This is interesting: there was a ballot measure in Washington state to end the state monopoly on liquor sales. It went down to defeat because of heavy opposition in the conservative parts of Washington, but it won in the liberal areas.
Reader Interactions
64Comments
Comments are closed.
cleek
let me guess: a shady business group totally flooded “conservative” “news” outlets with misleading information about what the ban would do…
Kryptik
Yeah, I really don’t understand this result, especially considering the giant ‘FUCK TAXES!’ wave that went through the state.
Linda Featheringill
To the conservative mind, government exists to force other people to behave they way you want them to.
Any other governmental function is at best a necessary evil.
morzer
Conservatives believe in rigged markets, not free markets. Nothing surprising here.
DFS
Man, mother fuck a state liquor store. Out here in NC the booze selection is appalling.
burnspbesq
These are the same people who want the Government to keep its filthy hands off their Medicare. It’s hard not to be deeply depressed about the future of this country.
JustMe
This paradox is explained by the fact that those state liquor sales pad the state budget, ensuring that taxes remain lower than they would be, otherwise. Plus, social conservatives like the idea of the populace being protected from the demon rum.
MikeJ
@cleek: Actually, all the business money was on the repeal side. Grocery stores had huge signs as you entered telling you to vote for it. Some anti-ads aired, but the pro ads were probably 2-1.
MikeJ
@MikeJ: I should clarify that since I refered to the “repeal side”and the “pro”side as the same thing. And that is correct, they were in pro-initiative in favour of repealing the current law.
Also, I don’t know that it was conservatives who were against it so much. Most of the ads talked about how liquor sales weren’t an essential state service. Really, most of the ads could have been written by Newt Gingrich.
nostromo
There were actually two initiatives to end the state sale of liquor. I-1100 would have handed it to private sellers but would have kept the state tax. I-1105 would have done the same thing except eliminated the state tax. Both failed.
I voted against both measures, mostly because the state can’t afford to lose any money (especially not now, with that fuckhead Tim Eyman’s proposal passed).
taylormattd
I live in Seattle. This thing lost big time in the eastern (republican) half of the State and in conservative areas largely due to a campaign heavily financed by out-of-state beer companies, who want to keep their monopoly on selling beer and wine in grocery stores. The advertising was aimed at scaring the shit out of people, making them believe that teens with fake IDs will be buying vodka at 7-11s.
I ended up voting against the measure largely because the bill, which was written by Costco, would simply give away the right to sell liquor to private industry. A bunch of reports showed the State could make upward of $300 million per year in licensing.
Mako
It’s not really that interesting. Washington is an empty state. People who live there know where to get liquor. They’d also rather it wasn’t sold in every mini-mart and grocery store. It’s just good sense.
Greenlabormike
Well, without more data, I’d have to put this down to Conservatives, without a hint of self-awareness, being quite happy to have the state regulate “sinful” behavior, (e.g. sodomy, gay marriage, marijuana, etc.) despite their professed hatred of “intrusive” government.
Legislating morality is fine. Legislating safer toys and cleaner air, however, is evil.
Ross
there were two repeal measures, one of them contained more tax-slashing than the other. the police lobbied hard against both.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
As a Washington stater this was one of the few pieces of good news to come out of the election. The disadvantage to the state running the booze business is that everything is more expensive and if you happen to live far from a store you’re SOL. The advantage is that most stores carry a wide variety of products; the first thing someone from my state notices when shopping for booze in a privatized state is that everything on the shelf is friggin’ Seagram’s and Baccardi and if your taste is a little more esoteric you’re going to have to seek out a specialty store. And I personally have a Washington State liquor store easy staggering distance from my house. So the short answer is, if you drink to get drunk, privatize, if you’re willing to spend a bit more money and enjoy a sip of bacon/banana/peanut butter schnapps, come on up to the other Washington.
Poopyman
Massachusetts repealed its alcohol tax. I thought it was supposed to be Taxachusetts?
taylormattd
@Mako: What the fuck does your comment even mean? Empty state? Stupid.
MikeJ
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.): Good god man, don’t try to tell us the stores have better liquor and trot out flavored schnapps.
They do carry a fine selection of scotches and gins, but sadly the store within staggering distance of me only carries five varieties of rye.
Catsy
@DFS:
Actually, the WA liquor stores are excellent. Expensive, but well-run and well-stocked with a variety of stuff, and with pretty reasonable hours unless you feel the urge to make a midnight run for Captain Morgan.
The state-run liquor stores are only really objectionable to free market jihadists with no opinion for or against alcohol, and people who drink often and heavily enough that the increased cost and inability to get hard liquor in the middle of the night at the grocery store is actually some kind of inconvenience.
I drink, just not a lot. On the rare occasions when I need to buy more hard liquor, having to pay a little more for it and maybe wait until the next morning is really not an issue for me–especially when the side effects of the “socialized” liquor stores include reduced availability to minors, reliable prices and selection that are fully browsable and searchable online, predictable hours and locations, and ancillary reductive effects on the general level of consumption. As far as I’m concerned, drunks being unable to get more hard liquor late at night when the bars let out is a feature, not a bug.
Yay soshulism. Gimme more.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
By the way, the issues I cited in my comment were not the ones used in the advertising for or against the initiatives. Pro privatization emphasized job creation and the arrogance of big government, anti emphasized that there would be booze in every mini-mart and kids would get their hands on it. But that’s just advertising.
morzer
@taylormattd:
I thought conservatives liked the status quo?
Elie
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
The biggest tragedy in the WA election was the failure of passing a state income tax (which right away would have given the middle class a tax cut through ending certain other fees). Right now, the burden of funding state government falls on working class people through the use of regressive fees and sales taxes.
In more good news, a measure passed requiring a 2/3 vote of the legislature to raise revenue and a voting down of a tax on soda pop and candy. Sure will be fun to try to provide any services to this state’s residents over the next few years.
Education is really suffering in this state as is health care for Medicaid and related programs. We don’t really seem to care about that as long as the people who make over 400k per year keep getting a big break. I had the surprise to find out that some of my friends, who I thought had some brains, voted against the income tax. Bummer.
I have lived in this state for almost a decade but am an “outsider”. I find the people to be nice but there is a thick, crazy western shtick having to do with manifest destiny and absolute freedom without obligation to each other. We have some of the most extreme of the right and the left and both hate government.
I am struggling with the choice to stay here — despite its incredible beauty and natural areas….
JC
Judging from what I’ve seen here in Seattle, the privatization initiatives were favored by quite a few otherwise progressive urbanites who liked the prospect of cheaper liquor. Never mind that an important source of revenue would be lost to private retailers (e.g. Costco, a BIG supporter of I-1100), screwing already troubled city and county budgets. The desire for cheaper liquor explains some of the support for privatization in this very blue county. Hell, I wish my whiskey were cheaper, but given the choice I’ll choose functional local government.
Lee
The initiative was pushed by Costco and Safeway and would have cost the state over $100 million in lost revenue over the next 5 years (which is why I voted against it, even though I hate the state liquor control board). I’m not entirely sure why the rural voters went against it as much as they did, but I doubt it was the result of the potential lost revenue. I think the anti-1100 campaign was just more successful at scaring voters about teens buying hard liquor at gas stations and convenience stores – and it’s possible that that tactic simply worked better in the rural parts of the state.
It’s also worth noting that in 2005, when the restaurant/bar smoking ban was on the ballot, support for the ban was fairly uniform across the state. Washington state is a little weird, Seattle is liberal, but definitely libertarian-leaning liberal, while rural Washington has a high percentage of puritanical conservatives.
Mako
@taylormattd:
What the fuck does your comment even mean? Empty state? Stupid.
I don’t know. What does it mean to you? What are our comparisons, say Massachusetts vs Washington? Guangdong vs Washington? It’s a big empty state. Lot’s of rural.
Elie
@Mako:
I guess you meant to say that it doesn’t have high population density in certain areas? Has high number or rural (and wilderness) areas. Remember the wilderness?
Try that wording instead. Whatever its problems, the state is not empty.
MikeJ
@Mako: Empty except for the 2 million people in King Country, and the million in Pierce, and another half million in Snohomish.
Washington’s total population in 6.5M. More than half of those people could drive to the Space needle in less than 30 minutes if THESE IDIOTS WOULD LEARN TO FUCKING MOVE WHEN THE LIGHT TURNS GREEN.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
@Elie:
Agree with your points about the tax initiatives. I can probably look forward to my booze being taxed even more than it already is, since our crazy electorate won’t allow the state to raise money any other way. Good thing I don’t smoke.
Ruckus
@Elie:
In more good news, a measure passed requiring a 2/3 vote of the legislature to raise revenue
I think this is snark. I hope so.
Here in CA we finally got rid of that nasty piece of legislation so that we no longer should be held hostage by far less than a majority of the elected rabble.
anticontrarian
Myself I was in favor of I-1100 (you can read why here), because I’m anti-monopoly for the most part (which is why I was against I-1105, which was a transfer of the monopoly from the state to the liquor companies and, incidentally, rolled back all liquor taxes), and because I believe the state’s proper role with regard to vice is taxation and regulation, not near-complete control.
So far as the objections raised here, while it’s true some of the liquor stores (at least in Seattle) are well-stocked with interesting selections, many are just as mainstream, boring, and stocked with bullshit as any small liquor outlet anywhere. And, quite frankly, if you’re really elitist in your taste, the limitations on what you can get from the state stores are pretty annoying (special orders can take weeks and months to arrive). There are plenty of bars and bar owners who are forced to leave the state for product they want to carry because somebody in Olympia hasn’t bothered to put it on the list.
And, as far as the market efficiency of the LCB, I don’t think anyone here must have talked with a liquor store manager lately. I have, many times, having tended and managed bars in town for ten years or more. Literally every order every store makes is short. The liquor is there; the state just can’t manage to get it from the warehouse to the outlet. And while there are many fine people working at the stores, it is deeply annoying to pick up your order and discover that your bar cannot always keep what the people want in stock because of that.
So far as Eastern Washington killing the Initiative, if I had to guess (and, having no facts, it is just a guess), I’d say that it was probably the legislating morality thing, and that enough folks out there are conservative enough to want to make it as hard as possible for people to get ahold of booze, just as a general principle.
Still, at the end of the day, I do recognize the state’s need to generate revenue, and since my fellow Washingtonians passed Tim Eyman’s make-WA-into-CA-2/3-for-tax-rate-increase bullshit; and decided not to impose an income tax on high earners (which would’ve helped small business and homeowners by rolling back state B&O fees and property taxes); and to roll back the tax on candy, soda, and other non-food food-like substances; and rejected a $505 million bond issue to make energy improvements in schools (which might’ve put some unemployed people back to work and would’ve paid for itself and turned a profit by the time the bonds came due), I suppose it’s probably for the best that I-1100 didn’t pass, though not for the reasons mentioned above, which seems to have a fair bit to do with people feeling good about themselves for not being alcoholics.
Mako
@Elie:
Miss, do you really want me to grade your comment for punctuation, grammar and “meaning”? Cuz I will, not like I’m doing anything else.
Major Mel Funkshun
I live outside of Seattle and was all for this. And I’m calling bullshit on the “better selection” crap. I’ve lived in other states with privatized liquor and the selections and prices are much more diverse. Also, I don’t get off work until 7:30 at night and most stores close at 8 so it’s always a mad dash just to get a bottle o’ booze.
Graeme
My sister in Seattle is hella pissed it went down. She’s planning to shop more at Costco, the Measure’s sponsor.
Mako
@MikeJ:
The Baltimore/Washington Metropolitan Area has a population of billions-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore–Washington_Metropolitan_Area
and they crash into a parked car when they see a snowflake.
Elie
@Ruckus:
Oh no — wish it were snark. Its for real. No kidding
Mako
@Elie:
You’d probably be way happier in LA or Tokyo, or Singapore. New York or Baltimore even. There really is a big world out there.
The Grand Panjandrum
They’ve got state run liquor stores here in the “Live Free or Die” state as well. Now THAT is socialist! A state run monopoly … but no death panels from what I can gather.
Elie
@Mako:
You have a lot of time on your hands per your comment, but you don’t seem to have much to say having all that time.
goblue72
Those of us living in California (aka 10% of the country), a state with liberalized liquor store laws (no state liquor store system, you can buy hooch at Safeway, etc), laugh at all these retarded arguments, like these:
#1. We need State stores – otherwise the children could buy hooch anywhere: Well, I can buy hooch at the grocery store, Wallgreens and the 7-11. Last time I checked, I didn’t notice any hordes of drunken teenyboppers roaming the streets.
#2. We need State stores – otherwise the selection will suck: another stupid one, as if the same private retail marketplace that stocks 100 kinds of peanut butter can’t do the same for hooch. Ask your average booze snob, and to a man they’ll agree that finding artisanal, obscure or premium liquors is way easier in a state like California. Ditto for overall breadth of selection.
#3: But how will I find my booze online? The private market has discovered the Internet. See http://www.bevmo.com. See also http://www.klwines.com.
#4 But the lost taxes!: If you think your state legislature can’t figure out how to just raise it’s state liquor tax, then you’re just hopeless.
Sloegin
The Washington election brought out the oldster ‘fear’ vote; fear of new taxes that would never actually materialize and fear of change.
I’d dig paying $15 less for my bourbon but eh, I’m a state employee also; looking at a layoff list and entering a third year of a pay freeze.
And the 2/3 majority initiative is effin moronic *and* unconstitutional. But hey, par for the course for Tim Eyman.
There’s still a long shot on our nasty libertarian chief justice going down, so I’ll cross the fingers on that one.
ET
McConnell in Virginia campaigned on Virginia government getting out of the business of ABC stores. He is running into logistical issues for closing them, I think because of the revenue the state would lose.
Elie
@Sloegin:
Me too!
Tim
I voted against both privatization measures after a PI article pointed out that while the state should get out of the business, the proposition system is not the way to go about it.
So many of the props are written by people that don’t actually have to implement the changes that you wind up with a whole new set of problems the prop writers never considered (I’m looking at you Eyeman, you dick).
It’s something the Legislature needs to address.
MikeJ
At least we’re all agreed: Tim Eyman is a horse’s ass.
Triassic Sands
Washington State has the most regressive tax system in the country — 50th out of 50. The poor and middle class pay significantly greater percentages of their incomes in taxes than do the wealthy because the state relies on the sales tax for 62% of its tax revenue (2007). Twenty-seven percent of revenue comes from property taxes, while the remainder, 11%, comes from miscellaneous taxes.
In 1999, a part-time class ring salesman, Tim Eyman, got an initiative on the ballot to cut the car tabs fee, which had been 2.2% of the blue book value of the vehicle, to a flat $30. This was one of the few progressive taxes in the state, since to a reasonable degree one could assume that wealthier people drove more expensive vehicles. The initiative passed easily and blew a huge hole in the state budget. Ironically, the poorest residents, those driving the oldest, least valuable vehicles, got a tax INCREASE.
Eymon has never gone away. He now is employed as a full-time initiative creator and in a state with spineless, unprincipled Democratic governors (Gary Locke and Christine Gregoire), Eymon has been the single most influential political force in the state for more than a decade. His initiatives are generally aimed at draining state coffers and the voters have been quite willing to go along.
At the same time the voters have cut taxes and made it harder (aka impossible) to raise them, they have voted for expensive initiatives like higher teacher pay and smaller class sizes. The true stupidity of the American voter is on full display virtually every November in Washington.
Eymon’s 2010 contribution was to re-instate the 2/3 requirement in the legislature for raising taxes. Add to that the repeal of virtually the only real taxes the legislature has had the guts to raise in the past decade — sales taxes on soda, candy, and bottled water — and the failure of the income tax initiative and Washington is headed for devastating cuts in education and health care for the poor and disabled.
The governor, Christine Gregoire, has remained on the sidelines on virtually every issue related to taxes. Last year she proposed a budget with huge social cuts and then called on the legislature to find ways to raise revenue so the cuts wouldn’t be so deep. She was soooooooooooo concerned about the poor, disabled, and young, but not concerned enough to risk any of her own political capital. In the Democratic primary in 2004, King County Executive Ron Sims called for the creation of an income tax; Gregoire used her opposition as a major weapon in defeating Sims. Compared with Gregoire, Harry Reid seems like a towering pillar of strength and resolve.
For those who say that what Washington needs is for a blue ribbon panel to sit down and redesign the state’s tax system to make it more fair (an easy task, since it is the least fair in the country), that has already been done. The commission was headed by William Gates Sr. and its report, which called for creating a graduated income tax, while cutting other taxes, was given to the legislature and shelved without action.
So, today Washington State, through its residents expressed actions, is more or less paralyzed. There is no way to raise taxes, since getting 2/3 of the legislature means, at the least, getting a significant number of Republicans (never going to happen), and even if that were possible, in the very next election there is guaranteed to be an initiative to repeal whatever taxes the legislature raised.
Despite having the most regressive tax system in the country (I’ll bet most of you thought it was Texas or some deep South state), Washington’s voters have decided that the state doesn’t need to finance education or provide a safety net for the most vulnerable. Washington’s voters have shown themselves to be selfish, short-sighted, and stupid.
Most Regressive Taxes
WA: Taxes as a % of income — poorest 20% pay 17.3%; wealthiest pay 2.9%
FL: Taxes as a % of income — poorest 20% pay 13.5%;
wealthiest pay 2.6%
SD: Taxes as a % of income — poorest 20% pay 11.0%;
wealthiest pay 2.1%
Tennessee, Texas, Illinois, Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Alabama fill out the top 10.
By comparison —
MA: Taxes as a % of income — poorest 20% pay 10.1%;
wealthiest pay 4.8%
The least regressive state is Delaware–
DE: Taxes as a % of income — poorest 20% pay 6%;
wealthiest pay 5.6%
In Washington, those non-elderly residents in the bottom 20% pay roughly 6 times as much of their income in taxes as the wealthiest residents pay.
In Delaware, the poorest 20% pay only 1.07% as much as the wealthiest.
Washington voters, given the opportunity to address this travesty, have just voted for more of the same.
Shaun
Thanks for the link! It’s not just the stores, but the state control of wholesale distribution that’s at stake, too. Largely because of my experience, both retail and restaurant, in a private liquor state and on the restaurant side here in Washington, I’m pro-privatization. I voted against both of the ballot initiatives because I’m A) a knee-jerk opponent of the initiative process generally, and B) they were industry legislation that didn’t take public needs and priorities into account.
I think the other side of this coin is interesting, too. A substantial portion of our Democrats in Olympia will be representing folks who’ve said it’s time to privatize, even if it’s done the wrong way for the wrong folks. Thoughtful legislation seems to be in order. There’s a way to recover all the revenue that might be lost, though it’s hard to guarantee all of the AFSME employees that there’ll be a comparable UFCW job waiting for them, a perennial stumbling block for privatization schemes.
As for the folks back east of the mountains, I think visions of teenagers guzzling vodka in the 7-11 parking lot were the most persuasive factor.
Mako
@Elie:
See, this is probably why you don’t fit in, you always want to be an “outsider”. You probably have emo hair, right? And you are always criticizing your neighbors for not recycling properly?
Come on, lighten up.
Watch some Soul Train with me-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7MiG2fe8lE
The Bobs
@Mako:
Big, empty state my ass. Not by western standards. It is the smallest state in the west and far more crowded than the real big empty states like Nevada and Wyoming and Montana
Elie
@Mako:
Ok, man, I am groovin’ witcha :-)
No, I actually don’t criticize my neighbors too much — even when they nail their “We the People”signs on my mailbox pole… but I do note it. I try not to be too uptight
Heh — but its important to lighten up so your advice is accepted…
Elie
@Triassic Sands:
Sad but very true.
sigh…
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
@goblue72:
Since my experience is exactly the opposite, you are incorrect.
I have never been in a Washington state liquor store that did not stock at least some “artisanal, obscure or premium liquors”. Not a one. Granted, I don’t usually drive to Twisp for my booze, but I doubt privatization would improve things significantly for those people anyway. Most of my adult life I’ve lived in medium-density parts of the state, and all the stores I’ve been in were just fine by me. My personal experience in California has been different, though I admit that if I lived there I would probably have a better handle on where to find the good stuff. Those of us from the north usually keep our eyes out for the Liquor Barn just off I-5 in Redding. The magic of the free market is a mere 600 miles away.
Mako
@Elie:
Crap, we almost had a fun ridiculous flamewar. I’ve read your posts, and I don’t agree with you on certain issues, but you aren’t hitler. I aren’t either.
Now this guy in 48, The Bobs, he seems like a total knob.
Elie
@Mako:
Yeah, I am not into flame wars at all but I do like some fun and can take a joke or ribbing from most of my friends here.
Glad we could laugh a bit — sometimes the only thing to do
Death Panel Truck
Umm, dude? I’m a lifelong Washingtonian. Explain to me how my state is “empty.” I eagerly await your answer.
Only thing empty is your head, asshole.
Mako
@Elie:
What are you wearing right now?
Mako
@Death Panel Truck:
Dork, Im tryin’ to sweet talk. Don’t you have some other place to spoor? Try the guy in 48. Bond, hold each other close.
Mako
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsPOiflvHX4&feature=channel
HyperIon
@taylormattd wrote :
Me, too.
I’m really down on the initiative process now. It is hard to craft an initiative that spells out the details. I read the statements on the two liquor initiatives and ended up with lots of questions. There’s a reason bills are long…they have to specify everything. An initiative can’t really do that.
Andrew M
There’s a constant cry here in Ontario to get the provincial government out of the liquor business. In addition to the usual tripe about cutting prices and making it more accessible, the big attraction seems to be cutting the unionized workforce. Why pay people a decent wage when you can have minimum-wage drones at Wal-Mart or the local supermarkets showing people where the 2 for 1 Smirnoff is stacked?
Mr Stagger Lee
@nostromo: And the candy and soda pop tax was repealed, so my fellow rummies
guess what is going to happen to the price of your favorite bottle of Sailor Jerry’s? Stock up the hooch boys!
Cooley
Now where am I going to get Kirkland Signature vodka?
mike
It didn’t get many more votes in Seattle than the rest of the state, but yeah, it was the rural areas that voted down the change. I can only speak for myself here, but I voted against privatizing liquor sales for the simple reason that the state gets a lot of revenue from liquor sales. If this change had gone thru, the revenue to the state would have dropped and there is NFW that anyone would be able to replace it. Shit, we also voted out a tiny little tax on candy and soda and voted down a proposal to tax incomes over $200K. Washington has no income tax. On the other hand….we have a bridge across Lake Washington that is sinking, a multi-deck freeway thru the city that will collapse during the next earthquake, potholes everywhere, failing schools, poor people living on the streets, parks that are no longer maintained or minimally maintained. If we had only voted to privatize liquor stores, we’d be living in a libertarian paradise.
Triassic Sands
And Tim Eyman to design a plan to pay for all those.
Ab_Normal
@Triassic Sands: Enthusiastically co-signed; everything I would have wanted to say as a resident of Washington, but all I could come up with was “fffffffff”