ABC Stores' approach: Don't come in here, you lush
Published January 12, 2014
by Rob Christensen, News and Observer, January 11, 2014.
When he was preparing to run for governor, Pat McCrory called North Carolina’s government-run liquor stores part of Raleigh’s “culture of corruption” and said the state needed to privatize its liquor assets.
He argued that then-Gov. Bev Perdue, a Democrat, and the state legislature should get North Carolina out of the liquor business entirely, by transferring the sale of liquor to the private sector.
Perdue seriously considered privatization in 2011. But she couldn’t pull the trigger, saying she didn’t want to go into her Harris Teeter and see bottles of gin and vodka on the shelves. (I am not sure how this differs from seeing bottles of beer or wine on the shelves, but whatever.)
Perdue estimated that privatization could bring the state $1 billion.
When McCrory mentioned the “cronyism” of the Alcoholic Beverage Control system, he was talking about a series of controversies including a lavish dinner for local ABC board members in Charlotte paid for by a liquor company and large salaries for top ABC administrators in Wilmington.
But really the ABC system is more about the culture of Prohibitionism and Baptists.
Bible Belt attitude
The whole system, created in 1937, is based on conflicted ideas. Do the 418 ABC stores sell liquor, or do they control it? They are not quite sure. And it reflects the state’s Bible Belt attitude toward booze.
The state’s ABC stores have a bare bones ambience that all but shouts: “Don’t come in here, you lush!” The selection is pitiful. The prices are high. The clerks unhelpful. Sales? Forget about it.
At one time the Wake County ABC stores had unlisted telephone numbers. When I asked the then-head of the Wake ABC system about it, he replied that he didn’t want his clerks disturbed.
Can you imagine a Hudson Belk department store operating that way?
There are three ABC stores in the town of Cary, a town of 145,693, which means there is one store per 48,564 people. There are, by comparison, 10 Starbucks in Cary. Thank goodness the state of North Carolina is not worried about us being over-caffeinated.
Like Gov. Gifford Pinchot said in setting up a similar system in Pennsylvania back in the 1930s, it is a system designed to “discourage the purchase of alcoholic beverages by making it as inconvenient and as expensive as possible.”
Punitive tax system
Our scarletletter system of selling booze is also part of a punitive tax system. While our legislators worry all the time about whether our millionaires pay more taxes than the millionaires in Virginia or South Carolina, we tax the heck out of the working Joe who buys a drink. After all, shouldn’t he be putting that money in the collection plate?
So North Carolina’s excise tax rate for spirits is the fifth-highest in the nation and more than double what it is in South Carolina, triple what it is in Tennessee and quadruple what it is in Georgia. The excise tax on beer in North Carolina is the ninth-highest in the nation and is more than double what it is in Virginia.
It seems that social conservatives think it’s OK to use state tax policy for social engineering after all.
But libertarian conservatives are troubled by the state control of booze.
Last year, the the N.C. Institute for Constitutional Law, a Raleigh-based conservative think tank, issued a report questioning whether the current system might violate the state constitution’s ban on monopolies.
“To tolerate a government-sanctioned monopoly by any entity, including the state itself,” said the report, “is ‘contrary to the genius of a free state,’ according to the common sense of our Constitution.”
January 12, 2014 at 6:50 pm
Norm Kelly says:
'libertarian conservatives are troubled by the state control of booze'.
I've recently come to the conclusion that I am not a conservative. Rather I am a libertarian. It was John Stossel that showed me the difference and proved that I am actually a libertarian. Some would welcome me to the party, just late, I guess. But I'm here and see no reason to leave.
That said, the state having control of liquor does not concern me in the least. Even if the stores were privatized, the state would continue to have control of the sales. As it should be. The difference is whether the state OWNS the business that does the selling. The difference is whether the employee in the store is a state/county employee or an employee of a private business.
Having the state or any government own & operate the stores where liquor is sold is a monumentally stupid idea. Whether it brings in an immediate billion dollars to the state is not the issue. The government, at any level, is the absolute worst proprietor of business that could ever be. For proof, look at the 'efficient' and 'cost effective' way that county ABC boards are run throughout the state. If any private business were run this poorly, the business would soon be out of business. But since this is all government, there is no one responsible, there is no one who will be terminated for making wholly stupid decisions with the business. The employees have zero incentive to be nice to customers, to treat customers like they are actually doing something good by making a purchase in the store. The employees that I have experienced are typical of what anyone expects a government employee to be, perhaps the epitome of a horrible employee. Talk about not being able to get & keep a job anywhere else so you end up at the ABC store!
And since libs like to use existing examples as justification for expanding a practice, it's important we get the state out of this business before it becomes an epidemic. Not only does the state owning ABC stores violate the monopoly rule, but it sets a bad precedent for politicians. I remember when the state/county/city of Raleigh wanted to build and own a hotel in Raleigh near NCState for graduation purposes. The demons of the time used the ABC debacle as justification for the state getting into the hotel business. And when some government employee decided that the state should get into the grocery store business, they used the ABC stores as an example of the state being in competition with private businesses, and being in business at all.
Even if liquor does not end up in the grocery store, even if liquor sales continue to be available only at specific stores, the state will continue to have control of the business. They just won't own the business. They just won't have government slackers manning the shop. They won't have bad attitudes 'greeting' customers. (i know, private business is no guarantee that the employee will be pleasant. it's just that an unpleasant customer service rep in a private business remains a customer service rep for a very short time!) The products that sell really well will be stocked, the item that sell less well won't take up as much shelf space. But when the government doesn't own the business, this is the way normal business is done.
I'd love to hear someone defend the state continuing to own & operate ABC stores. It's time we ALL put pressure on our legislators to end this illegal monopoly. (and if it's not illegal, then it needs to be ended anyway.)
