Straight up and with a twist please

If feeling a little rowdy and in the mood for rap listen to this while reading the below entry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC--NX8252c

If feeling a little more old-school and chill, listen to this while reading: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cbX4DUACYU

If at work and you don't want to draw attention to yourself just read in perfect silence.

I always enjoy finding a little nugget of political news. It gets me fired up because there is always room for debate. I like reading different angles and then deciding which side I agree with and then of course I identify those that oppose my side and dance around saying "that guy is dumb." So adult of me, I know.

I have received feedback from some of my readers telling me they appreciate when I blog about these nuggets of news, because they feel the responsibility to stay up-to-date on the political news front. However, as is true for many, reading political news can be so boring. Especially when we can read about Britney Spears or Brangelina - that takes way less brain cells.

Keeping with the party theme here, there is a bit of news that I want to share. Before we get started, ask yourself this, do I live in a state where the selling of alcohol is privatized or government run? Do you know this answer? I don't. But I am going to find out right now....please stand by. No, New York is not a controlled or aka "monopoly" state where the government is in charge of selling me my Absolut and Tanqueray. Instead, the selling of alcohol is considered a private retail practice and the government does not sell to me. The same is true for Arizona and Indiana so I am yet to encounter the government controlled experience. However, a friend of mine does live in a controlled state - Idaho. I am currently waiting for her to get back to me and let me know what her experience has been.

According to wiki and several news reports there are 18 controlled states. Five of these states are currently considering a switch to privatization. What are the five states and why are they considering a switch? How does this affect tax-payers in those states? Who is for the switch and who is against the switch and what is their reasoning? Let's break it down folks....

The five states that are currently controlled and considering privatization: Virginia, North Carolina, Vermont, Washington and Mississippi.

These five states are considering a switch to privatization because the selling of government-owned distribution centers among other facets of biz ops would generate some major muhla, something local and federal government is in major need of at the mo. For example, if the state of Washington sold their 250,000 sq. ft. spirits distribution center to a private company that single sale would generate $33 million for the state.

Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) of Virginia just won his seat with a major part of his campaign pushing for the privatization of alcohol. McDonnell argues that liquor sales is not a top government function to be providing to tax payers, especially in a time where we are having to slash budgets. State Senator Rodney Tom (D) of Washington makes a good point saying that when money is tight you have to identify the difference between wants and needs, making tough decisions on what stays and what goes. He claims that he would rather cut government liquor jobs than cut teacher jobs. I can't argue with that point, which is good to keep in mind since the privatization of alcohol will cut about 800 union jobs. With those jobs out of the picture, the state will save $$ on long-term pension plans and health costs that will no longer cost tax payers. Instead, in my eyes, perhaps some of those 800 workers will take jobs with the new privatized companies that will sprout up now that they have been given the authority by the government to open shop.

Apparently Gov. Chris Gregoire (D) of Washington opposes the privatization saying that the state won't experience those savings until 2012. Personally, I feel that's not a long time to wait. Gregoire's opponents say that she is just trying to hold onto those 800 votes from the union members. What do you think?

More arguments from opponents of privatization come from Rick Garza, the deputy director of the Liquor Control Board. He says that controlled states have almost a perfect record for not selling to minors and he fears that the competitive practices of private businesses will keep them from following the law, thus selling to minors. PUH-leeeez! As I mentioned earlier, I have lived in three of the private states and NEVER in my minor years have I been able to waltz into a liquor store and pull on their private practice heart-strings. A minor buys alcohol from you and gets caught, talk about there goes your liquor license. It just doesn't work that way Garza. What does happen in the private sector though is competitive pricing. According to a reader of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer he was paying around $23 a bottle for Potters vodka. He drove a few hours into Northern California (a privatized state) and bought the same bottle for $9. So aside from saving your state budget on costs, ie: a chance to keep your taxes low, you will also experience direct out-of-pocket savings. Just sayin'.

Another argument for keeping monopoly states comes from the Virgina Assembly of Independent Baptists. Executive Director Jack Knapp says, "we oppose anything that we think would expand the sale and use of alcohol." I just can't even go there on this one. That takes me right to the beginning. Why was liquor government-controlled in the first place? I mean other consumer goods are not government controlled such as our clothing, food, cars, makeup, books, etc. so why booze?

Prohibition I say. For all you history buffs out there...in 1933, the 21st Amendment repealed Prohibition. However, all those pols were still a little skittish about giving total control back to the "reckless" public so instead, the feds passed it off to each individual state and creating the controlled model. As society modernized, many of these states have privatized the booze biz in effort to save their tax payers money, except for the last 18. Those that are holding on for control are religious communities and lawmakers and union workers, the latter because the controlled model keeps them employed. I understand losing your job, it sucks, but as Senator Tom said - we've got to make some decisions and if privatization works well for 32 other states why not the last 18 who could stand to use the extra cash flow?I think to myself, there must be some valid points as to why states should remain controlled, but then I go back to the fact that 32 other states are operating under the private sector models so why not the last 18? I think the argument for controlled states all about power and money. People that have power and money don't like losing it, but right now the well-being of American citizens and the stability of state budgets is more important. So in summary - I am all for privatization.

Now, as always I WELCOME opposing point of views. I am always malleable and open to change my mind if someone provides me with a good argument. If I disagree with you do not worry. You are a valued reader and I promise not to dance around saying "that guy is dumb."