The Tribune-Review consistently relies on the Commonwealth Foundation as a go-to source for analysis of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, but the foundation's latest look at the agency, as reflected in the editorial “More LCB propaganda: Kill the monopoly” (Aug. 8 and TribLIVE.com), makes it clear that its analysts know nothing at all about business.
The Trib and the foundation — whose supporters are among the very special interests pushing to dismantle the LCB — chide the agency for showing “negative $9.8 million in assets” at the end of fiscal year 2011-12.
The LCB's shareholders are Pennsylvania taxpayers — not the secret corporate donors the foundation represents. Negative assets shown on the books do not reflect the agency's performance. Had the Trib and the Commonwealth Foundation bothered to look at last year's balance sheet, they would have understood that the negative assets were part of a loan that was booked as a liability and fully repaid.
Had they paid attention to repeated testimony in recent months and years before the House and Senate Appropriations committees — all verified by the governor's own comptroller and the independently elected state auditor general — they would know the facts versus their own “propaganda.”
Wendell W. Young IV
The writer is chairman of the United Food and Commercial Workers Pennsylvania Wine and Spirits Council and president of UFCW Local 1776, which includes 3,000 state store workers.
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.
- Majority defied
- Missile defense, not talks
- ... Or free-riding fad?
- Positive & healthy ...
- More answers, please
- Russia, not Rice
- Sticker shock
- Thanks for the coverage
- Goodell’s ‘pick-six’
- Ferguson & contradictions
- Blame judges