Beer distributor's view
Beer distributor's view
I find the Trib's stance favoring liquor-sales privatization ignorant of details. Maybe the state should not be in the liquor business, but the details of our ignorant governor's plan only show how beholden he is to political donors.
“D”-license beer distributors, of which there are about 1,200, would have to pay $150,000 for the privilege of selling wine and spirits. Yet the big-box stores, large grocery chains and large pharmacies would pay a pittance to obtain those licenses (including beer). Where is the equity?
We have been hobbled by Liquor Control Board regulations since Prohibition ended. Now, all of a sudden, Gov. Corbett sees fit to gut regulation in the name of children and convenience. Cut me a break! So, before the Trib again pushes privatization of the liquor stores, look at the whole deal and the fine print.
Does the sale of casino gambling licenses ring a bell? The state sold the licenses for $50 million, vs. the $300 million to $400 million that was estimated by outside sources.
Wake up, Trib. The proof of this bad deal is in the fine print. Corbett is a master of obfuscation under the guise of “liquor privatization.” If all else fails, it is for the children and convenience. “Payback” sounds better.
The writer owns Bargain Beer N Pop in Johnstown.
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.
- Voters capable
- Blame misdirected
- Progress not reflected
- Scapegoating easy; solutions not
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Duty to disclose
- No ground troops