Amendment on liquor sales has big flaws

A proposal aimed at privatizing the sale of wine and spirits in Pennsylvania recently advanced in Harrisburg as the House Liquor Control Board voted 14-10 along party lines to bring the measure before the full House.

During discussions prior to the vote, state Rep. Natalie Mihalek, R-Allegheny, attempted to address concerns other lawmakers expressed about the measure. Her assurances were less than persuasive.

To begin with, we must make clear that we have no objections to the idea of getting Pennsylvania’s government out of the system of selling wine and spirits. It makes sense to question why the state should be involved in a business that can be run quite well by private enterprise. That’s clearly the case with liquor stores, which are owned and operated by private entities in most of the country. The issue has been debated in Pennsylvania for decades, yet state stores still dominate the market.

The problem with Mihalek’s legislation is that it seeks to change the system by enacting a simply worded constitutional amendment: “The Commonwealth shall not manufacture or sell, at wholesale or retail, liquor.” It would take effect 18 months after voter approval.

Mihalek was peppered with questions about the wisdom of seeking to change the state’s policy on alcohol sales without offering any details on exactly how it would be accomplished.

She acknowledged that it would be very difficult to develop a new set of policies in the 18 months allowed under the proposed amendment, but she and fellow Republicans basically argued that after years of inaction on the issue, the measure being considered would force lawmakers to address it.

“If the voters decide that they want to get rid of this archaic system, then we’re going to do the job that we were elected to do, which is come back and hammer out those details,” she said.

If polls are any guide, Pennsylvania voters are likely to support a ballot question that simply asks them if the state should get out of the liquor business. But it’s wrong to force a change in that policy without knowing what sort of system is being contemplated to replace the current network of stores run by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. Decision-makers need to know the impact of such a plan on state revenue, and what protections will be put in place to ensure communities are not overrun with purveyors of alcoholic beverages.

And if the current state stores are to be sold to private entities, as has been contemplated in the past, decisionmakers need to know how the proceeds from the sale will be used and what will happen to the workers now employed by the PLCB. There are also issues with the cost of breaking leases for liquor stores that may cease to exist.

This is a big deal. The PLCB recorded $2.3 billion in sales in the last fiscal year and generated a profit of $265 million. The system operates about 600 stores, where it provides about 5,800 jobs in addition to 850 administrative jobs.

With so much at stake, it’s irresponsible to make a decision first and work out the details later.

Another concern is the trend of Republicans in Harrisburg using the constitutional amendment process to push through policy proposals that Gov. Tom Wolf won’t support. Constitutional amendments are enacted by legislative action and public referendum. The governor has no veto power. Republicans’ success in using that tactic to limit the governor’s power to respond to emergencies has emboldened them to try it in other areas. We believe constitutional amendments should be deployed sparingly, not used repeatedly to get the upper hand in policy disputes.

It would be far better for those who favor privatization of liquor sales to do so by putting together comprehensive legislation on the subject, campaigning on it this fall and enacting it if voters in November give them the power to do so.

We understand the temptation to use any means available to get around frustrating government gridlock, but putting an incomplete proposal before voters is not the path to developing an effective policy.