Democrats should back privatization

By Jon Geeting

All too often, political leaders get so wrapped up with special interests that they lose touch with their voters and the very principles they claim to stand for. Exhibit A: Pennsylvania Democrats and liquor privatization.

As a longtime progressive activist, I assure you that allowing people to buy beer, wine, and liquor at grocery stores is not only compatible with liberal economic views, it is also the desire of a majority of Keystone State Democratic voters - 54 percent of them, in fact. That's according to a recent poll commissioned by the conservative Commonwealth Foundation and the liberal website for which I write, Keystone Politics.

Everyday Democrats simply don't buy what the fear-mongers are selling: the notion that their hometowns will turn into lawless hell-scapes if liquor sales are privatized. And, privately, I'm sure Democratic lawmakers don't either.

Rep. Brian Sims (D., Phila.) and State Sen. Larry Farnese (D., Phila.), my hometown legislators, certainly know that many Philadelphia neighborhoods would gain excellent specialty wine-and-liquor stores with privatization. Investors in new restaurants and bars would love the parallel opportunity to open high-class establishments hosting wine tastings and the like. It's simply undeniable that lowering barriers to entry for these small-business people would be a boon to our district and other large population centers.

In fact, the new survey shows, if all legislators simply voted their districts' interests, a coalition of urban Democrats and suburban Republicans would have enacted retail alcohol reform a long time ago.

Unfortunately, our Democratic representatives are choosing to play a cynical game of pleasing special interests rather than negotiating a win for consumers. Lawmakers are unanimously standing with a small group of party-affiliated rent-seekers, specifically the United Food and Commercial Workers, and protecting union jobs at their constituents' expense.

I might add that Democratic voters are also not impressed with any of the "modernization" plans, such as giving beer distributors exclusive rights to wine and liquor sales, that have been floated by Sen. Jim Ferlo (D., Allegheny) and others. Only 33 percent of total respondents in the Commonwealth Foundation/Keystone Politics poll - half of whom were Democrats - support such half-measures.

The reason? Pennsylvanians are rightly suspicious of arbitrary power - which happens to be a core principle of progressive and libertarian politics. If we were talking about a natural-gas monopoly, every Democrat would immediately recognize the problem with letting a single entity - such as the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board - sell and regulate the same product.

Voters shouldn't be misled: We can't trust a public monopoly like the LCB to be a virtuous self-regulator any more than a private one. Monopolies with unaccountable power always breed corruption. Nothing short of separating the LCB's retail and regulatory roles will change that.

Moreover, there is little evidence that Pennsylvania is gaining any public health and safety benefits as we bear the inconvenience of these anticompetitive regulations. To the contrary: LCB marketing campaigns may be one reason the commonwealth lands near the top of state rankings for binge and underage drinking, not to mention drunken-driving fatalities.

Until we stop pulling the LCB in two opposite directions - mandating brisk alcohol sales while restricting access for alcohol abusers - Pennsylvania will suffer from a pathetic safety record and a frustrating shopping experience: In short, the worst of both worlds.

The results of the current policy? Major inconvenience. A massive conflict of interest. A public health menace. And worst of all, a sellout of Democrats' interests and core party principles. When it comes to their leaders' positions on liquor privatization, Pennsylvania Democratic voters should demand better.