Mrs. Gregoire shows signs of entrepreneural spirits:
In her proposed budget, Gov. Chris Gregoire has requested approval for 10 new liquor stores and a change in law to allow the state-owned stores to sell additional products.On the other hand, wouldn't it be an even better idea for state government to get out of the booze business altogether? Yes it would!
But good luck with that:
[Sen. Tim Sheldon's] proposed elimination of the state-owned stores, which he said he expects to file later this week, likely will face a stiff challenge.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 27, 2009 10:06 AM | Email ThisHis previous efforts to privatize a portion of the state-owned stores have failed, in part because of pressure from the state employees union representing store workers.
To be honest, it was the first time I've ever done that. But it felt great.
Christine is simply talking out of both sides of her mouth on this issue. We move backwards, instead of forwards.
Posted by: Jeremy on January 27, 2009 10:13 AM@8 Evangelical conservatives have just as much to do with alcohol regulation as nannystaters.
I say sell off the stores and cover the lost revenue with the increased taxes from more sales.
Posted by: Giffy on January 27, 2009 11:31 AM-- Olympia High Grad '87, not coming back.
Posted by: Rez on January 27, 2009 11:50 AMThis state needs get out of the liquor retailing and distribution business. Levy your tax, the liquor control board monitor the sale and distribution, and get out of the way.
I rarely buy liquor, but when I do it's out of state where it's much cheaper and a better selection.
@9 Well, considering evangelical conservatives have next to zero power in this state to make law, I'll stick with nanny staters.
Posted by: Palouse on January 27, 2009 01:04 PMThe State stores marketing strategy relies on its monopoly. Pricing is based upon popularity. When an item is a hot seller the price is raised until sales volume begins to fall; when an item does not sell, the price is reduced until it does sell or discontinue stocking it.
In a non-monopoly situation, the managers will have difficulty determining what to stock and pricing it to sell at a fair profit. This is a prescription for losses. Ah, but that will be good enough for government work, won't it?
Posted by: Paddy on January 27, 2009 01:07 PM@16, Except that we are talking about small and cheap items that are bought simply out of convenience. Aside from those that buy nice ones people don't really shop around for ice or bottle openers, or even a basic shaker. They buy them when they need them an since they go with liquor selling them near such things seems like a good idea.
Its the same way a grocery store can get away with selling crappy kitchenware at marked up prices.
Posted by: Giffy on January 27, 2009 01:29 PMThat's when the Pam Roach wing of the GOP steps in and flips out. Good luck selling wider liquor availability to the social conservatives.
Yeah, and they have soooo much power and influence here in WA state. Puhlease. The GOP doesn't have enough power to block anything here, let alone privatizing liquor, which would be very popular with pro-business Republicans.
Posted by: Palouse on January 27, 2009 02:06 PMYou mock them but the churches when properly organized can wield a lot of power in this state. Just look at all the whining that went on when they put the atheist plaque up in the Capitol. Now take all that whining and focus it on an issue that's actually controversial and meaningful (like hard liquor being sold at the local AM/PM up the block). They balked at and stopped little Timmy Eyman's gambling initiatives, what's to say they won't balk at revised liquor laws. Who do you think put the stupid liquor laws on the books to begin with?
Personally I'm all for privatizing liquor sales, as well as eliminating the states monopoly on liquor distribution.
And yet, the plaque stayed. Shows how much real influence they really had.
They balked at and stopped little Timmy Eyman's gambling initiatives
Uh, no. The Tribes spent the most money by far on the advertising against that initiative because it threatened their monopoly, and it worked.
eliminating the states monopoly on liquor distribution
I'd love to see it happen too, so let's see where Sheldon's bill goes, and who ends up blocking it. My guess is that it never sees the light of day, because of pro-union Democrats not evangelicals.
Posted by: Palouse on January 27, 2009 04:10 PMCurtis, here is the link I tried to get you this a.m.. Somehow it got lost in cyperspace.
Posted by: swatter on January 27, 2009 04:34 PM