GOP backs liquor privatization
Although the recent Brad Bumsted column “Liquor privatization might get a shot” may have given readers a contrary impression, the facts demonstrate that the Senate Republican Caucus has been a strong force in advancing the issue of privatizing the sale of wine and liquor in Pennsylvania.
Many Pennsylvanians feel that such a change is long overdue. House Bill 790, which House Majority Leader Mike Turzai introduced last year, was approved by the House on March 21.
After conducting multiple public hearings on the issue, the Senate Law & Justice Committee advanced the bill on June 24. The committee amended the bill to add provisions addressing the distribution and sale of beer in our state — an issue the original bill did not address. An additional amendment was added on the floor of the Senate on June 28 with virtually unanimous support from Senate Republicans.
House Bill 790 remains poised for further action, and there are ongoing discussions with the House and the governor's office about making significant improvements to how alcohol is sold in Pennsylvania. I hope to reach agreement on these issues so that a bill can be sent to the governor's desk early this year.
The writer, a Republican, is the state Senate majority leader from Delaware 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.
- On right track
- Not ‘too stupid’
- Quarantine quandary
- Back to ‘Mad Men’?
- EPA impoverishing seniors
- ‘Change’ promise kept
- Climate, guilt & the left
- Double standard? II
- Thanks, Vikings!
- Ford City police