ShareThis Page

Trib editorial: A costly tutorial for the PLCB

| Thursday, Dec. 28, 2017, 8:55 p.m.
Trib photo
Trib photo

Chalk it up as a $60,421.50 “great opportunity.” That's what the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board paid legal and financial consultants to guide the state's liquor monopoly through a directive from Gov. Tom Wolf to borrow from the PLCB to help balance the state's budget, according to PennLive. Ultimately that plan was abandoned.

Nevertheless, the PLCB “learned a great deal about financing, debt issuance and the various players and roles in securitization,” according to an agency spokeswoman. Expensive lessons, indeed, when the PLCB paid consultants up to $410 an hour, separate from the staff time that went into exploring the borrowing option.

And why not, when the unrealized $1.25 billion borrowing plan would have negated any further talk of privatizing the state-run booze business for at least 20 years? Instead, the state will borrow that sum against future revenues from the multi-state settlement with the nation's major tobacco companies.

Apart from whatever the state's liquor authority learned from the experience is the more apparent lesson for taxpayers: “This is what happens when you're spending other people's money,” says Matt Brouillette, president and CEO of Commonwealth Partners Chamber of Entrepreneurs.

The Legislature didn't help matters when it passed a $32 billion spending plan in June without the means to fully pay for it.

What's sorely needed is a lesson in the public's displeasure, delivered, we trust, by voters in this year's state elections.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.

click me