Maybe it's cash, and maybe it's the fact that the Democrats are the party of the state workers' paradise. There are a lot of D-supporting public unions crowing about how, under a privatized regime, liquor store workers wouldn't have such "living wages" (i.e. cushy jobs and sweet benefits) as they do now.

At first glance I read this headline as "Dems Bless Pot, Condoms, Liquor." I think I would have preferred that story.

I fail to see how the state would lose money on the privatization of liquor sales. Sure, the state gets some money on markup, but the majority is, or at least should be, from taxes, which would continue, and if they're smart they'll raise the liquor taxes when they do go private. In addition they'll save money on operations, salaries, retirement, health care, etc for the employees they'll no longer have. So, if anything it's likely a wash and not a loss, if not an increase in revenue. Honestly, it should be structured such that retail liquor sales have an annual license fee specifically for spirits, plus a different one for less than spirits, for stores plus the taxes on the sales of the liquor itself. That should be adequate revenue without the operating costs of the stores and distribution. That would enable stores that don't want to carry spirits to pay a one fee, stores that only want to sell spirits to pay one fee, and stores that want to sell both pay both fees.

If the legislature was able to impose taxes on candy, surely it will be able to reimpose sin taxes on alcohol. Be serious.

Eyman's initiative stands a good chance of passing?

Jesus Christ, we are such a bunch of fucking morons.

You hear equally dumb arguments in Oregon; that all hell would break loose if they let people pump their own gas.

I think there are TWO liquor initiatives - one is the Costco one, but there's a different one. One measures by volume (total), one measures by bottle/dispernser.

You don't honestly expect the TNT to report on a Democratic event objectively, now do you?

It's a false analogy that those present who supported 1100/1105 also brought up. Apparently letting the government control the sale of something is the same as making it completely illegal, or making something completely illegal become legal is the same as selling it in every corner store. It's not, but it was a convenient straw man. It didn't work, though.

Now, I'm from a state where liquor sales are not state-run. However, liquor sales are very regulated there; both in who can sell it and when among other things (you have to specifically be a liquor store, and you can't sell on Sundays except between Thanksgiving and New Year's or if you're within 20 miles of the state border because most bordering states don't have that stupid law). On the other hand, supermarkets don't even sell beer and wine. These initiatives would take things from our not-very-extreme -- state controlled sales of hard alcohol -- to the opposing extreme -- like Nevada, where you can buy 151 off the shelf at Safeway. That's a pretty big leap, all in the name of helping Costco's bottom line. Considering the long vote on whether "corporations are important", that mentality is not likely to do well.

While we're making the comparison with it: I think many people were disappointed in the WADC's fence-sitting on 1068. It turned out to not even be the closest vote of the day. Their reason for being noncommittal on it seems more like face-saving than indecision.

Also, doesn't 1100 create a $300 to $400 million hole in our state budget, which means less money for teachers?

the liquor initiative, particularly if the next Eyman measure passes (which looks probable), would drain the state's revenue by about $320 million.

That's a bunch of rot.

Dominic, be a journalist and do your homework.

Nearly all of the "$320 million" that the liquor board "returned to the state" last year is the taxes on alcoholic beverages that will still be collected under privatized sales. In fact, a big chunk of that "$320 million" is the taxes on beer and wine that are already collected by the private sector. Only a small portion of the "$320 million" is from the liquor store's "markup" (which is a sneaky hidden tax by another name, tacked on to the product prices by the unelected and unaccountable liquor board)

@6,

Like the gas station scene in Zoolander, surely.

@4: That was with a 50% standard for passage. If Eyman's new initiative passes and the standard goes back to 2/3rds, there won't be any taxes passed on anything.