Category: Pennsylvania

Completely by chance, a state lawmaker here in Pennsylvania had a tele-townhall tonight. We got a call and I opted to listen in even though I was on the cell with Sebastian as he was driving home. I asked Sebastian if he had suggestions for me for our representative. There’s not much going on at the state level in regards to guns, so I suggested possibly something about reform of the beer/wine/liquor sales given today’s news.

In getting the queue, they only ask for the general nature of your question. I gave an overview and said I would simply like to ask if there is any real chance of legislative relief of any kind. I pointed out that if you’ve ever tried to buy just enough beer for a small cookout or perhaps a bottle of wine, it’s a real pain under the system. When the staffer chuckles and agrees, you know that’s generally a good sign.

Of course, as Sebastian says, “Everyone hates it, but no one is willing to get angry enough to do anything about it.” I figured with the Supreme Court case as cover, there was a door open to get the conversation started about a legislative remedy.

Unfortunately, there were too many questions and mine didn’t make it to the rep during the course of the call. However, he did pledge that anyone with a policy question will get a personal phone call back from him this week.

Given that, what proposals should I lay out as reasonable reforms to make. I know I’d ideally like a completely free market system on sales, but I realize that when dealing with a massive monopoly force (the beer distributors) and a government patronage service (the state liquor stores), it won’t be a realistic solution. So, what kind of system would you suggest for Pennsylvania’s sales of beer and wine, and possibly of liquor? I’m particularly interested in hearing from other Pennsylvania residents. What kind of compromise reform would you be happy with as a starting point?

Hat tip to Capitol Ideas for pointing out a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling today that is a window into our state’s ridiculous liquor control laws.  Beer in Pennsylvania is restricted to retail sale only by distributors, which means if you want something less than a case, which is usually the case for me, you need to find an establishment with take out, were you can buy up to two six packs.  The type of licensee that’s allowed to sell beer for take out are typically licensed to sell alcohol for consumption on-premises.

It’s not uncommon in the Keystone State for stores to be set up, which technically serve some food.  The local one near me makes rather lousy cheesesteaks, for instance, which you can, if you want, eat in the two or three booths they have (state law says you have to be able to seat up to 30).  But the store is basically a take out beer store.  The food is just a way to comply with the licensing requirements.

Apparently Sheetz, which is the “rest of Pennsylvania” version of Wawa, applied for what is essentially a restaurant liquor license, to sell beer in one of its stores for take out.  But in the Sheetz scheme, you couldn’t consume it there, you had to take it out of the store.  The evil villains in this whole sorry story, the The Malt Beverages Distributors Association of Pennsylvania, who jealously guard their state sanctioned monopoly, intervened in the case after the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board agreed to allow the transfer of the license.

Note I said transfer.  You see, Pennsylvania fixes the number of licenses available, so if you want one, you have to “transfer” a liquor license from an establishment that’s going under, or has lost or surrendered it’s license to sell alcohol.  They won’t issue you a new one.

But moving back to the original topic, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed, if you’re seeking a license to sell alcohol for on-premises consumption, then you better allow the beer to be consumed on-premises.  As Capitol Ideas said:

We have said it before, and we will say it again, this ruling strikes us as massively counterintuitive. Because, instead of allowing people to buy take-away beer, the high court is effectively requiring people to buy their suds at the gas station, guzzle it there, and then get back behind the wheel and (in some cases) drive on interstate highways. But we’re not legal scholars or anything.

I think as a matter of law, the court made the right decision.  The problem is that the law is wrong.  You can’t blame the courts because the legislature passes things that are counterintuitive and stupid.  As a Pennsylvanian, I’m tired of being forced to buy beer by the case, or have to find a bar or restaurant with take out, and more often than not very poor selection.

More than a few totalitarian regimes have adopted systems of dating that essentially start counting their reign from year 0, and work their way up.   Well, it seems that Pennsylvania State Representative Jewell Williams would line up to go along with such a scheme:

Perhaps B.O. & A.O. are not far off? Yesterday, Rep. Jewell Williams (D-Philadelphia) began a presentation on the House floor by stating it was ‘2009, in the year of Obama’.  The Republican side was stunned to say the least. House Minority Rep. Sam Smith (R-Jefferson) attempted to correct the record – stating that the proper designation was Anno Domini 2009 – in the year or our Lord.

To which Williams responded “And the difference is?”  I kid, I kid, but you kind of have to wonder.

Looks like hope and change is costing Pennsylvania steel jobs.

Pennsylvania lost a state trooper recently, who took a bullet trying to recover a kid who was kidnapped at gunpoint.  He distracted the kidnapper long enough that they got the kid back unharmed.  The kidnapper, fortunately, is dead.

It’s looking pretty likely Joe Sestak will challenge Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary.  I know NRA doesn’t typically get involved in primary fights, but if Sestak remains the only challenger, this is one to get involved in.  The general election would present a bit of a dilemma for me, but I have no problem working for Specter to help defeat Sestak.  In fact, I wish we could get Sestak out of Congress entirely.

Lawmakers here are continuing to push a bill tha twould exempt non-profits from food inspection requirements.

“Food prepared in a private home can only be used if that facility is licensed/registered and inspected by the department,” state regulations say. The department adopted retail food rules in 2003 to keep pace with changing food science.

“One-third of all food-borne illnesses come from private fundraisers,” said Bill Chirdon, director of the Bureau of Food Safety and Laboratory Services at Agriculture.

No mention of how many people each year become ill through interactions with overzealous bureaucrats.

As word of the pie bust at St. Cecilia spread, a Pittsburgh nun who has used bake sales to raise money “from Connecticut to Harlem to Ohio” said she was prepared to show inspectors what they could do with the rule book if they show up at her church.

I’m going to bet if state health inspectors went to Catholic school, and in this state there’s a good chance they did, they are going to take a pass on St. Cecilia.  In fact, if you get the nun up to the Capitol to lobby for the bill, I’m going to bet it passes post haste.