- About Us
Liquor Control Board initiatives, part 2
I am not familiar with the “non-partisan” Office of Financial Management (OFM) or their budget analysis. What I can say from personal experiences is, I have never found an entity that is “non-partisan” — every entity has an agenda, be it political, personal or religious, is that not a fact Patrick (Golden, last issue’s letter writer)?
Your use of such statements, and I quote “supported by booze distributors, would create a public nightmare, liquor sales and consumption will rise drastically” — how anyone can state The State will lose money is surprising to me. I am not an accountant, but some simple math leads me to believe there would be vast savings to The State were it out of the liquor business.
The OFM analysis quotes a loss of $730 million over five years. Well, my simple math using your figures: 1,000 employees assuming they cost The State $70 per hour in wages and benefits over a five-year period would be roughly $728 million, assuming no raises or overtime — this does not take into consideration the great expense of retirement obligations. These considerations do not address the costs associated with capital expenses, which are not small. I believe “my agenda,” The State has no business in the “liquor business.”
As for your Chicken Little doomsday diatribe that The State would slip into utter chaos is unfounded at best.
I believe only six states run the liquor business, and this leaves the vast majority (54), according to you, awash in a liquor-induced public safety nightmare, really!!
Jay Lyons, Bothell
P.S. Your last statement “vote for progress for Washington not for corporate profits” — does this mean we should vote Microsoft and Boeing out of Washington?