There are a lot of arguments one could make for scrapping Washington’s state liquor monopoly. For consumers, it’s mostly about convenience and selection. For grocers and other retailers, it’s the oodles of extra profit to be made. Then there’s the simple fact that 80 years after the end of Prohibition, it just seems weird for the state to be operating a chain of liquor stores.
But a fiscal argument? Not so much.
Love ’em or hate ’em, Washington’s state-run stores rake in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, money desperately needed in the face of budget cuts and revenue shortfalls as far as the eye can see. Yet a fiscal argument is exactly what several state lawmakers are making in favor of a liquor privatization bill introduced last week.
Sponsored by state senator Rodney Tom (D-48), SB 5933 is essentially a retread of last November’s failed Costco-financed I-1100 (the implied threat is that if the legislature rejects this year’s bill, Costco will run another initiative, sources tell The Stranger). But this version contains big differences from last year’s measure: It doesn’t touch beer distribution and it denies licenses to stores under 9,000 square feet. The first change removes “big beer” from the fight, and with it the millions of dollars the industry pumped into last year’s “No” campaign. The second change appeases those opposed to selling liquor in neighborhood mini-marts.
Clever, clever.
But while this senate bill’s title refers to “enhancing state revenues,” it gives up a profitable state liquor monopoly ($300 million in taxes and operating income in 2010) in exchange for just five years of license fees plus the promise of increased tax revenue from increased consumption. Compare that to a house proposal that would open up a 20-year lease on the state’s wholesale business to competitive bidding, thus maximizing the return to taxpayers.
When voters rejected several tax measures last November, lawmakers in Olympia took notice. “I know they don’t want taxes,” Governor Chris Gregoire told KOMO News. “I get that.”
But, um, voters also rejected two liquor privatization initiatives. So if lawmakers are ready to ignore the “will of the people” in the name of revenue enhancement, they might want to consider an option that actually enhances revenue. 
The best argument I’ve heard so far is “Stores have a set amount of floor/shelf space. Are they going to sell what I want or what moves the most units?”
That and if you go to http://www.liq.wa.gov they’ll let you search for the brand or type of liquor and where you can find it.
Is the state in the business of making money, or serving the people? Should the state focus on making money by doing traditional state things, such as taxation, or is he state simply a means by which to enforce a monopoly to protect the profits?
I’d just rather see the state of Washington focus on doing the things which are appropriately done by government, such as provide and maintain infrastructure, provide good public education, and the like; “retail” is not in the set of things which I believe a government should be so deeply involved.
And I’m not some wacko libertarian; I believe there is a distinct (and large) role for the public sector. I just think it’s not in retail.
The state liquor store system is highly successful and provides an excellent model for marijuanna and tobacco regulation in my opinion. In control states where liquor has been privatized, alcohol problems have grown raapidly worse. Drunk driving, liver disease, and alcohol related violence all go up, along with underage drinking.
@ 3 – Auntie Jim – you’re a moron. There is no such respectable evidence to suggest that. I’m always amazed at the white liberal obamatrons (multi-redundant) who vote to keep liquor sales state regulated. Personally, I’d prefer more of MY OWN MONEY stay in MY OWN POCKETS rather than pay outrageous taxes on booze. Privatization will reduce cost which means more money in my pocket. Anyway, what really amazes me is that the State controls such a toxic, and lethal substance as “spirits” and nobody has sued them yet. Billions have been paid out to “big tobacco” for all the evils they have inflicted on an “unsuspecting” public however nobody goes after the State for being the gateway to procurement of such a poisonous and lethal substance as hard alcohol. How many drunk driving deaths are there, how many people maimed due to alcohol, how much rape, battery, and outright psychopathy is directly attributable to the consumption of this shit wantonly sold by the State in the name of tax profit? You’d think the State was happy to get OUT of the business and transfer the horrible liability onto a private agency, which they can then turn around and assist plaintiffs in suing and use part of the proceeds to further fund a campaigning promoting abstinence of alcohol. Shit, they spend millions on anti-fat, anti-salt (SALT FAGGOTS, does NOT CAUSE high blood pressure it only exacerbates an existing condition), anti-pot (the safest recreation drug the world has known next to jacking off) anti-fast food, anti-everything, but hey, when it comes down to taking away yet another revenue source from the State watch out, cause you know, they have our best interests at heart. Fags.
Privatize liquor, legalize and tax cannabis, triple or quadruple gasoline tax for private individuals while keeping gas costs low for transit and freight.
People say they want to be like California and Arizona where there’s cheap, accessible booze.
i guess they want California’s 10 percent state income tax too. i guess they want Arizona’s 8 percent state income tax.
Folks – alcohol is one reason we don’t have a state income tax! We’re a consumption tax state! Want to lower your taxes? Stop drinking!
I’m glad to see The Stranger discussing revenue. Don’t forget, we charge 30 percent in sales tax and 30 percent in markup. If we lose this to Costco, we’ll lose the markup. That’s 370 million a year! That’s a ton of dough!
people say they want to be like California with cheap alcohol and more accessibility. Do they also want California’s 10 percent state income tax? Because we are a consumption tax state (alcohol, nicotine, gasoline) we don’t have a state income tax. Somehow, the state is going to need to make up that revenue. Otherwise, we’re going to have to start drinking 30 percent more booze a year!!!!
Why couldn’t we privatize and tax liquor to the point where it produces the same amount of revenue?
Funny how no one talks about saving money by less government.
Funny how no one talks about saving money by reducing government. A glowing story from statist rag.
Need some dough?Then call your shitty state legislaters and the governess:Demand they implement a statewide wealth tax ASAP!
Need some cash for a Scandinavian-style Evergreen State?Then call your shitty state legislaters and the governess:Demand them – your employees – to implement a state wealth tax.Now.