Posts Tagged: liquor


14
Feb 11

Kansas Liquor Laws Need Modernization

Jim Puff is a Kansas entrepreneur. He has been in the grocery store business for 43 years, and owns a convenience store, a cafe, a catering company and a grocery store in Alma, Kansas.

Unfortunately, in order to invest in his businesses and provide jobs for his employees, Jim must battle Kansas liquor laws. While some of Kansas’ neighboring states permit grocery stores to sell full-strength beer, his stores must make do with reduced alcohol content beer, or 3.2% beer.

How would modernizing Kansas liquor laws help Jim Puff and others like him? Right now, Kansas grocery stores may not sell full-strength beer. Consumers wishing to buy full-strength beer must go to a different store that is only able to sell strong beer, wine and spirits – no food items. This is a lose-lose situation. For consumers, it adds unnecessary time, effort, and money. For retailers, these regulations reduce profit potential. Current laws that prohibit what grocery stores and convenience stores can sell place a huge burden on Kansas retailers, especially when faced with escalating rent, and energy costs for lights and refrigeration. In effect, the state of Kansas is regulating businesses into oblivion.

Allowing grocery stores to sell full-strength beer, wine and spirits, and allowing liquor stores to sell grocery items will result in increased competition, benefiting both retailers and consumers in the form of increased economic activity and lower prices. Senate Bill 54 would do just that. Allowing retailers to sell additional items, such as beer, wine and spirits, would add an entirely new department to retailers; growing their product availability, increasing the need to hire new employees, and incentivizing customers to shop locally rather than drive to larger cities or bordering states where they can purchase products in one stop. SB 54 would provide sustainable economic growth for years to come.

So far, the opponents of the measure are most concerned about the chances that an increase in full-strength beer and liquor vendors will increase the likelihood that children can get access. But according to Kansas’ own Alcoholic Beverage Control Division, grocery and convenience stores have a better record of complying with laws restricting sales to minors (such as tobacco) than do liquor stores. Grocery and convenience stores have a long track record of responsibly selling age-restricted products.

In previous years, Kansas jobs and tax revenues have been traveling across state lines. A large percentage of Kansans live within driving distance to the Missouri border. Currently, many will cross the state line to take advantage of one-stop shopping in the Show-Me State, where grocery stores can sell wine and full-strength beer. And shoppers don’t stop there. Once they are in Missouri to buy groceries and alcohol, they are likely to buy other items such as gasoline and clothing. The jobs created to provide those products and services stay in Missouri, and the tax revenue from those sales go to Jefferson City, not Topeka.

Kansas is facing a budget deficit of $ 550 million, meaning that the newly elected governor and legislature will be looking everywhere to increase revenue and cut spending. According to a study by Dr. Art Hall, Director of the Center for Applied Economics at the University of Kansas, School of Business, ending these restrictions would advance the goal of increased competitiveness and productivity, adding an estimated 15,367 jobs, $ 343.6 million in wages, and $ 72.5 million in state and local tax revenue, after full economic adjustment to the repealed restrictions.

The 21st Amendment repealed Prohibition in the United States, but some states have held on tightly to their blue laws. Blue laws success at discouraging drinking is spotty, but their success at discouraging entrepreneurship and chasing away jobs and tax revenue is certain. It’s time for Kansas to get with the times, and update laws for the benefit of hard working Kansans across the entire state. If Kansas wishes to better serve its citizens, implementing policies such as SB 54 is one step in the right direction.


Big Government


14
Feb 11

Kansas Liquor Laws Need Modernization

Jim Puff is a Kansas entrepreneur. He has been in the grocery store business for 43 years, and owns a convenience store, a cafe, a catering company and a grocery store in Alma, Kansas.

Unfortunately, in order to invest in his businesses and provide jobs for his employees, Jim must battle Kansas liquor laws. While some of Kansas’ neighboring states permit grocery stores to sell full-strength beer, his stores must make do with reduced alcohol content beer, or 3.2% beer.

How would modernizing Kansas liquor laws help Jim Puff and others like him? Right now, Kansas grocery stores may not sell full-strength beer. Consumers wishing to buy full-strength beer must go to a different store that is only able to sell strong beer, wine and spirits – no food items. This is a lose-lose situation. For consumers, it adds unnecessary time, effort, and money. For retailers, these regulations reduce profit potential. Current laws that prohibit what grocery stores and convenience stores can sell place a huge burden on Kansas retailers, especially when faced with escalating rent, and energy costs for lights and refrigeration. In effect, the state of Kansas is regulating businesses into oblivion.

Allowing grocery stores to sell full-strength beer, wine and spirits, and allowing liquor stores to sell grocery items will result in increased competition, benefiting both retailers and consumers in the form of increased economic activity and lower prices. Senate Bill 54 would do just that. Allowing retailers to sell additional items, such as beer, wine and spirits, would add an entirely new department to retailers; growing their product availability, increasing the need to hire new employees, and incentivizing customers to shop locally rather than drive to larger cities or bordering states where they can purchase products in one stop. SB 54 would provide sustainable economic growth for years to come.

So far, the opponents of the measure are most concerned about the chances that an increase in full-strength beer and liquor vendors will increase the likelihood that children can get access. But according to Kansas’ own Alcoholic Beverage Control Division, grocery and convenience stores have a better record of complying with laws restricting sales to minors (such as tobacco) than do liquor stores. Grocery and convenience stores have a long track record of responsibly selling age-restricted products.

In previous years, Kansas jobs and tax revenues have been traveling across state lines. A large percentage of Kansans live within driving distance to the Missouri border. Currently, many will cross the state line to take advantage of one-stop shopping in the Show-Me State, where grocery stores can sell wine and full-strength beer. And shoppers don’t stop there. Once they are in Missouri to buy groceries and alcohol, they are likely to buy other items such as gasoline and clothing. The jobs created to provide those products and services stay in Missouri, and the tax revenue from those sales go to Jefferson City, not Topeka.

Kansas is facing a budget deficit of $ 550 million, meaning that the newly elected governor and legislature will be looking everywhere to increase revenue and cut spending. According to a study by Dr. Art Hall, Director of the Center for Applied Economics at the University of Kansas, School of Business, ending these restrictions would advance the goal of increased competitiveness and productivity, adding an estimated 15,367 jobs, $ 343.6 million in wages, and $ 72.5 million in state and local tax revenue, after full economic adjustment to the repealed restrictions.

The 21st Amendment repealed Prohibition in the United States, but some states have held on tightly to their blue laws. Blue laws success at discouraging drinking is spotty, but their success at discouraging entrepreneurship and chasing away jobs and tax revenue is certain. It’s time for Kansas to get with the times, and update laws for the benefit of hard working Kansans across the entire state. If Kansas wishes to better serve its citizens, implementing policies such as SB 54 is one step in the right direction.


Big Government


14
Feb 11

Kansas Liquor Laws Need Modernization

Jim Puff is a Kansas entrepreneur. He has been in the grocery store business for 43 years, and owns a convenience store, a cafe, a catering company and a grocery store in Alma, Kansas.

Unfortunately, in order to invest in his businesses and provide jobs for his employees, Jim must battle Kansas liquor laws. While some of Kansas’ neighboring states permit grocery stores to sell full-strength beer, his stores must make do with reduced alcohol content beer, or 3.2% beer.

How would modernizing Kansas liquor laws help Jim Puff and others like him? Right now, Kansas grocery stores may not sell full-strength beer. Consumers wishing to buy full-strength beer must go to a different store that is only able to sell strong beer, wine and spirits – no food items. This is a lose-lose situation. For consumers, it adds unnecessary time, effort, and money. For retailers, these regulations reduce profit potential. Current laws that prohibit what grocery stores and convenience stores can sell place a huge burden on Kansas retailers, especially when faced with escalating rent, and energy costs for lights and refrigeration. In effect, the state of Kansas is regulating businesses into oblivion.

Allowing grocery stores to sell full-strength beer, wine and spirits, and allowing liquor stores to sell grocery items will result in increased competition, benefiting both retailers and consumers in the form of increased economic activity and lower prices. Senate Bill 54 would do just that. Allowing retailers to sell additional items, such as beer, wine and spirits, would add an entirely new department to retailers; growing their product availability, increasing the need to hire new employees, and incentivizing customers to shop locally rather than drive to larger cities or bordering states where they can purchase products in one stop. SB 54 would provide sustainable economic growth for years to come.

So far, the opponents of the measure are most concerned about the chances that an increase in full-strength beer and liquor vendors will increase the likelihood that children can get access. But according to Kansas’ own Alcoholic Beverage Control Division, grocery and convenience stores have a better record of complying with laws restricting sales to minors (such as tobacco) than do liquor stores. Grocery and convenience stores have a long track record of responsibly selling age-restricted products.

In previous years, Kansas jobs and tax revenues have been traveling across state lines. A large percentage of Kansans live within driving distance to the Missouri border. Currently, many will cross the state line to take advantage of one-stop shopping in the Show-Me State, where grocery stores can sell wine and full-strength beer. And shoppers don’t stop there. Once they are in Missouri to buy groceries and alcohol, they are likely to buy other items such as gasoline and clothing. The jobs created to provide those products and services stay in Missouri, and the tax revenue from those sales go to Jefferson City, not Topeka.

Kansas is facing a budget deficit of $ 550 million, meaning that the newly elected governor and legislature will be looking everywhere to increase revenue and cut spending. According to a study by Dr. Art Hall, Director of the Center for Applied Economics at the University of Kansas, School of Business, ending these restrictions would advance the goal of increased competitiveness and productivity, adding an estimated 15,367 jobs, $ 343.6 million in wages, and $ 72.5 million in state and local tax revenue, after full economic adjustment to the repealed restrictions.

The 21st Amendment repealed Prohibition in the United States, but some states have held on tightly to their blue laws. Blue laws success at discouraging drinking is spotty, but their success at discouraging entrepreneurship and chasing away jobs and tax revenue is certain. It’s time for Kansas to get with the times, and update laws for the benefit of hard working Kansans across the entire state. If Kansas wishes to better serve its citizens, implementing policies such as SB 54 is one step in the right direction.


Big Government


8
Feb 11

Sunday Liquor Sales Hearing Today

The Super Bowl is over, but is it time for a beer run on Sunday?

With the state facing a projected deficit of $ 3.7 billion, one of the most contentious issues this session is whether consumers can buy beer and wine on Sundays at package stores. Package store owners are expected to turn out in force at the Capitol this morning for a public hearing in front of the key committee on the issue: the general law committee.

Each side is expected to provide statistics for their case: The package store owners say the increase in tax revenues will be negligible, while the manufacturers and grocery stores say it will generate at least $ 8 million per year for the state.

The new twist this year? Gov. Dannel P. Malloy would sign the bill.

Capitol Watch


8
Feb 11

Pitched Battle Over Sunday Alcohol Sales; Liquor Manufacturers Support Sales; Package Stores Opposed

2011-02-08_11-46-08_982.jpg
Paul Jahnige of Stop & Shop speaks in favor of Sunday liquor sales. (Mark Mirko/Hartford Courant)

Liquor manufacturers and package store owners are squaring off Tuesday over the emotional issue of allowing the Sunday sales of alcohol in supermarkets and package stores.

Proponents said that changing the law would lead to increase sales and thus increased tax receipts in the cash-strapped state. The liquor manufacturers say the state would received an increase of $ 8 million per year in taxes, while the legislature’s non-partisan fiscal office places the number at $ 3.6 million. But the package stores association, which is strongly opposed to Sunday sales, says the increase could be only $ 100,000 because the current sales volume over six days would be simply spread to seven days.

Link: Sunday Liquor Sales Bill

Connecticut is the only state in New England with an across-the-board ban on the sale of beer on Sundays in supermarkets and package stores.

The two biggest changes this year are that two of the biggest opponents of Sunday sales - state Sen. Thomas Colapietro of Bristol and former Gov. M. Jodi Rell - are no longer at the Capitol. In contrast to Rell, new Gov. Dannel P. Malloy says he would sign the Sunday sales bill if it reaches his desk - but he says he is not making any efforts to push the bill because he is tied up with trying to close the state’s projected $ 3.7 billion deficit.

During the first hour of the hearing, one of the key witnesses was Jay Hibbard, vice president of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, known as DISCUS. The package store owners dispute virtually everything DISCUS says, and DISCUS disputes the contention by the package stores that many will go out of business if Sunday sales are legalized.

DISCUS represents the biggest brands in the country, including manufacturer Diageo of Norwalk. DISCUS, which paid recently for a full-page advertisement on the issue in The Hartford Courant, is a key player in the battle. They were joined by a representative of Stop N Shop, which is already open on Sunday and supports the sales.

“Sunday is the second busiest shopping day of the week in today’s dual-income households,” Hibbard told members of the general law committee.

Overall, 14 states have adopted Sunday sales since 2002, including New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Colorado, and Kansas, he said. All of them have had increased sales of at least 4 percent to 10 percent, including a 10 percent increase in New York State. There was a 14 percent increase in sales in Montgomery County, Maryland.

“There is simply no reason why Connecticut would be any different,” he said of the projected sales increases. “It’s not back-of-the-envelope calculations.”

He added, “There are, in fact, new sales.”

Regarding problems with drinking, Hibbard said “there is no increase in underage drinking” or drunken driving from allowing purchases on Sunday.

“There is no statistical difference,” Hibbard said.

Prompted by state Rep. Kathleen Tallarita of Enfield, Hibbard said there is no reason to believe the statements by the Connecticut Package Stores Association that as many as 600 jobs could be lost by the legalization of Sunday sales.

“We are not aware of that,” Hibbard responded. ”There has not been evidence that Sunday sales [led to] stores closing or not.”

But Carroll J. Hughes, the executive director and the chief lobbyist for the package stores association, says that jobs will definitely be lost and the legislature should have more of a sense of urgency about the proposed change in the law.

“If we proposed a loss of 500 jobs in one location, people would be tripping over themselves to help them,” Hughes told Capitol Watch.

Hughes represents 1,100 package stores, including many mom-and-pop operations that are barely profitable. He estimates that as many as 300 to 350 stores could close - with an average of 1.5 employees per store.

Hughes repeatedly notes that the Sunday sales issue has been falsely referred to as a blue law. It is a liquor law, rather than a blue law. The blue laws have been struck down as illegal.

Capitol Watch


3
Feb 11

Public Hearing On Sunday Liquor Sales Set For Tuesday At State Capitol Complex Over Hotly Lobbied Issue

Should Connecticut consumers be allowed to purchase alcohol on Sundays in supermarkets and package stores?

That long-running question has been heating up again this year at the state Capitol.

But the landscape has changed with a new governor and new legislators. For the first time in recent memory, the legislature’s general law committee will be holding a public hearing on the issue on Tuesday at 10 a.m. as proponents and opponents battle over the alcohol sales.

A different committee - the Program Review and Investigations Committee - held a public hearing last year, but the general law committee is the crucial one in getting the ball rolling on the bill. The hearing will be held in Room 2C, the largest committee room for public hearings.

One of the main opponents, Sen. Thomas Colapietro, was the longtime committee co-chairman, but he lost in November’s election.

“We have a different committee, and the governor said he would sign if it it came to his desk,” said Carroll J. Hughes, the chief lobbyist for the state’s package store owners. “He told me that personally. One thing about Malloy is he doesn’t forget what he says.”

Nearly a year ago, Malloy told Capitol Watch that he would sign the controversial bill that would allow the Sunday sales if he was elected governor.

Malloy’s comments at the time came after the Democratic mayors of the state’s three largest cities all called upon the Democrat-controlled legislature to break the long-standing provision that prevents retailers from selling beer, wine or liquor in package stores and supermarkets on Sundays.

“If it passed the legislature, I would absolutely sign it,” Malloy told Capitol Watch at the time. “It’s not a difficult call. … We don’t protect other industries from competition on Sunday. That’s the reality.”

Malloy, however, said he would not propose the Sunday sales in his budget if he was elected governor. Saying it was a legislative issue, he would allow the General Assembly to make the first step. Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell opposed the concept and never included it in her budgets.

Capitol Watch


16
Dec 10

Penna’s liquor stores may get privatized. Finally.

You want to buy wine or any form of alcoholic beverage in a to-go container (save only beer) in Pennsylvania?  You have to go to the friendly state-run liquor store.  How pathetic.  The people are nice enough, sure, but the wine selection sucks.  And it’s price fixing at its very worst. But there is hope. [...]
Liberty Pundits Blog


16
Dec 10

Penna’s liquor stores may get privatized. Finally.

You want to buy wine or any form of alcoholic beverage in a to-go container (save only beer) in Pennsylvania?  You have to go to the friendly state-run liquor store.  How pathetic.  The people are nice enough, sure, but the wine selection sucks.  And it’s price fixing at its very worst. But there is hope. [...]
Liberty Pundits Blog


29
Nov 10

Deadweight Loss of Liquor License Restrictions

Street noise is a very real issue in large swathes of Manhattan and I think it’s perfectly understandable that people prefer not to have lively nightlife scenes located directly outside their windows. So when I read Sarah Laskow’s long and excellent account of liquor license battles in the East Village, I’m not-unsympathetic to the incumbent residents’ concerns. But as she observes at the end, there’s a real cost to this attitude:

At the meeting with Kao, the locals gave him the same reason for opposing him that they had given Warren, when he wanted to open a burger bar in the space: according to the current license, the only type of business that should be selling liquor at 200 Ave. A is a bookshop. With rent set at $ 10,000 in the East Village Party District, that’s as unlikely as it sounds.

The broader issue, as she explains, is that cities are driven by agglomeration:

Academics have a word for what the neighborhood has become: a nightscape. Bars and restaurants were once peripheral to the main drag’s primary economic drivers: supermarkets, coffeehouses, boutique shops, record stores. But in post-industrial cities, nightlife has grown into an industry in its own right. As in any industry, shop owners tend to cluster. A century ago, that meant the creation of a Garment District. Now it means the creation of a Party District.

Basically the East Village really “wants” to be full of nightlife establishments just like Qiaotou, China wants button factories. Restricting the creation of new button factories in Qiatou will help incumbent button makers (and alleviate neighborhood concerns about factory smoot) but it’s hard to call a bar scene into existence that way. Similarly, making it hard to open a new bar in the East Village isn’t going to create a button factory. It’s going to create an underutilized space. That means somewhat more unemployment in the city, somewhat less tax revenue in the city, and thus at the margin higher tax rates and fewer social services for everyone.

Meanwhile, as a policy analyst living in a different city the right way to look at the neighborhood concerns is this. Will another bar on the block make living on that block worse? I have no reason to doubt it. But it’s not like there’s some excessive quantity of affordable housing in Manhattan. If a given block becomes less desirable to live on, that just means someone else will live there. In equilibrium, we’re looking at lower housing costs and higher employment rates.

The bigger question here is about levels of governance. Insofar as you empower residents of my building in DC to make the decision, we will attempt to regulate the food service establishments on our block so as to minimize late-night noise. After all, the service sector jobs lost in the process aren’t the jobs that we do while as homeowners we bear the losses of reduced property values on the block. And to simply disempower us, as a block, would be arbitrary and unfair. But empowering each and every block leads to highly inefficient outcomes with the bulk of the pain felt by low-income people and there’s no obvious reason of justice to think this kind of hyper-local empowerment is more legitimate than taking a broader view would be.


Yglesias


12
Nov 10

Legislature changes Sunday liquor sales bill

After already passing a bill to allow liquor sales on Sundays beginning at 7 am rather than noon and having it vetoed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm, the Michigan legislature passed a compromise bill to fix the things she didn’t like about it and sent it back to the governor’s desk for her signature. Granholm’s spokesperson said she will likely sign the new bill, which will raise additional revenue for the state.

Michigan Messenger


14
Oct 10

Pelosi’s pathetic abuse of USAF aircraft, and her $100K liquor tab

Thank you, Judaical Watch:

  • Pelosi used the Air Force aircraft for a total of 85 trips, covering 206,264 miles, from March 2, 2009 through June 7, 2010. Pelosi, her guests and Air Force personnel logged a total of 428.6 hours on these flights.
  • Members of Pelosi’s family were guests on at least two flights. On June 20, 2009, Speaker Pelosi’s daughter, son-in-law and two grandsons joined a flight from Andrews Air Force Base to San Francisco International Air Port. That flight included $ 143 in on-flight expenses for food and other items. On July 2, 2010, Pelosi took her grandson on a flight from Andrews Air Force Base to Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, California, which is northeast of San Francisco.
  • According to previous documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, the Speaker’s military travel cost the United States Air Force $ 2,100,744.59 over a two-year period — $ 101,429.14 of which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol. For example, purchases for one Pelosi-led congressional delegation traveling from Washington, DC, through Tel Aviv, Israel to Baghdad, Iraq May 15-20, 2008 included: Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewar’s scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey, Corona beer and several bottles of wine.
  • Judicial Watch also previously uncovered internal Department of Defense documents (DOD) email correspondence detailing attempts by DOD staff to accommodate Pelosi’s numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker’s last minute cancellations and changes. For example, in response to a series of requests for military aircraft, one Defense Department official wrote, “Any chance of politely querying [Pelosi's team] if they really intend to do all of these or are they just picking every weekend?…[T]here’s no need to block every weekend ‘just in case’… “The email also notes that Pelosi’s office had, “a history of canceling many of their past requests.”

This chick needs to go.  Fricking abuser.

Liberty Pundits Blog