The 9th circuit court of appeals recently decided against Costco in its case against the Washington State Liquor Control Board.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the Washington State Liquor Control Board could prohibit discounts, ban central warehousing of beer and wine by retailers, require wholesale distributors to charge uniform prices to all retailers and require a 10 percent markup.
That the 9th circuit would find in favor of the state against the free market is hardly suprising. What I is surprising is that businesses in our state have to take such a fight to court. It should be our elected officials fighting against such an injustice. Our government is supposed to protect its citizens rights not control them. In a free society a government is supposed to stand back and let free markets felourish not attempt to control them. Why do we still have a state department that is a remnant of the prohibition era? And most importantly, why do we not hear from one single politician from either party calls to abolish these state monopolies?
On the GOP side we have silence from leaders like Dino Rossi who should be looking for ways of differentiating himself from Gregoire. But worse than Rossi we have other GOP leaders praising the decision!
"We are pleased with the 9th Circuit's decision to uphold most of Washington's liquor control laws, the decision means the Legislature will continue to make any necessary policy changes to the distribution of beer and wine in our state." - Attorney General Rob McKenna said. "
Where is our state equivalent of Ron Paul? We need a state politician that holds a fire to the State GOP reminding what it means to be in favor of small government. Are Republicans in this state really content with Rossi's message that lacks any proposals to elliminate even one state department or agency? Are Republicans really happy with state monopolies so long as they are the ones in charge of them? Wouldn't you rather we be a state with less agencies, less regulations, and less Control Boards controlling us and our 'free markets'?
Rob McKenna's primary job is to uphold and defend the legal laws of this state. This is, no matter how much you dislike it, a legal law of this state. Whether he personally agrees with the law is absolutely irrelevant to his job in the matter. If the law were illegal, that would be one thing, but it's not.
I agree with you that it is a bad law. But it's the law, and McKenna's job is to uphold and defend it, and I am glad that he takes his job seriously, even if I disagree with the particular law.
Posted by: pudge on February 4, 2008 08:49 AMIt is understood that he has to defend it. It is not understood why he would be pleased with the results.
If I were in his situation I would have responded along the lines of, "Unfortunately we won and the state can continue its practice of heavy handed regulation. Hopefully the legislature will correct this so I will not have to defend such ugly legislation in the future."
It isn't? If my job is to uphold the law, to defend the integrity and sovereignty of the laws of the state of Washington, I would be happy with the result. Because whether you like this law or not, it would be FAR worse to have a result from the court that ignores the law.
If I were in his situation ...
No offense, but I am thankful you are not. :-)
"Unfortunately we won and the state can continue its practice of heavy handed regulation. Hopefully the legislature will correct this so I will not have to defend such ugly legislation in the future."
Frankly, I would consider such a statement an abuse of his position. I don't want him to tell me what he personally thinks the law should be; that is for the legislature and governor. Only when the law in question directly influences his job to do the work of the people should he voice an opinion on it.
And actually, this is part of why I am angry with him: he helped push through a reporter shield law, which is an absolutely TERRIBLE bit of legislation, and I think he should have stayed out of it. His only vested interest as AG in this matter is being able to effectively prosecute crimes, and the shield law HURTS that interest.
Posted by: pudge on February 4, 2008 04:02 PMAre you glad to see him 'pleased with the results'?
But anyways... lets not focus on McKenna. Are you happy with GOP leaderships lack of leadership in regards to reducing government at the state level?
Posted by: Lysander on February 4, 2008 06:01 PMYes, I think so. If he wants to be elected legislator or governor, fine. Otherwise, I want him to stick to his job.
Are you glad to see him 'pleased with the results'?
Yes, I am, because his job is to GET those results.
Are you happy with GOP leaderships lack of leadership in regards to reducing government at the state level?
The Republicans have no real power at the state level, so I am not sure what you are referring to.
Posted by: pudge on February 4, 2008 06:55 PMOr like Dino Rossi or John Carlson and other future and past GOP candidates for governor.
Or any legislature that wants to get a following and become a leader.
We will not retake the legislature or governor office by offering to run the bloated government slightly more effiecently, we will get it back by showing concretely that we will reduce taxes and grow the economy by getting government out of their lives. There is little to no support for the Liquor control board meaning there is little to no reason NOT TO support its ban.
Instead we have silence or praise that it will continue to control us and our not so free markets.
In other words pudge, I think you are being far to easy on our elected officials. Do not make excuses for them or they will continue to ask for you to overlook their shortcomings. Demand something better or you will never get it.
Posted by: Lysander on February 4, 2008 07:07 PMAh. Well, they have been going after the Dems on spending. Let's hope they not only continue, but step up the pressure. I was disappointed in 2006 on this very point. I've seen some improvement since, but I want to see more.
There is little to no support for the Liquor control board meaning there is little to no reason NOT TO support its ban.
I don't know much about the politics of it. I don't drink myself, and this isn't an issue on my radar at all. So I'll have to take your word on that, for the sake of argument.
In other words pudge, I think you are being far to easy on our elected officials. Do not make excuses for them ...
Well, again, there's a difference between Luke Esser and Rob McKenna. I do expect Esser to be on top of issues like this. Although, I can see where he might be concerned with far more significant issues than the Liquor Board. The question isn't, to me, whether he is on top of this specific issue; if he is out hammering away on the 33% budget increase, then I don't mind if he's not spending time on the Liquor Board.
Demand something better or you will never get it.
Yes, which is why I supported a change in the GOP leadership last time around, and my support for Esser continuing in this role will hinge on how much he does on this front this year.
And NO, I'm NOT happy with how our Republican Reps are handling this. There are beckons of hope. Jim McCune is a great conservative in the 2nd. He just needs some help. We need more R's in our Leg.
Posted by: Chris Case on February 4, 2008 08:56 PM