Yea!! One more poll! This poll is really inclusive -- brings together two topics that are both divisive in their own. This is the clash of the titans.

Ideally, there would not be such linkage, but given the battles with past legislatures when privatization efforts were pushed, Governor Corbett felt that he had to present some lure to end the era of Prohibition, something which should have been accomplished long ago just as forty-eight other more enlightened states have done. He has made a good offer to the General Assembly, but knowing its propensity to shoot itself and members' constituents in the foot, it is not at all certain that it will take the governor up on it. This, after all, is a state in which the mantra of, "We will do it this way because we have always done it this way" reigns supreme.

We need to "get it done" with regards to the privitization of the State Stores. Our purchases within the state (no wine being shipped for gifts to PA residents) is both controlling and self-serviant to the Commonwealth.

Privatize please! We need all schools to have multi million dollar athletic fields and new buildings.

Zandy, you casts the dilemma we all face in today's politics, well, with this conundrum. More conversations to come, no doubt. Wished every proposal were without a 'catch 22', but they rarely are. 'Hindsight' has given up on us and left us, so, we remain in the 'unfortunate' column until someone is brave enough to say, and mean it that our children are more than an appendage.

Governor Corbett is a swine, and is trying to hit two birds with one stone regarding this issue. He didn't have enough support to initially dismember the unions and privatize liquor, so he raped public education (whilst seeking to, in a way, privatize that via vouchers and charter schools), and is now saying, "Hey, look! We need to invest in education, and I know how!" I realize that this is "how it's done" in politics, but that doesn't make it OK for me.

Another of Corbett's dipstick attempts to privatize the State Stores, which do a fine job, and do not need to be sold to his profiteering friends. I'd still like to know what he's getting under the table for his attempts. Selling the stores is a one-time deal. What happens after that? He hasn't solved anything more than covering his bum temporarily instead of decently taking care of schools. He has about as much foresight as a blind mole. Him and the republicans' cant about government being the problem: ...It's interesting. They blather about that, and then all of them want to be elected to the government. Makes one wonder why, doesn't it? Best thing for government is to cut their perks. No pension other than what anyone else gets, and term limits of one or two terms and out. Not to mention getting bribe money (called campaign funds) stringently limited, or, better yet, criminalized so pols can't be bought with it.

No when Ed Rendell was Governor he was the swine. State Stores should of ben privatized years ago and no Governor would do it. Lot of parents (not all) are for voucher programs for their children, as we should have the choice of where we want to send our children to school, especially when the local school district is being run by a bunch of clowns and the administration is a joke.

I believe that we DO have a choice of where we want to send our children...that is a choice you make when you buy a home in a particular school district, borough, or community.

With comments like Kaitlin, make me want to move out of the state. Question...why haven't our children's test scores improved beyond the third world level while increasing tax dollars expenditures on our teaches and education? You believe the more money we spend on education the better the level of education our kids receive.......hardly not.

The $1 billion windfall is not guaranteed. Not even Sheetz is keen on the exorbitant license fees.

Iowa privatized retail operations of wine in 1985, liquor in 1987.

West Virginia privatized liquor operations in 1991.

Both states earned less than $20 million.

In 1986, Iowa earned $71.6 million. In 1987 - $43.6 million. Sales tax revenue did not return to pre-privatization levels until 2004.

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2010/12/dont_toast_yet_to_pa_liquor_st_1.html:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/09/as_we_reported_this_weekend.html:

In 2004, Maine earned $125 million for a 10 year lease of their wholesale rights, but since, has lost over $100 million due to revenue sharing with the wholesaler.

http://www.mainebiz.biz/article/20110725/CURRENTEDITION/307259998:

In 2011, we know that Washington’s liquor sales contributed $461 million to their general fund, roughly equal to our PLCB. When they privatized in 2012, we know that Washington only earned $150 million for wholesale, $30.8 million for their existing stores, and a new liquor/wine/beer license is only $166.00. They exploded from 300 to over 1,400 outlets, many open until 2:00 AM. Unit sales only increased by 8%.

Since 2011, the governor’s windfall estimate has been $1.6 billion. Today it is $1.0 billion. Ironically, the governor’s billion dollars and the market comparables are both deal killers.

These polls are pretty worthless once they are posted on the union pages and the leadership tells the drones to vote against them. Just realize that there has never been a scientifically conducted poll in favor of the PLCB. The citizens have wanted it gone for decades.

Not only that but the 200 million is not even in the league the liquor stores bring in for state revenue. Try a half a billion dollars each year. Not million, billion!! What happens when that is gone?? I'll tell ya, higher taxes,higher liquor prices, more underage drinking , NO WAY is this the way to go!!!

Considering that 80% of that is taxes which will still be collected where do you think it will go?

Corbett is a Shuster smoke screen for dummies to stupid to see through the smoke.

State stores bring in 500,000,000 a year and provide decent paying jobs for neighbors Corbett want to throw that always says cronies make a dime.

What's a "Shuster " ?

Thanks cc.

This is a big reason why we are in the mess we are in; not just the state level but in Washington as well. Give every item it's own vote "NO PACKAGE DEALS". In washington they call them Christmas Tree bills because everyone gets to hang their own ornaments (bills) on the tree. By the time it's passes we get a lot of cost that we don't need and would not have voted for on ot's own.

What JohnRz fails to mention is that the PLCB already is responsible for over 17000 licensed establishments. So he is really saying that the PLCB can't do it's job. Tax collection is not a privatization problem it is an enforcement problem.

Roger - of the $494 million turned in last year approximately $390 million was collected taxes and $104 million were contributions to the PSP, Alcohol Education and the General Fund.(http://www.lcb.state.pa.us/cons/groups/alcoholeducation/documents/adacct/001821.pdf)

Love the link Albert! But before you use it to mislead people I'll point out that the $104M is AFTER the contribution to the PSP. True profit before this transfer is $125M.It also shows the general fund transfer request was $25M less than the year before. Combine this with a $20M profit increase and you have a $45M positive swing in the change in net assets. Total ending net assets are $23M better! Just the opposite of what the Governors (paid for) report from PFM predicted. Thanks for the assist.
"Tax collection is not a privatization problem it is an enforcement problem." What kind of double talk is that Albert? The problem is putting revenue at risk. Taxation has been a fox and hound game forever. http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/daveco-liquors-to-give-up-thornton-liquor-store. Think they'll ever get every penny back from Daveco? Including the court costs and the cost of the audit and investigation? I kinda doubt it.

"Also, nothing says that liquor taxes have to be collected at the retail level." BS Albert. The Guvs plan includes both the 18% liquor tax and the 6% sales tax." You need to know the retail price to calculate either. You would have to use a gallonage tax. Before you expound on the beauty of gallonage taxes I'll tell people the problem with them. They never adjust to price increases. For instance Pa beer tax is about the lowest in the country because it was set many years ago and has lost 90% of it's real value. Easy to see why big alcohol and their shills love it so much.

You usually do better then this John, the 18% liquor tax can be collected at the wholesale level just like cigarette tax and of course, sales tax is collected at the point of sale. You only need to know the price the wholesaler is charging the store to calculate the liquor tax.if you choose to collect taxes in that way instead of all at the retail level. You could even move it up to the distributor level and deal with even less entities. Works for other states.

It seems, as usual, the thread has been diverted from the original question, whether or not it is a good idea to link the two issues.

I'm not so sure the question is even valid. State funding levels of schools have been fairly consistent over the past few years. You MUST exclude the one-time payment from the Federal Stimulus program if you want to be honest in the evaluation of State funding to local districts. That money was never intended to be repeated year after year.

So, the State is providing funding levels that increase slightly year to year. Unfortunately, the funding does not quite cover the increase in PSERS contributions required of local districts.

If the State Stores are privatized, and State Revenues go up, that could provide addtional funding for schools. The two do not have to be linked in stone, it is just a matter of more money might be available....or might not.

You need to add "in Pennsylvania" to your statement. Not every state does things the same and only one other does things the way PA does. Us and Utah against the world!

"This is just an attempt by the governor to sell the liquor store privatization to state legislators."

That option is awesome because it's worded to be negative. That's how politics works though.

Why is home ownership linked to schools?
Why is the lottery linked to senior citizens?
Why is the Allegheny liquor tax linked to Port Authority?
Why does the PLCB contribute revenue to the General Fund (~45% of which goes to education)?
Why does the cigarette tax fund Children's health insurance and agriculture preservation?
Why does EVERYTHING seem to be linked to job creation?
etc, etc, etc.....

Zandy, I personally thought this was a good article in that it brought up discussion and dialogue about our schools. I have no children in the school system but believe that "Our Children Are our Future" and I have a problem with cuts of any kind to our schools.

This state is so behind times, privitize alcohol.