The Many Questions About Privatizing ABC

Robert F. McDonnell has so far had a shaky tenure as governor. His plans for offshore oil development sank with the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico, he just can’t seem to remember there were slaves in Virginia and his much-touted erasure of the state’s $2 billion budget deficit was marred by smoke-and- mirrors maneuvers such as deferring payments to the state pension fund.
Taking a script from other Republican governors, McDonnell wants to make a name for himself by limiting government by streamlining or privatizing. His big goal is to sell off the state’s more than 300 ABC stores in a scheme that he claims will net the state and extra $300 million to $500 million in a one-time hit and somehow generate more revenue after that.
He’s now on the road touting the plan that still has a lot of unanswered questions. First, there’s nothing wrong with privatizing alcohol sales. Only about 18 states still maintain the post-Prohibition Era state control on alcohol sales. Virginians do pay more for booze and selections are often sparse. Plus, privatizing probably won’t do much to generate more alcoholics, or so the conventional wisdom goes.
But as The Washington Post points out in an article today, Virginia makes an awful lot of money in the booze business and McDonnell could be giving that away. For instance, a bottle of Jack Daniel’s Tennessee whiskey costs the state about $11.48 when it buys it from the distiller. After all the taxes and fees are added, including one of the highest excise taxes in the country, that bottle retails for $24.68 (including state sales tax). How much does the state get? A lot.
In the District of Columbia, not a control area, the same bottle retails for $22.90 or $25.06 with DC sales tax. In cheap-o and private Maryland, the same bottle would retail for $20.02, including sales tax.
What this means is that Virginia gets a lot more dough for its booze — $248 million to precise — in 2009. Maryland and DC get tens of millions, not hundreds. So, it will be giving up a lot with privatization.
There are some other questions with McDonnell’s plan:
  • Even if he privatizes, someone is going to have to keep an eye on those retail outlets. Only about 300 or so exist now in the controlled system, but McDonnell envisions about 1,000 liquor stores statewide. The ABC now has only about 130 special agents with are armed law officers to enforce law at not just ABC stores but at up to 15,000 bars and restaurants. Robert Grey, a Richmond lawyer and former ABC chairman, told me in a piece I did for Style Weekly that privatizing liquor stores will increase ABC enforcement responsibilities by up to 40 percent. How does McDonnell intend to handle the extra staffing, assuming he doesn’t turn the function over to local or state police? And if he does that, are they up to the task budget-wise? Do they want the extra responsibility?
  • How much tax money will the scheme really generate? This is something of a mystery since McDonnell has said that it will depend on the kind of licensing deals the state arranges. For instance, a big box Wal-Mart might get a liquor store. It may pay more for it as opposed to a mom and pop store.
  • I’m still not clear what happens to wholesaling. Under the current system, the ABC board controls both retail and wholesale, doing the latter through a big warehouse in Richmond. McDonnell wants to sell the facility. Will private wholesalers suddenly swoop in? Maybe this is why lobbyists are thicker than fleas at the state capital this summer.
  • Will private stores mean better choice and prices. Obviously prices will improve, but maybe not so choice. If you live in an urban area with sophisticated tipplers, sure, you’ll see a lot of new stuff. Northern Virginians may stop their weekend drives to cheaper booze across the Potomac. But private stores in the outback probably will not carry a big inventory because they won’t be able to afford it.

McDonnell wants a special General Assembly session to consider the issue. But there’s a lot more explaining to do. Democratic legislators have slammed McDonnell’s revenue estimates about privatizing alcohol. In any event, there’s a lot of dough at risk, which a governor who portends to be so fiscally-minded ought to realize.

Peter Galuszka


ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)




Comments


Comments

16 responses to “The Many Questions About Privatizing ABC”

  1. As a rule, I don't think government should be doing things PE can do (mostly with some kind of governemtn help) for a profit.

    But in this case, the income stream lost by selling the ABC stores is going to have to be replaced with higher taxes someplace else.

    As it stands now, people who consume alcohol support a disproportionate part of government revenue, therefore selling the liquor stores and replacing the revenue with a more general tax might be more equitable, not considering the extra costs imposed on the state by those who consume alcohol.

    In my view, this is an income redistribution scheme, not one to produce a less costly or more efficient government. Instead of being preseted that way it is being sold as a way to get a windfall, which mostly ignores the time value of money and revenue stream considerations.

    It is also an ideological issue, to advertise the Republican way of thought, but in this case I don't think the benefits of a more equitable tax base and ideological purity are worth the cost.

    Let the drinkers continue to pay our bills for us.

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Very good post Peter.

    One of RHs best comments.

    Years ago Dr. Risse proposed to allow medical Enterprises sell recreational drugs but also operate free drug abuse, detox, rehab, education programs and an agressive youth recreation and volunteer service program.

    The roll of Agencies (governace / governemt) in insuring citizen health and safety still needs a lot of sorting out but just selling off the ABCs to 'solve the Mobility and Access Crisis' is foolish.

    CJC

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    McDonnell believes he is doing the best thing for the state while at the same time supporting big business, but my fear is that what we will find is that the state gets the short end of the stick as revenues in the privatized program get funneled away into private pockets and not reinvested. This seems like one of those programs that make the rich richer at everyone's expense. If this was ALL about capitalism and free enterprise, I would be all for it, but the assurances that the state receives of the potential success of this program are unproven–sure we may as well try it, but with the millions of dollars at stake, I wonder if the potential losses outweigh the potential gains.

    This smells like the deals that made private land investors money along Rt 288, or how the sale of the State Fair was handled–all legal and legit, but a little smelly and not necessarily to the best benefit of the Commonwealth.

  4. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Peter raises good questions. The commonwealth needs to make a complete accounting of the pros and cons before selling off the ABC stores.

    Here is one key variable that will influence whether or not the divestment pays for itself: What will the price-earnings ratio be? If someone is willing to pay a high multiple for earnings, then it might make sense to privatize. But if current economic conditions dictate that the only buyers are looking for bargains, McDonnell must show the discipline, as any corporate CEO would, to say, "Not now. I'll wait until I can get a better price."

    The bigger issue, as CJC points out, is whether selling the ABC stores for the purpose of funding transportation improvements makes any sense. I think it's a bad idea — regardless of what price-earnings multiple the state can get from a spin-off.

    Transportation projects should be funded by those who use and/or benefit from the improvements. There is no rational nexus between the state's ABC stores and the state transportation system.

    If McDonnell wanted to put the proceeds into the General Fund, I would feel more comfortable with the idea. There is no good reason for the state of Virginia to be in the liquor store business.

  5. Larry G Avatar

    Well McDonnell is talking the fiscal conservatism talk and we're about to find out if he is going to walk the walk or whether he will continues the smoke & mirrors charade that he did with his so-called "surplus" budget that de-funded the pensions plans and added new fees on businesses.

    This is the kind of flim-flam tactics that we expect from the tax & spenders.. and this is the basic problem with the part of "values", familial and fiscal.

    When it actually comes time to take the stand and do the deed, they flinch and have more and more bailed to a fan dance.

    Very disappointing.

    Apparently the 65% who support him are clueless about what he did to the pension funds…

    or even worse.. HORRORS.. they actually support defunding the pensions and kicking that can down the road.

    Shades of the uber stimulus folks….

    same church, different pew.

    So.. do I expect a workmanship reform of the ABC such that it results in a reasonable and reasoned reform?

    by the way… has anyone actually seen any numbers of how much new money will go to transportation?

    For my own county, the other day, I checked their budget to see how much they got from the ABC taxes in their jurisdiction.

    It was $39,000 for a county of 125,000.

    I realize that that's not profit but 39K won't buy the paint they use to stripe the roads.

  6. Groveton Avatar

    Here's a guy Larry and Peter ought to like:

    http://virginiatomorrow.com/2010/07/14/delegate-bob-marshall-speeding-with-literary-license/

    He's a Va delegate who voted against the budget and says that claiming a surplus is basically a lie.

    I wonder how budgets get passed in Virginia? Does the governor just write up whatever he wants and then … that's that? Or is there a vote in the state legislature?

    And, yes, Bob Marshall is the anti-illegal immigrant guy who asked cuccinelli for an opinion on verifying immigration status.

    You guys live in a fantasy land where everything would be wonderful if only all the politicans were Democrats … or … Republicans.

    Both parties are corrupt.

    They all supported the fake sutrplus budget.

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I too like Peter's questions.

    What Virginia needs to do is stop the bleeding. We need defined contribution plans for state and local employees, just like the feds. Current employees closer to retirement should be protected under the existing plans.

    TMT

  8. Larry G Avatar

    " You guys live in a fantasy land where everything would be wonderful if only all the politicans were Democrats … or … Republicans."

    I for one, do not expect the mostly tax&spend Dems to save us but I have to admit I save my real distaste for those who claim to represent "values" and who the word "feckless" would be a compliment if we would be so lucky only to have them be spineless hypocrites.

    But WAIT – There's MORE!

    The Republicans are the proverbial LUCY in the Peanuts SAGA.

    They place that fiscal conservative " we be the responsible party" …football in front of clueless Charlie "independent" Brown and he/they fall for it every time.

    The once legitimate Republicans – the ones who kept their social idealogical devils under control but insisted on fiscal responsibility have been thrown to the sharks – replaced with sharp tongued ideologues that Groveton now thinks would make a good governor.

    great gobs of chicken SNOT!

    One minute the man is in love with a raging liberal named Mcauliffe and a few short months later.. he's fawning all over a guy I would not trust to run the AG office in a fiscally responsible manner.. gee, let's make him Gov and spread his magic all over the Commonwealth…

    geeze Groveton…

  9. whether selling the ABC stores for the purpose of funding transportation improvements makes any sense.

    ==============================

    Larry is right. It isn't enough to make a drop in the bucket.

    Besides that it still doesn't make any sense.

  10. Larry G Avatar

    " We need defined contribution plans"

    Exactly!

    No why can't an honest fiscal conservative – simply say that?

    why do we have to coat the whole concept with SLIME?

  11. Groveton Avatar

    One minute the man is in love with a raging liberal named Mcauliffe and a few short months later.. he's fawning all over a guy I would not trust to run the AG office in a fiscally responsible manner.. gee, let's make him Gov and spread his magic all over the Commonwealth…

    Larry has almost figured it out. Competence is not Democratic or Republican. It is not Conservative or Liberal.

    Cuccinelli is competent. He kept the guns off GMU's campus and he's keeping Obama from tearing the US Constitution to shreds.

    McAuliffe is competent. His plan to bring jobs to Virginia would have put us in a better position than we presently hold.

    Tim Kaine? Hopelessly incompetent.
    Barack Obama? Hopelessly incompetent.
    George W Bush? Hopelessly incompetent.

    Angela Merkel? Very capable.
    Nancy Pelosi? Hopelessly incompetent.

    You starting to see the light Larry?

    It's not about party or even political philosophy. It's about innate competence.

    And Obama doesn't have it.

  12. It's a bait and switch and it doesn't pass the smell test, IMO.

    The concept is presented as being privatization…allowing the free market to work it's magic.

    However, if you are going to limit the number of outlets that can sell the product, what kind of free market is that?

    If you want a true free market let all retailers sell the stuff….at least those that want to.

    My fear is that what you will end up with is a select few well-to-do retailers, particularly in less populated areas, control the market by limiting outlets, i.e. licenses.

    How many outlets will Wise County get? What mechanisms are in place to prevent price fixing/gouging?

    Also, let's say you want to sell your convenience store….what will a store be worth in the "free market" that doesn't have a license to sell liquor?

    Somebody's going to get screwed.

    Cheers.

  13. Larry G Avatar

    " It's not about party or even political philosophy. It's about innate competence."

    and the judges of said competence are those who unable to look at a map and correctly label Afghanistan and Iran?

    Tell me please.. what it was that I should have known about Cucci BEFORE he was elected that would have told me that he was "competent"?

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "It's not about party or even political philosophy. It's about innate competence."

    This from someone who said just a week ago the the antidote to all problems was "the Republican Party"????

    Given Groveton's past foolish post, one is supposed to see him as a judge of COMPETENCE?

    Just more pointless yapping.

  15. John Thacker Avatar
    John Thacker

    The Washington Post article is ridiculous in that it doesn't count expenses. It carefully totes up how much gross revenue the state gets off a bottle, but mentions nowhere the cost of actually operating the stores and paying the employees.

    The Post also claims that "the government collects only sales taxes and an excise tax that is set at $1.50 per gallon in both jurisdictions [DC and MD]." That's obviously untrue. The government in both locations collects property tax and income tax from the businesses, something that Virginia doesn't do from VABC stores.

    The reason that DC and MD get less money from liquor is that they tax liquor a lot less. (Not that VA gets anything from all the people in NoVA that go into DC or MD to buy cheaper liquor, though.)

    In any case, if you were really consistent about your arguments, I suppose you'd argue for nationalization of all industries in Virginia, in order to make the state more money. Why not state-run shoe stores? State-run grocery stores?

    I'd like liquor privatization so that I could actually buy liquor in Virginia instead of going into DC or over to MD all the time in order to get better selection.

  16. Larry G Avatar

    " The Washington Post article is ridiculous in that it doesn't count expenses. It carefully totes up how much gross revenue the state gets off a bottle, but mentions nowhere the cost of actually operating the stores and paying the employees."

    well… I suspect the Post is basically printing the information that has been provided to them by McDonnell and company .. and maybe I'm a cynic but I'm not surprised that specific bottom-line numbers are not there – because if they were – the charade of alcohol being a viable sources of transportation revenues would be exposed for the smoke & mirrors gimmickry that it probably is.

    The problem with the no-mo-tax folks like McDonnell is that they are ideologically crippled from admitting that a non-indexed tax – like the gas tax will – over time – lose it's ability to maintain the original-intended funding stream.

    Wouldn't it be so much simpler and honest to look the people of Virginia in the eye and tell the the truth than to go around your elbow with these silly schemes – all to evade the basic problem – which is the tax itself.

    Of course, when one party continuously pummels the other one for being "in favor" of increased gas taxes, you kind of put yourself in a corner anyhow.

Leave a Reply


ADVERTISEMENT