LCB privatization bad
I am writing to oppose the bill to privatize Pennsylvania's state store system. This bill moved far too quickly through the legislative process with too little vetting and is the wrong approach for the commonwealth to take.
The state store system, operating more than 600 stores since the 1930s, is well run and provides the state with an unending stream of revenue. This proposal would sell off those stores and our state would recoup only about $800 million.
A one-time cash infusion in place of a steady income source is a bad long-term decision. We don't need to sell our stores, especially if the money gained can be used only once. This plan offers no permanent solutions.
The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board last year contributed more than $500 million in taxes and profits and those profits continue to grow. What happens once the money raised from the store sales to private owners runs out?
Advocates argue the change will encourage competitive liquor pricing, but that has not been proven. In fact, a 2008 study by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review found liquor purchased in neighboring states was actually marginally more expensive than liquor sold in Pennsylvania. Customer convenience could also be adversely affected if stores in rural areas are forced to close.
I'm asking my fellow legislators to reject this measure. It's a shortsighted plan with the potential to do more harm than good.
Pennsylvania consumers deserve better.
State Sen. Daylin Leach
The writer, a Democrat, represents the 17th senatorial district in Montgomery County.
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.
- Blame misdirected
- Duty to disclose
- Scapegoating easy; solutions not
- Voters capable
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Incomprehensible? That’s Obama
- Steel at stake, too
- Don’t blame bus drivers I
- Progress not reflected