Why is this state still in the liquor business?
Published June 5, 2015
Editorial by Fayetteville Observer, June 5, 2015.
Lawmakers are reforming the state's alcoholic-beverage control laws in ways that seem useful, albeit timid.
But even some minor changes are causing heartburn for local ABC boards.
But the big deal, in the mind of the local ABC boards, was the newly added loophole that allows North Carolina distilleries to sell the liquor they produce directly to visitors. Well, sort of. The sale is limited to one bottle per visitor per year. Not something that will dent the profit margin of the local ABC stores, although it's likely that the fear is about slippery slopes that may develop from this point.
Liquor is big business for the counties in North Carolina. In larger counties, the ABC stores generate millions of dollars in profits and taxes for county government. Last year, for example, the Cumberland County ABC stores did about $30 million in business and returned about $2.2 million to county coffers.
But despite the economics of the government-owned liquor industry, we're surprised by the timidity of the "ABC Omnibus Legislation." It misses the key question, which we'd expect a legislature leaning conservative and libertarian on economic issues to ask: Why is government in the liquor business?
Much of the ABC system is an artifact of Prohibition and the early years after its repeal, when the state needed to keep a tight rein on liquor while it tried to stamp out bootleggers and backyard distilleries.
Only 10 states still run a liquor-store monopoly, and a few more remain the state's sole liquor wholesaler. But in most of the country, the liquor business is like any other: privately operated and usually quite competitive.
In other areas - like Internet service, for example - our lawmakers have adamantly supported the private sector and attacked local government attempts to enter the market. Yet they cling to an outmoded alcoholic-beverage retailing network that would better serve the consumer and the economy if it were privatized.
Sure, the revenue is important to government, but excise tax rates could be set to ensure there's no loss.
Let's get government out of the booze business and let private business take it over. We'd like to raise a toast to that. So, we expect, would most consumers.
June 5, 2015 at 10:15 am
Richard L Bunce says:
This is nonsense. Get the State and Local governments out of the alcohol business. One bottle per customer per year... no local brewer is going to track that and no government agent is going to enforce that objectively.
June 5, 2015 at 10:42 am
Norm Kelly says:
This post ACTUALLY appeared in a newspaper? Wow! I wish I could get this newspaper delivered to my house instead of the appropriately named Noise & Disturber! Or could it simply be that a guest editorial with a conservative bent was allowed to publish an editorial without it passing through the hands of the otherwise left-wing editorial board?
Either way, it's nice to see a newspaper supporting a good AND conservative idea. Having anyone in what's still considered main-stream-media support PRIVATE business instead of continued socialist government take-over is welcome fresh air!
Why the state continues to be in ANY business is beyond me. Selling off ALL of the local ABC stores, allowing them to become full privately owned businesses, would bring in substantial money to the state albeit once. The fact that none of the employees would be either local or state government employees is just a side benefit. No more government employees to pay salary to. No more government employees to pay benefits to, including no retirement benefits. If we truly compared the cost of running/owning these establishments with the income generated, would the balance sheet be positive? Even if this were possible, which I can't imagine would be, it still makes more sense for these businesses to be fully privatized. What is the downside? Has anyone anywhere shown ANY downside to the state getting OUT of the alcohol sales business?
I propose that a cost-benefit analysis isn't even necessary. If the time is not right at this point to dispose of these remnants of days gone by, then WHEN? If conservatives don't take a major step forward, as this would be, it may never happen. It's for darn sure that no lib is going to allow the state to get out of any business. We KNOW for a fact that socialists in the state legislature have used the alcohol monopoly as justification for the state getting into OTHER businesses. It's a slippery slope to allow the slightest bit of socialism to creep into our midst, as it gives justification for socialists to continue to expand their reach. And they will claim it's for the common good. Or they will use 'the children' excuse as the central planners have done so well. Didn't 'for the children' start under the administration of the first Billary? And socialists found that using 'for the children' was so effective that they have refused to let it go, and continue to tell us that increasing the spread of socialism is good for all of us because it benefits 'the children'. Well, selling off, privatizing, alcohol sales in our state IS good for the children, so it's time we start using that slogan against the socialists! Let's start a petition to force the legislature to hold to their conservative roots!
