You’d think that 20 years after the demise of the Berlin
Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, government-run stores
would be a thing of the past. But alas, you would be wrong. Ten
states — including, Pennsylvania, Idaho, North Carolina, and New
Hampshire — still run liquor stores and, in fact, monopolize the
retail liquor business within their respective
jurisdictions.
However, according to a front-page above-the-fold
story in Sunday’s Washington Post, at
least one of these 10 retro states, Virginia, is trying to get
out of the liquor store business altogether. Thank you Bob
McDonnell, Virginia’s new governor, who rightly sees the state
run stores as a political and economic anachronism.
Yet, far from being a slam-dunk legislative victory, liquor
store privatization in Virginia is proving to be a political
challenge. Indeed, the Post heralds McDonnell’s
initiative as a test of his leadership and whether he can unite
Democrats and Republicans behind a major public-policy change
that ought to have broad bipartisan support:
The consequences… are potentially enormous and would
amount to one of the most noticeable changes in the
relationship between Virginians and their government in years,
if not decades…
And for McDonnell, who opposes government-run liquor
stores on free-market principles, bringing Democrats and
Republicans together on a major issue would show that he can
deliver on his promises and be the kind of bipartisan leader he
has pledged to be.
The Post then proceeds to catalogue the political and
bureaucratic challenges that make liquor store privatization
difficult to effect. These include, principally, the
Democrat-controlled state senate, which is beholden to the
public-employees unions. The public-employees unions oppose
liquor-store privatization because it will mean fewer government
employees and less state control.
There is a small minority of religious conservatives who
oppose liquor store privatization because, as the Post
reports, they fear it “will lead to a glut of liquor stores and a
rise in drunken driving and other alcohol-related problems.” But
they are a distinct minority of a minority and don’t hold much
sway over the Democrat-controlled state senate.
Most religious conservatives recognize that if the state
wishes to discourage alcohol use, there are far better ways to
achieve this than by monopolizing the liquor business. The
government can, for instance, heavily tax liquor to discourage
its consumption; and it can limit the number of private-sector
stores that can sell alcohol.
(This latter idea, though, is of dubious value. The
Post reports that, according to one GOP state senator:
“Studies show that having more liquor stores does not necessarily
translate into more drunken-driving arrests or alcohol-related
driving fatalities.”)
The Democrats who oppose liquor-store privatization know
this, of course. However, they feign concern for the financial
effects of divestiture. They say they are worried that the state
will not recoup the $220 million in taxes and profits yielded by
the state-run liquor stores.
But if that’s true, and if the government wishes to raise
more tax revenue from alcohol, then there are two things it can
do short of monopolizing the liquor business: It can increase the
tax levy on alcohol, and it can allow more stores to sell
alcohol.
The Post reports that, under McDonnell’s
forthcoming proposal, “as many as 800 companies” would be
licensed to sell alcohol, meaning distilled spirits as opposed to
just beer and wine. But more than 3,000 companies already sell
beer and wine. Moreover, by divesting itself of its state-run
liquor stores, Virginia stands to make a one-time bonanza of
hundreds of millions of dollars.
There are certain things that the government does well; and
running commercial enterprises that cater to consumers isn’t one
of them. A government monopoly, in fact, yields a substandard
product and substandard service. Private-sector competition and
ingenuity, by contrast, yield creativity, innovation and superior
service. For these reasons, it’s high time Virginia and America’s
nine other retro states ended their addiction to alcohol.
Pete2| 7.19.10 @ 11:41AM
I live in a state that runs the liquor stores pretty much, though they have vendered retailing out to private companies.Just what is the problem if a state wishes to maintain control over liquor sales through state owned/run outlets? That's a state's right to do so. If you don't like it, then lobby your own state about it and leave the others alone.