Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« A Sunday Paper You'd Want to Read | Flickr Photo of the Day »

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Politics Liquor Control Board Clarifies Its Funding With Booze Initiatives

Posted by Cienna Madrid on Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:12 PM

The Seattlepi.com ran a story today taking issue with a quote from my booze initiative article attributed to Washington State Liquor Control Board spokesman Brian Smith. In the article, Smith said, "We pay for ourselves in the markup. Without it, we can't run enforcement, licensing, alcohol-awareness programs, or the liquor control board."

The Seattlepi.com responds:

There are also claims that Initiatives 1100 and 1105 would hobble the agency charged with enforcing liquor laws - the Washington State Liquor Control Board. Agency spokesman Brian Smith told the Stranger this week that without the "markup" - the fee the state now adds to booze before it is taxed - the LCB couldn't do its job. "Without it, we can't run enforcement, licensing, alcohol-awareness programs, or the liquor control board."

That's simply not the case.

For the 2009 fiscal year, all of the licensing and enforcement funding ($18.6 million) came from a combination of Beer and Wine taxes and Licensing Fees. Neither initiative would do anything to the wine tax.

Today, Smith clarified: “We currently pay for ourselves with the markup. The initiatives [slated for the ballot] don’t fund us, but there’s money in the liquor revolving account that can pay for that. Currently, its used elsewhere. That money is what we would use first for our expenses if we need it—which we don’t right now.”

And there you have it.

Comments (13) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

So the state's going to go broke because they won't have the money to pay for the thing that's going away? Sorry, Smith.

Look: I don't care about the cost (within reason). I just want to get rid of the WSLCB. I don't mind paying the tax. I don't mind paying the markup. I just want them out of the liquor business, which they have no business being in.

Jack up the tax. Add another wholesale tax on. Charge an arm and a leg for a sales license. I don't care. I just don't want people like Smith deciding what kind of booze I can buy, and where and when I can buy it.

Posted by Fnarf

on September 2, 2010 at 3:22 PM

Like said above me, fiscal countermeasures exist. I hate to be a dick, but this sounds like a game of pure budget preservation. Like for-profit prisons, the privately ran sort, being against reductions in say marijuana convictions, the WSLCB would obviously be against anything that reduced their reason to have x budget. That's fine. But it's also important to note that as long as the state OVERALL ends up revenue neutral, or turns a profit on getting rid of the WSLCB handling booze sales, that's fine.

The end goal is revenue/tax neutrality PLUS the ability to buy alcohol on our terms, not the WSLCB's. Speaking as someone that hails originally from a far less controlled state as far as the liquor goes, the way we do it here is laughably Puritan. And I'm FROM a Puritan state, where it's far more liberalized. Puritans GTFO.

Posted by Joe Szilagyi

on September 2, 2010 at 3:34 PM

Sororities and Frats, drunk on the streets, and all so Costco can save a couple of bucks.

Wow.

It is teh fail.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on September 2, 2010 at 3:38 PM

@3, you're completely shitfaced every night of the week, so who are you to point fingers?

Posted by Fnarf

on September 2, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Last summer the LCB ran out of Campari for 3 months due to an inventory glitch. I had to drive to Vancouver to get a bottle. Pathetic.The state liquor stores are run soviet style. No accountability, unmotivated employees for life, basically on the dole just waiting to expire. I hear SEADRUNAR is hiring.

Posted by soggy on September 2, 2010 at 4:24 PM

@1 Fnarf, Do either of these proposals eliminate the WSLCB entirely? Even if stores not owned by the state are allowed to sell liquor, I assume that the state's regulatory authority wouldn't simply evaporate.

Posted by josh

on September 2, 2010 at 4:41 PM

@6 - no, neither does that, but both certainly make the first inroads into their ability to do business as usual. We can't simply eliminate a state agency by citizen initiative, but we can certainly make it clear to legislators that we are fed up with pointless overcontrol of a legal substance.

Baby steps.

Posted by Geni on September 2, 2010 at 4:51 PM

@4 lol. u r so funny.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on September 2, 2010 at 4:55 PM

It will make WSLCB's redundancy all the more obvious. Once you establish that 1.) you don't need them to tax alcohol, and 2.) you don't need them to prevent abuse, given that other states don't have worse rates of underage drinking or alcohol addiction or drunk driving.

What function does this agency serve? None.

Posted by elenchos on September 2, 2010 at 6:09 PM

Gee it would be really unfortunate to see the WSLCB disappear.

Posted by Rhizome on September 2, 2010 at 6:19 PM

It's just a thought, but do you think maybe we don't need a state agency for "enforcement, licensing, and alcohol-awareness programs"? Don't you think maybe enforcement and licensing can be done by local agencies, and "alcohol-awareness programs" are just government busywork?

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay