ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

End monopoly, period

| Thursday, Jan. 16, 2014, 8:55 p.m.

Brad Bumsted's news story “State leaders negotiating on possible new liquor privatization plan” is great news for Pennsylvanians. Privatization opponents like the United Food and Commercial Workers — a government union funded by forced dues — will claim the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board only needs “modernization.” But the truth is that the system is broken beyond what difference a few tweaks will make.

The state liquor store system is a relic of the Prohibition era and has outlived its usefulness. It has proven inefficient, ineffective and irresponsible. From producing its own wine to compete with private wineries to blowing $66 million on a failed “state of the art” inventory system or implementing a disastrous wine kiosk program, the PLCB is no stranger to bad decisions or poor service.

Merely expanding store hours or allowing direct shipment of wine will not fix its fundamental problems. Full privatization of both retail and wholesale wine and spirit sales is the only solution.

Privatization will give both residents and entrepreneurs the choice and convenience they desire, create thousands of new jobs and bring an influx of new revenue, which could be used to ease the budget burdens facing Pennsylvania. But the UFCW — which spent $1 million of its members' dues on political ads against privatization last spring — stands in the way.

Despite the opposition, it's encouraging to see lawmakers acknowledging the need to reform the PLCB. Maybe Pennsylvanians will finally get what they desire: an end to the state liquor monopoly.

Bob Dick

Harrisburg

The writer is a policy analyst with the Commonwealth Foundation (commonwealthfoundation.org).

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.

click me