Published: Tuesday, December 15, 2009
IN OUR VIEW / LIQUOR SALES
Not a proper role for state
If reforming what government does, and how it does it, is to be a serious part of solving the state's ongoing budget woes, we raise our glasses to the idea of getting the state out of the liquor business.
A bipartisan bill already has been filed in Olympia, a month before lawmakers gather for their 2010 session, that would end the state's 75-year-old monopoly on the sale and distribution of hard liquor. A creaky, bloated system that was born out of Prohibition would be scrapped, replaced by the efficiency and innovation of the private sector.
The bill, SB 6204, includes safeguards to ensure state and local governments don't take a revenue hit, and that the state Liquor Control Board would still control where liquor stores are located — not next door to schools, churches and daycare centers, presumably.
On the revenue side, the bill directs the Liquor Control Board and Department of Revenue to recommend liquor tax methods and rates that would generate the same amount of money for state and local governments that would have been expected under the current system.
State markup and taxes account for about 60 percent of the price of a bottle of liquor. (Federal taxes make up another 14 percent.) Higher taxes would make up for some of what the state loses in markup, but so would getting rid of current expenses for running stores and distribution operations. Bring the efficiency of large operators like Costco and major grocery chains into the equation, and the total price of a bottle likely wouldn't be much different than it is now.
The state would reap one-time gains from selling its huge distribution warehouse and other assets, and would shed most of its related operational expenses for good. The Liquor Control Board would remain responsible for licensing, and for policing sales to minors. Current liquor store employees could find jobs in private stores, some of which might take over current state-store locations.
Some opponents of privatizing liquor sales argue that the current system serves an important public safety function, keeping consumption down and limiting minors' access to booze. Evidence from the 32 states with private sales, however, doesn't seem to show privatization leads to more drinking. And if enough money is put toward enforcement, there's little reason to think private sellers would jeopardize their business by willfully selling to minors. (Besides, teens manage get their hands on liquor under the current system, somehow.)
The overall state revenue picture, anemic as it is now, isn't likely to stage a dramatic comeback anytime soon. Lawmakers must let go of services that no longer make sense for the state to provide. Liquor sales and distribution is an easy example.
A bipartisan bill already has been filed in Olympia, a month before lawmakers gather for their 2010 session, that would end the state's 75-year-old monopoly on the sale and distribution of hard liquor. A creaky, bloated system that was born out of Prohibition would be scrapped, replaced by the efficiency and innovation of the private sector.
The bill, SB 6204, includes safeguards to ensure state and local governments don't take a revenue hit, and that the state Liquor Control Board would still control where liquor stores are located — not next door to schools, churches and daycare centers, presumably.
On the revenue side, the bill directs the Liquor Control Board and Department of Revenue to recommend liquor tax methods and rates that would generate the same amount of money for state and local governments that would have been expected under the current system.
State markup and taxes account for about 60 percent of the price of a bottle of liquor. (Federal taxes make up another 14 percent.) Higher taxes would make up for some of what the state loses in markup, but so would getting rid of current expenses for running stores and distribution operations. Bring the efficiency of large operators like Costco and major grocery chains into the equation, and the total price of a bottle likely wouldn't be much different than it is now.
The state would reap one-time gains from selling its huge distribution warehouse and other assets, and would shed most of its related operational expenses for good. The Liquor Control Board would remain responsible for licensing, and for policing sales to minors. Current liquor store employees could find jobs in private stores, some of which might take over current state-store locations.
Some opponents of privatizing liquor sales argue that the current system serves an important public safety function, keeping consumption down and limiting minors' access to booze. Evidence from the 32 states with private sales, however, doesn't seem to show privatization leads to more drinking. And if enough money is put toward enforcement, there's little reason to think private sellers would jeopardize their business by willfully selling to minors. (Besides, teens manage get their hands on liquor under the current system, somehow.)
The overall state revenue picture, anemic as it is now, isn't likely to stage a dramatic comeback anytime soon. Lawmakers must let go of services that no longer make sense for the state to provide. Liquor sales and distribution is an easy example.
Comments
(