack on the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board — the column “The PLCB should not pass go” (Nov. 28 and TribLIVE.com) by Jay D. Ostrich — perhaps the foundation's staff should stick to playing board games.
The 5,000 PLCB employees don't play with fake money. Last year, they generated more than $500 million in profits and taxes for the state. This is real money used to fund programs that impact real Pennsylvanians — public-school students, seniors in nursing homes and our most vulnerable citizens.
The Commonwealth Foundation doesn't understand or care that if the PLCB were dismantled, the revenue loss would result in more deep cuts to vital programs that serve those in need. The foundation also misunderstands how many retailers develop private-label products and fails to point out that customers want what the PLCB offers.
TableLeaf chardonnay is the fifth most popular brand of chardonnay sold because the price is right and the product is good. The “privateers” have cried for decades for greater selection and more competitive pricing, yet when the PLCB delivers just that, they cry foul.
Facts can be annoying, but the privateers should pay attention to them or stick to board games.
Wendell W. Young IV
The writer is president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Pennsylvania Wine and Spirits Council, which includes some 3,000 state store workers who are part of UFCW Local 1776.
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.