The circus that was June 4's liquor privatization hearing in Harrisburg should not surprise Pennsylvanians accustomed to being governed by clowns.
I have no need to rehash the economics of privatization and benefits of the free market; the underfunded pensions of Liquor Control Board employees alone mean that taxpaying teetotalers are subsidizing my bourbon purchases (thank you, by the way).
What takes the prize isn't state Sen. Jim Ferlo's incivility at the hearing. Rather, it is his belief that the primary purpose of the LCB is to provide “family-sustaining jobs,” which is political-speak for jobs that require government subsidy because they are priced way above market.
Doubt this? Name all the retail companies that offer defined-benefit pensions to their employees. The answer, as you may have guessed, is zero, because they'd have exactly zero chance of not going belly-up.
The Soviet Union was a great experiment in setting “family-sustaining” wages for all its workers, disconnected from any market pricing. My question for Ferlo's parasitic model: If his system works so well, why doesn't he propose legislation requiring such “family-sustaining” wages (and pensions) for all Pennsylvanians?
If it's good for Wendell Young IV's state-store union geese, it should be good for all us ganders, too.
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.