1. "To me, this isn't a core function of government."

Yah, you and several thousand other people. But perhaps none of them in your party, Sen. Tom.

Posted by Michele at February 6, 2010 07:13 PM

2. I really am surprised that in a year when the budget shortfall is large, and potentially growing absent some serious cuts to programs, that more attention is not being paid to this proposal.

How many liquor stores does the state currently run, and if the workers there were no longer on the state payroll, how much money would that save over the next biennium?

Posted by Mark at February 6, 2010 11:50 PM

3. Control and Confiscation are two of the Dimocrat Party's standard operating principles. Free enterprise is not. There will be a prolonged cold spell in hell before Washington's one-party government relinquishes its Liquor Store cash cow.

Posted by Saltherring at February 7, 2010 08:07 AM

4. I wouldn't be surprised if WA managed to *lose* money operating those liquor stores. This is government we're talking about, after all. Anyone know?

"Privatization" doesn't seem like the right word to use here. It's ridiculous for the state government to be operating liquor stores.

Posted by jvon at February 7, 2010 08:22 AM

5. I think we should have an experiment. Keep the state-run stores open and let private liquor stores open up and operate as they see fit. Then at the end of the first year, compare the #s (just be sure to include all costs).

The comparison should be done on a scorecard that included operation costs, # skus in stock, profit, customer satisfaction and total tax revenue generated.

If the private companies score higher, then the state liquor control would be dismantled.

Posted by ducttape2 at February 7, 2010 08:25 AM

6. It is well known that it is not Government's place to be in any Commercial Activity much less, than to have a monopoly in a particular activity. They should never be in competition with the Private Sector at any level...PERIOD! For WA to be in the business plus, having a monopoly of the retail sales of Liquor is an Unconstitutional...FARCE!

Posted by Daniel at February 7, 2010 09:11 AM

7. I've been hard at work here trying to come up with a word to describe this proposal. "Privatization" just doesn't seem right to me. I considered "desocialization", but that doesn't seem right either. "Denationalization" is a bit too dramatic (particularly since it's a state-level problem, not a national one). But I think I've got it: "declown".

We must declown our liquor industry by removing state control and ownership.

Posted by jvon at February 7, 2010 09:15 AM

8. Just do it East coast style. If I want to open a liquor store, I apply for a taxed liquor store license, and there is a comparable tax on each bottle. That's how it's done in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and it's worked fine for 100+ years.

In my native Connecticut you'll find a "packie" or package store every other neighborhood. Typically small outfits, mom & pop's, and every other town has a liquor supermarket. Some of them put our WA state stores to shame. Imagine a literal supermarket of booze.

And yes, booze should be taxed.

Posted by Joe Szilagyi at February 7, 2010 09:46 AM

9. Don't expect the reds to privatize any part of their state empire. They will continue to march in lock-step with the public employee unions and trial lawyers (even if it leads them off from a cliff). Their unstated direct or indirect goal is the destruction of the private sector economy regardless of the long term cost to society.

Posted by Attila at February 7, 2010 10:47 AM

10. Actually I think we should ban all sale of demon liquor. Too many wrecked families!

Posted by Crusader at February 7, 2010 11:46 AM

11. In other states where this has been tried (pulling the cork on state ownership) it has been nothing but an unmitigated success. More selection for citizens, better service and tax revenue didn't die like the detractors said it would. But the big benefit is that the tax payers are relived of the golden retirement, second-to-none health benefits and 30% pay premium that government workers require. Getting the retirement benefits off state books is the real long term savings that if not addressed now will have to be sooner of later.

Which kind of brings another thought. State governments will not be able to afford the golden retirement benefits they have signed on for. Like Social Security and Medicare they will have to cut back benefits or raise taxes to afford what they have promised. California is a real good case in point. Unionized state employee benefits and retirement are set to swamp the California budget. The only outcome is for the states to cut back promised benefits thay can't pay. Having said that, I would think that government workers would try and get control of their retirement packages. It's either privatize their benefits or get less down the road. When that "down the road" comes is the big question and it could be soon. Tax payers will only suffer so much before they start to vacate high tax states like they have California and New York.

Having said THAT. Remember, on a per capita basis, Washington's budget is in worse shape than California. The time of population out-migration to low tax states for Washington is only a matter of time as they raise taxes.

Posted by G Jiggy at February 7, 2010 12:36 PM

12. Yes by all means tax the hell out of it after privatizing the stores. That's how it's done where I come from -- New York. When NY has more sensible ideas about how to run their government than you do, it's time to make adjustments.

Posted by jvon at February 7, 2010 03:09 PM

13. The opponents have no arguments? You've obviously missed the Cassandra warnings by the director of the Liquor Control Board, a Mr. Rick Garza, that drunken teenagers will be careening over the landscape if the state gets out of the retail liquor business. It's about public safety, Shark. About THE KIDS, for heaven's sake!

Posted by ram at February 7, 2010 06:08 PM

14. ram -- Cassandra's curse was that her prophecies were correct, but nobody believed her. The supporters of the state liquor monopoly are anti-Cassandras -- their warnings are, as Rodney Tom is quoted in the linked article, "baloney". Unfortunately, some people believe them.

There's no serious evidence that shows that states with open liquor licensing have any more underage drinking or any more alcohol-related public safety and health problems than states with liquor monopolies.

And in Washington's case, I've yet to see the monopoly supporters produce a single shred of evidence which shows that our liquor monopoly has produced a lower incidence of alcohol-related public health and safety problems than your average open licensing state.

The reality is that Washington's per capita liquor consumption has been at or above the national average for decades. Most open licensing states have less underage drinking than we do. Even California, with its "liquor store on every corner", consumes less hard liquor per capita than we do and has less underage drinking.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 7, 2010 07:46 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?