Comments on: Is Pennsylvania finally taking aim at the PLCB? wine talk that goes down easy Mon, 05 Oct 2015 23:58:34 +0000 hourly 1 By: Albert Brooks Wed, 08 Jun 2011 22:18:41 +0000 Be careful your strawman doesn’t catch on fire.

Let’s look at the 49 states and ask yourself why does PA do such a piss poor job given all the control they have? Look at the 32 other states that are non control and tell me why most of them have less DUI/DWI then PA? Why PA is only in the middle for underage alcohol related incidents and fatalities? Why PA is in the upper half for binge drinking? What isn’t PA one of the best rated in all those areas. Why do other states with less control do better then PA? If our current system is so great why aren’t we doing better? Oh, and tell me what happened to those 32 other states that went private? Were there riots in the street? Did the arc-angel Wendell Young come down and smite them? Or did people just enjoy the freedoms of not having some unqualified bureaucrat in Harrisburg decide what they could or could not buy?

By: Tim Wed, 08 Jun 2011 20:59:31 +0000 But, wait, when we let the free market handle things themselves, what happens?

deregulate oil? worst oil spill in American history

deregulate mining? Miners trapped in collapsed mines in Virgina

deregulate the mortgage market? world-wide financial collapse

deregulate pennsylvania wine and spirits consumption? who knows?

I’m just saying that leaving things like this to people who only care about bottom lines, and not jobs, families, etc, then we all lose…

By: Albert Brooks Mon, 06 Jun 2011 16:52:01 +0000 First, you advocate breaking the current law to get the best deals from NJ on things that PA doesn’t stock or is overpriced on so private enterprise must be doing something right otherwise you would never have to leave the state. Second, increased consumption is exactly what the PLCB wants to do. Where else does a monopoly have to advertise, have wine kiosks and try to convince the legislature that it needs coupon and loyalty programs? You can’t have it both ways PWF.

By: phillywinefinder Mon, 06 Jun 2011 16:35:08 +0000 The state stores in PA bring money into the state, provide jobs, and provide some great deals on wine through the Chairman’s Selection program. Most of the counter-arguments are really political rants by free market fundamentalists who think privatization is the answer to everything. There is no free-market utopia in wine or anything else.

Here’s some old wine in a new bottle:
“the evidence shows that when alcohol sales are privatized, consumption goes up.”

By: Michael Mon, 06 Jun 2011 03:59:02 +0000 Albert Brooks pretty much says it all.
Pwf has posted the same nonsense on other sites-we should keep the stupid state monopoly just for the Chairman’s Selection(old stock dumping ground), and hey, some folks live near the DE/NJ border so just break the law and spend your money there, and screw the rest of us who live hours from the border.
I’m gonna guess that private stores have all sorts of deals too, not chosen by some ignorant state bureaucrat.
The plcb can not be put out of business fast enough, IMHO.

By: Albert Brooks Thu, 02 Jun 2011 00:47:20 +0000 Even in Forest City there will be Mom & Pop stores that are open 5,6 7 days a week that would be happy to have the business and make it more convenient for the clientele to purchase the basics. Now will they be able to order everything from that store. Maybe, depending on how good the relationship is with the distributors. If not then people will do what they have to do else where…..either travel or mail order. Since Forest City doesn’t stock much to begin with the order part really won’t change.

Second, the PLCB didn’t care enough to change or want to change or even try to change over the last 80 years what makes you think they will do any better in the future. It is a failed experiment that needs to be redone.

Kiosks have to go. They are a failure that is costing the taxpayer money. Don’t even think about saying that they are paid for by the PLCB. Their failure results in increased costs to the consumer via higher prices, and even less “profit” for the state. Not to mention the extra people who have to run, manage, refill and drive there. Why does CEO Conti say they have to do 300 bottle a week to break even if it doesn’t cost them money to run them? Why did Conti say at the beginning that there was no specific number to decide what success was? I have that in writing BTW. Trying to put liquor into the kiosks is a last gasp of a failed program, they are just trying to save their asses because if it fails, as it will, they fail too.

You want to take the bureaucrats out of the picture? Then you have to privatize or else they will still be there.

The PLCB is a bloated bureaucracy that is full of cronyism. Look at CEO Joe or Tony Smith (Harrisburg Special Projects Manager) and his brother in law the district manager. Look at the people in charge of the Chairman’s Wine selection. Jim Short, no wine certifications, Steve Pollack the head buyer – no wine certifications, and the new woman who came out of HR, also with no wine certifications. Not even the lowest level. All they have is seniority but they control what 12 million residents can or can not buy.

The new stores won’t operate in a vacuum they will need people to run and stock them, to order products to deliver inventory. The state is not a jobs program and private enterprise proves time and time again they do things far more efficiently and at lower costs the the government. Add to that after 80 years of their “control” PA doesn’t do better then average on any DUI/DWI incident or fatality rates. Both New York and New Jersey do better across the board.

You want smaller government, start with less government and get the PLCB out of the sales end of things. There are over 400 people in Harrisburg alone. just pushing paper. The 1100 part time workers will most likely be needed in that capacity too, they just won’t be feeding off the taxpayer for benefits and retirement as they do now..

By: Tim Wed, 01 Jun 2011 23:04:03 +0000 While the PLCB certainly needs to be updated, privatization is not the answer in my opinion.

First, store 5801 is located in Forest City, PA. That location is nowhere. Litterally. Only a governement run store could survive in that location. Also, I’ll bet that if you call them up, they will answer the phone politely, “Good [time of day], thank you for calling Pennsylvania Wine and Spirits Forest City. May I help you?”

Second, the PLCB is working within laws that outlined the business 80ish years ago. Things have changed and the PLCB needs to update (like having more than 25% of stores open on Sunday, mandatory markups, the 18% Johnstown Flood Tax, etc).

Third, the Kiosks. A terrible experiment. Yet, during January and February, while the snow was piling up in the Philadelphia area, they did save me a trip around the corner. They didn’t have the great selection I was hoping for, or find in Premium collection stores, but the wines covered me that night. Make some adjustments to these (do I really need a breathalyzer?), and have a rotating stock, and maybe they’ll get somewhere.

Finally, where do the folks who are asking/pushing for privatization think the 4500 or so clerks, managers, buyers, secretaries, and so forth are going to go for paychecks? Some of them really like their jobs and take them seriously. In every store, you’ve got a few go-getters and a few tag-alongs. I’ve had good sucess asking for help when I needed it.

Take some bureaucrats out of the picture and I’ll bet the citizens of Pennsylvania, including myself, will be even happier with their experiences.

By: Albert Brooks Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:53:27 +0000 Richard – If you bothered to look at the link I posted, which is from the PLCB itself, you will see it says “Net Assets Ending” is a negative number. Also if you look you’ll see where income is down over 30% across the two years.

Since taxes collected will increase (based on the last proposal) the “where” is easily answered. 850 stores and wholesalers will still collect sales tax and whatever replaces the Flood tax, PLUS they will pay business tax which the PLCB doesn’t do. PLUS they will need more workers total in stores, in warehouses, drivers etc. PLUS with competitive prices there will be less border bleed. (Border bleed must be a problem or why else do they put those outlet stores near the border and screw the rest of the citizens of the state?) PLUS with more convenience there will be more spur of the moment sales. PLUS the state gets off the hook for billions in civil service retirement since the PLCB does not fully fund that, we the taxpayers do.

Jon- Don’t forget store ops went up 17 Million, admin costs up 16 million and the amount returned to the general fund went down 20 million the biggest percentage drop ever. (until this year when it will drop even more).

Yes, you hear it all the time about why there are so many state workers in Harrisburg and why are so many of them PLCB office workers, kiosk watchers, and political cronies. The state should not be a jobs program. As you said, if the deficit is increasing make the government smaller. Start with getting it out of the liquor business.

By: Jon Wed, 01 Jun 2011 14:59:49 +0000 Don’t forget the difference of cost of goods increased by 44 Million from the same period a year ago. Also, my point was exactly what you said: “The problem for those who want to privatize liquor sales is to explain how the state will make up the loss of these revenues it receives from the LCB.”

I would not want food/clothing to be taxed along w/ sales tax increased! If NJ NY have higher sales tax, that will be the states justification along with we need more $$ But you never hear anyone talk about why PA has so many workers in the Capital. This Privitization does not fix anything with the budget… being this is not a soviet style blog, my comments warrant me as a PLCB Employee by the MOD……how pathetic is that!!
If privitization should take place, IMO, it should be when the economy is more robust and less people unemployed.

By: Richard Miller Wed, 01 Jun 2011 14:39:27 +0000 Assets at the end of 2010 were not negative. The numbers show a decrease in assets. Since inventory is the largest asset category, I assume this reflects a reduction in inventory, not unusual as inventories are adjusted to business conditions Maintaining or increasing sales with less inventory is a sign of good management, doing more with less indicates increased efficiencies. The LCB does not operate “in the hole” or lose money. If one reads the audited financial reports applying standard accounting practices, the LCB is a profitable entity. The LCB returned $80 million of its profits to the General Fund in 2008. Each year it not only turns sales taxes back to the state, but its profits are transferred to the General Fund as well. It has done this every year. It returned more in 2009 and 2010, around $100 million, but will continue to send sizable amounts to the General Fund. The problem for those who want to privatize liquor sales is to explain how the state will make up the loss of these revenues it receives from the LCB.

By: Albert Brooks Tue, 31 May 2011 18:31:30 +0000 Yes, let us look at the actual financial statements.

According to the PLCB itself ( they had $55,604,362 in net assets at the end of FY 2009. At the end of FY 2010 they had net assets of NEGATIVE $8,273,405 while contributing less money to the state. $125M in 2009 and only $105M in 2010. This year they will contribute only $80M and will probably be in the hole again.

This is for a monopoly business where sales have grown. If it isn’t poor management why are they losing money?
Central administrative support went up over 30% in just those 2 years and will go up again. Failed wine kiosks that supposedly cost the state nothing are costing for driver, trucks, supervisors, helpers to stand around and make sure the machines are running. You have a guy that ran a restaurant CEO Joe Conti) in charge of a $1.9B business
who at one time co-sponsored a bill to abolish the PLCB.

Oh, and those “considerable profits”….they had to borrow against themselves to pay the $125M and the $105M over the last years. The surplus fund no longer exists.

So tell me again how well they are being run and lets see some numbers to back it up.

By: Richard Miller Tue, 31 May 2011 17:02:23 +0000 In response to several comments about the financial efficiency of the State run system, I suggest that people read the actual, published financial statements of the PLCB, and not offer comments based on simplistic ideology. Year after year, the financial statements show a system that provides a high rate of return on assets (in the +20% range), a high gross margin (+30% range) and a high operating profit (+7% range). It returns money to the State in the form of collected taxes, but it also transfers its considerable profits to the General Fund year after year. The real test of a well run business is in the financial data. Based on the facts presented in the financial reports, the PLCB is well run as a business. This is not the same as to state that is serves its customers well, but I think it also does that.

By: Albert Brooks Sat, 28 May 2011 22:17:36 +0000 @Jon: Since the PLCB is so poorly run (they will lose money this year) the point about how good their buying power is seems to be moot to me. There is NOTHING in the previous HB2350 about the sales tax going to 9%.

If you care to read it, look here:

Beer does not have the 18% Johnstown flood tax (from what…1936?) on it so looking at it from just sales tax collections beer does contribute more then booze. It seems that your only concern is keeping your job since none of your facts are correct.

By: Jon Sat, 28 May 2011 15:18:18 +0000 As a Pennsylvanian I would not like to see taxes increase due to privitization failing to bring in the funds. Turzai’s bill states sales tax would increase to 9% and a gallonage tax would be put in place. Well there is a gallonage tax on beer and beer out sells wine and liquor by a long shot. But yet, the state stores still bring in more money(taxes included). Also, what will the cost be for a private store owner on purchasing wine/spirits? Will they get the same deal/pricing? My only concern is, in a slow economy and unemployment rising, if $$ is decreasing due to failed studies on privitization, will they increase sales tax & start to tax food & clothing? I buy more food & clothing! If our deficit is increasing then make government smaller!

By: mike Wed, 19 Jan 2011 23:21:12 +0000 How will laying off 4,500 employees and losing a yearly profit of half a billion dollars be a good thing? Maybe for a few of Corbetts political donors and big companies like walmart who want a license.