Why Spending Reforms Stalled in 2010

As legislatures across the country grappled with budget shortfalls, Stateline.org reports many of them looked to liquor privatization as a strategy.

But barely a few weeks later, many of those proposals have died quietly. In Virginia and Mississippi, they were withdrawn by their sponsors. In Washington and Vermont, they are bottled up in committee.

Stateline.org notes that the reasons vary among the states. Here's their explanation for Washington.

In Washington, supporters blamed labor unions for driving opposition to the proposals. Employees at state-run liquor stores there are state employees, as are the workers in the Seattle warehouse that distributes alcohol to stores throughout the state.

That sounds accurate. And it came at a cost.

In a January report, Washington State Auditor Brian Sonntag found that the state could raise up to $350 million more over five years if it auctioned off retail store licenses and privatized the distribution center.

Meanwhile, in New Jersey, the recently elected governor is pressing a privatization agenda.

Governor Christie Thursday will create a commission to privatize as many as 2,000 state jobs beginning next January, officials said Wednesday night.

As he grapples with an $11 billion deficit in the budget he will present on Tuesday, Christie is also considering invoking the Disaster Control Act to suspend Civil Service rules to make it easier for him to lay off higher paid workers, according to two administration officials.

We'll not have a sustainable budget without structural spending reform. When the easy stuff can't get done - and liquor privatization should have been easy - it's hard to have much confidence that things will improve soon.

Comments

[Lilly]

SHB 2824 allocates $1,306,000 to open five new state liquor stores, $40,000 to open 10 new contract stores, and $3,059,000 so stores can open on Sunday and all holidays.

Then the legislature recommends grocery stores be allowed to have beer and wine tasting.

Of course we need access to more liquor in more places. Encouraging higher rates of intoxication will bring in more revenue.

Tobacco products have been taxed through the roof on the premise they create a public health concern. They are going to increase these taxes. Funny, smokers don't kill people in car accidents. They don't use taxpayer dollars to fund police salaries, jails, and the courts as drunks do.

So let's encourage more drinking, more deaths, and higher taxes related to drinking. That makes sense only to a Democrat.