Statewide Observations
My Thoughts on this Year's General Election
(November 8, 2011) Ballot
If you are a Washington State voter, you might have noticed that the ballot this year includes Initiative Measure 1183. Initiative 1183 is a business-sponsored bill to eliminate the monopoly on liquor distrbution and sales in state-operated stores throughout Washington State. The premise of this proposed legislation is to allow large retail food chains (like Costco, Top Foods, Fred Meyer, and Safeway) to procure liquor directly from the producers and sell liquor products to legal-age consumers. Restaurants would also be able to buy liquor products direct and thus eliminate both the state and independent spirits distributors from the products purchasing process. In exchange for the right to buy and sell liquor without the current state liquor board's control and distribution system, local government revenue collection agencies in the same communities where retailers will be selling liquor products would get direct fees and tax revenues from retailers and sales to help pay for public safety, schools, and other public services. Most of these local public service organizations were being supported by grants from the state before the state announced a 2-billion dollar plus deficit for its 2012 operating budget. This initiative is advertised by non-business proponents (like one of Washington's prior governors, Dan Evans) to cut state managment and distribution revenues out of the liquor distribution and sales process and redirect those incomes directly to county and city revenue collection agencies. If you believe the stated personal job titles in the television campaign ads, public service employees seem to be split between supporting and opposing thsi initiative. My guess is that those firefighters on TV ads presented as being opposed to the initiative are totally dependent on state revenues for their jobs and their current operations are being directly funded by the state liquor distribution and sales revenues. I suspect statewide private substance dependency health service organizations would be opposed to this initiative because it will reduce state funding to them from the old system -- they don't want to re-negotiate with local government funding sources.
What is not directly evident is the shift from the state legislature controlling liquor tax and distrbution revenue sources (and spending collected revenue in special interest communities large urban areas to get their vote) to local government's direct control of the lquor sales revenue. We may see more of this competition trend for fee and tax revenue money sources, as local communities try to take back sales revenue sources from the state to meet their own fiscal year operations expenses. This is a win-win situation for retail, producer, restaurant businesses, local public service organizations, and local government if the public will vote the bill into law. Distributors and state union organizations are opposing this proposition for obvious reasons. We will see how many revenue sources the cities and counties will be able to take back from the state. If state-operated programs are not needed any more, voter initiatives like this will also help shrink state labor costs (only liquor law enforcement personnel will be retained) as well as redirect taxpayer dollars to local government funding needs and establish tighter enforcement law penalties on teen alcohol consumption.
After all of the observations personal views and in my comments above, I am voting FOR Iniative Measure 1183.
THIS PAGE WAS LAST UPDATED: 23 October 2011