AUGUSTA, Maine — The state could gain more than $40 million a year and Mainers would pay less for hard liquor under a plan put forward Wednesday by the director of the Maine Bureau of Alcoholic Beverages and Lottery Operations.
In an informal briefing before a state legislative committee, Gerry Reid said increased cash flow to the state’s coffers would come from ending a contract the state awarded in 2003 allowing a private company exclusive rights to import and distribute hard liquor in Maine.
That contract, which expires in 2014 and is expected to be renegotiated by June 2013, has long been eyed by lawmakers, Republican and Democratic alike, as a potential source of new state revenue.
Reid was briefing the Legislature’s Committee on Veterans and Legal Affairs, which has jurisdiction over alcohol and lottery sales, in advance of a briefing planned for Friday before the Appropriations Committee.
Some have speculated that Gov. Paul LePage is eyeing that money, as well, as he looks to pay off the state’s debt to Maine hospitals, estimated at between $150 million and $190 million.
Continued growth in alcohol sales looks promising, and if the state were to renegotiate or take back the wholesale alcohol contract it could stand to gain an additional $41.5 million in gross revenues.
Reid said he would suggest using some of that money to lower the price of alcohol in Maine, benefiting consumers and those who sell alcohol at the retail level.
“It’s important to understand how we are trying to manage the difference for all our stakeholders,” Reid said. “We are going to adjust our retail prices down.”
He said retail prices in Maine were as much as $2 to $7 per bottle more expensive than in New Hampshire, due in large part to a three-way slicing of the revenue among the state, the wholesaler and the retailer.
“… the state of New Hampshire is essentially one stakeholder,” Reid said. Under his preliminary proposal, wholesale prices would be reduced and retail prices would be capped at a percentage increase that is favorable to retailers. He said bars and restaurants would also benefit because their costs would be reduced, but there would be no changes requiring them to charge less for hard liquor.
By conservative estimates, Reid said, Maine loses about 206,000 cases of liquor sales to New Hampshire each year because of the price differences. He said some estimates place that sales loss as high as 400,000 cases, which equals $10 million to $20 million in lost revenue.
Reid said he has reviewed the operational budget of Maine Beverage Co., the company that holds the wholesale contract, and it makes about $36 million a year in profit, after paying about $7 million a year in operating costs.
Maine is one of 18 states that reserve the right to import hard alcohol across state lines. In the throes of a state budget crisis in 2003, the state negotiated a $125 million, 10-year contract with Maine Beverage. Since then, lawmakers have argued that the contract should be renegotiated as a steady uptick in alcohol sales has increased its value.
Reid’s plan would be to not renew the Maine Beverage contract, “or anything like it,” he said.
“We would not do that,” he said. “And by the way, I have nothing but goodwill toward our current wholesale partner; they are good people, they are doing a good job. They just get paid too much.”
Reid said he believed the state could do what Maine Beverage does now for less or contract with a third party that would do it for less.
“The numbers I’ve given you just assumes we can do it for that $7 million, not better, so I’m not assuming we can do it any better,” he said. “I’m just assuming that we can do it for the same costs that our partner down the street does it for.”
Reid said Maine Beverage was not yet aware of his plan and that he was going to inform them of it Friday morning. Reid is also expected to brief the Legislature’s Appropriations Committee on the plan Friday, he said.
Maine Beverage Co.’s Chief Financial Officer George Woods said he was not aware of any plan the state had and was unable to comment on it. He said the company’s CEO, Dean Williams, was not available for comment Wednesday.
Reid asked lawmakers on the committee not to discuss the proposal until he had a chance to speak with Maine Beverage and the members of the state’s Liquor and Lottery Commission.
“Let the liquor do the thinking” Jim Lahey, Supervisor, Sunnyvale Trailer Park.
“I am the liquor”
That’s great. I love that the first comment is a quote from The Trailer Park Boys. Perfect.
baldy sold this business to out of staters for his own re-election funds.
Who hasn’t had a little too much to drink and passed out in their driveway after pissing themself?
Who hasn’t gotten liquored up and taken a pot shot a Ricky? If that show was produced in the U.S., John Dunsworth would have a whole liquor cabinet full of Emmy’s.
People ought to be able to buy whatever adult beverages from anywhere they want. This policy is like a Dictatorship. I thought this was a free country!?
Baldacci, in a panic, sold the revenue stream for a big fat check that balanced his budget for a few months. That’s how democrats think, find a band aid, any band aid, and then move on to funding more welfare and more programs and enacting more regulations and continuing to suffocate Maine’s business and its economy. And we liked it because when you read the comments on these boards, we want more regulation, more taxes, more welfare more more more more more…………………………………………..
Why did the democrats sell the franchise? Take it back.
It is not a franchise and Democrats did not sell it.
Oh yes theydid. Baldacci closed all State Agency Liquor stores and gave the liquor contract to his buddy in Mass.
I should say he gave control and contract to a Mass. firm owned by his buddy
Yet if I were awarding a government contract and did that, I would go to prison.
State Agency stores are a pain in the …
Doesn’t mean we will have state agency stores, it means, the State would be in charge of distrubution.. from there who knows?
baldacci wanted to sell it indefinitely, but luckily a legislator stood up and only made the contract for 10 years…
the state has lost hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue because good ol’ baldacci sold it to his friends in Massachusetts
Well, there is a backside to when all of this happened, and it involves a former administrator of the largest law enforcement agency in the state, a sexual harassment complaint which was very founded, and the elimination of another agency as a result, there is, or was, a you-tube rant by a state legislator who was very aware of what had taken place, wonder if anybody will want to look into it.
I think you meant ‘backstory’, not backside (lol), but your post is intriguing. Do tell…
I say put all the revenue into the general fund. Lowering the price of something known far and wide to cause huge health problems just doesn’t make sense to me.
Its like gasoline or cigarettes or food for that matter. People are going to continue to consume it regardless of the price. At least at fair and competitive prices it doesn’t cause empty pocket problems along with health problems.
I’ll still get mine in New Hampshire.
And how much gas money and time does that cost you?
Spend 25 dollars in fuel to save 8 bucks. Maine liberal economics
If one is traveling out of state for other purposes, and drives right by a retail establishment with lower prices than his or her home state why does political affiliation enter the equation?
The State tries to screw me, I try to screw the State. New Hampshire gets most of my alcohol $$$.
If you plan your trip right, they can get your gas money too.
hope you applied your Maine Use Tax
Oh boy! Cheaper Maine Champagne.
Allen’s coffee brandy, right?
Yes. Maine consumes more Allen’s than any other state.
On one of my trips back to the County a few years ago, I asked where the nearest ‘Green Front’ was. I got laughed at and told to go to the supermarket. What a lousy selection and high prices (at least you could buy it later than before). In Mass, it’s almost impossible to buy any booze outside of a dedicated, privately owned ‘packy’. Good selection and prices vary because they have a choice of distributors to buy from. The State recently raised the tax, though: the % rise was based on the already taxed price! We got pretty cranky about it, but the State got the revenue increase!
So Penguin’s greatest achievement will be to reduce the cost of his booze?
legalize fireworks,
increase speed limit north of old town to 75,
cut state government substantially,
add more welfare enforcement,
pay off debt,
i’d say he’s done a lot so far.
Guess who owns Maine Beverage: Two-thirds ownership rests in an affiliate of Lindsay Goldberg & Bessemer, the Wall Street investment firm that lobbyist Severin Beliveau represented. The Martignetti liquor interests of Massachusetts owns the other one-third. Representing them in the lobbying prior to the state’s sale of the business was another man with a close tie to Baldacci, Larry Benoit, his former congressional chief of staff.
It’s was a pattern with Ol’Baldy. He also gave away 2/3 of the state to out of state and foreign wind power developers by rushing through “emergency” legislation under the cover of darkness that created expedited permitting with little scrutiny, making it almost automatic that applications for projects would get rubber stamped by the MDEP.
Wind generated power costs 2-3 times what conventional (gas, coal, hydro, biomass) generating plants charge. And don’t even think about offshore wind turbines. Currently the wholesale price of electricity is .03-.04 per Kwh. The prosposed Statoil off shore wind power project is proposing to charge .29 – .32 perKwh. That’s 8 times the current price! Wind power electricity will put all of us in the poor house if the Expedited Wind Energy Act is not repealed or at least re-written.
The current wholesale price is 6-7 cents, not 4 as you suggest. And you cannot compare a test project to incumbent natural gas and expect a fair outcome. The pilot project will habe no noticeable impact on power rates due to its small size and yrt it will inject $40 million minimum into Maine’s economy through construction. Long term pricing is a better comparison and at a scale that makes it commercially viable. In the end, the price paid by folks from Mass and Ct shouldn’t be our first concern.
You sound an awful lot like someone with ‘skin’ in that project.
1. It was confirmed just this week by the Governor’s OEIS that .04 is indeed the curent wholesale rate from conventional (non-wind) sources. But even if the price was .06, that means that this projects electricity would cost 5 times as much as what’s currently available. Are you suggesting that our electric bills would increase 5 fold during the time this project is built and comes on line?
2. “will inject $40 million into Maine’s economy” Yes, we hear those types of exaggerated claims all the time from the inland wind power developers … pure BS.
Will all components of these turbines be manufacturer in Maine, or will the costly components come from China or Europe like the land based turbines?
Will all of the labor be Maine citizen’s? You know that the full skill sets required don’t exist in Maine and that most of the labor payroll will go to non-residents that have the expertise. My father was in the construction field all his life and so were his 4 brothers. When the job is away from home, workers do spend some money locally on food and beer, and possibly housing – (though most own their own campers that they stay in) but they take their paychecks home to pay the bills. Only a very timy percentage of the labor costs are injected into the local economy.
Your claim of $40 million being spent here is pure fantasy, and your assertion that offshore wind can competitively compete with natural gas, hydro, coal, and other conventional sources is hogwash.
1. This one project is a test project with a private investment of $100 million. The electricity generated will have a cost of $0.28-32 per kwh, since it is the first of its kind and is funded as true R &D. The ratepayer will not see a rate increase, since the energy will be spread over a 35,000 MW power pool. Retail impact is on the order of $0.50 per electric bill per YEAR. 2. The 40% Maine sourcing requirement is in the proposal, resulting in $40 million benefit to Maine businesses. The 4 turbines represent less than 15% of the project cost for this test project. Engineering and design work, steel, etc. would be sourced locally for at least 40% of the total cost. Maine has very skilled marine construction workers and support staff as well as the necessary equipment to deliver this project. The requirements have been known for at least 2 years, and Maine companies are positioned to benefit. As for the 40% requirement, look it up before you reject it out of hand. And don’t sell Maine expertise short. Take a drive over to Cianbro’s module facility, or a trip down to BIW and tell me that we don’t have local expertise that can float a submersible structure into the ocean. You are the one living a fantasy. You clearly have no clue what Maine companies are capable of. And finally, when power prices rise to $0.20 per kwh, and they will, we will all be begging for alternatives such as wind and hydro. By the way, I am a conservative Republican voter who can’t wait to get the psycho out of our White House. But I am a pragmatic conservative who has no issue with spending the relatively tiny portion of our federal budget on wind subsidies that we do, especially since we daily subsidize oil to a much larger degree. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: Plan for Maine liquor contract would cut prices, add $41 million for state GoodridanceObama wrote, in response to Ninelake: You sound an awful lot like someone with ‘skin’ in that project. 1. It was confirmed just this week by the Governor’s OEIS that .04 is indeed the curent wholesale rate from conventional (non-wind) sources. But even if the price was .06, that means that this projects electricity would cost 5 times as much as what’s currently available. Are you suggesting that our electric bills would increase 5 fold during the time this project is built and comes on line? 2. “will inject $40 million into Maine’s economy” Yes, we hear those types of exaggerated claims all the time from the inland wind power developers … pure BS. Will all components of these turbines be manufacturer in Maine, or will the costly components come from China or Europe like the land based turbines? Will all of the labor be Maine citizen’s? You know that the full skill sets required don’t exist in Maine and that most of the labor payroll will go to non-residents that have the expertise. My father was in the construction field all his life and so were his 4 brothers. When the job is away from home, workers do spend some money locally on food and beer, and possibly housing – (though most own their own campers that they stay in) but they take their paychecks home to pay the bills. Only a very timy percentage of the labor costs are injected into the local economy. Your claim of $40 million being spent here is pure fantasy, and your assertion that offshore wind can competitively compete with natural gas, hydro, coal, and other conventional sources is hogwash. Link to comment Ninelake wrote: The current wholesale price is 6-7 cents, not 4 as you suggest. And you cannot compare a test project to incumbent natural gas and expect a fair outcome. The pilot project will habe no noticeable impact on power rates due to its small size and yrt it will inject $40 million minimum into Maine’s economy through construction. Long term pricing is a better comparison and at a scale that makes it commercially viable. In the end, the price paid by folks from Mass and Ct shouldn’t be our first concern. —– Options: Reply with “Like”to like this comment, or respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications
1. This one project is a test project with a private investment of $100 million. The electricity generated will have a cost of $0.28-32 per kwh, since it is the first of its kind and is funded as true R &D. The ratepayer will not see a rate increase, since the energy will be spread over a 35,000 MW power pool. Retail impact is on the order of $0.50 per electric bill per YEAR. 2. The 40% Maine sourcing requirement is in the proposal, resulting in $40 million benefit to Maine businesses. The 4 turbines represent less than 15% of the project cost for this test project. Engineering and design work, steel, etc. would be sourced locally for at least 40% of the total cost. Maine has very skilled marine construction workers and support staff as well as the necessary equipment to deliver this project. The requirements have been known for at least 2 years, and Maine companies are positioned to benefit. As for the 40% requirement, look it up before you reject it out of hand. And don’t sell Maine expertise short. Take a drive over to Cianbro’s module facility, or a trip down to BIW and tell me that we don’t have local expertise that can float a submersible structure into the ocean. You are the one living a fantasy. You clearly have no clue what Maine companies are capable of. And finally, when power prices rise to $0.20 per kwh, and they will, we will all be begging for alternatives such as wind and hydro. By the way, I am a conservative Republican voter who can’t wait to get the psycho out of our White House. But I am a pragmatic conservative who has no issue with spending the relatively tiny portion of our federal budget on wind subsidies that we do, especially since we daily subsidize oil to a much larger degree. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: Plan for Maine liquor contract would cut prices, add $41 million for state GoodridanceObama wrote, in response to Ninelake: You sound an awful lot like someone with ‘skin’ in that project. 1. It was confirmed just this week by the Governor’s OEIS that .04 is indeed the curent wholesale rate from conventional (non-wind) sources. But even if the price was .06, that means that this projects electricity would cost 5 times as much as what’s currently available. Are you suggesting that our electric bills would increase 5 fold during the time this project is built and comes on line? 2. “will inject $40 million into Maine’s economy” Yes, we hear those types of exaggerated claims all the time from the inland wind power developers … pure BS. Will all components of these turbines be manufacturer in Maine, or will the costly components come from China or Europe like the land based turbines? Will all of the labor be Maine citizen’s? You know that the full skill sets required don’t exist in Maine and that most of the labor payroll will go to non-residents that have the expertise. My father was in the construction field all his life and so were his 4 brothers. When the job is away from home, workers do spend some money locally on food and beer, and possibly housing – (though most own their own campers that they stay in) but they take their paychecks home to pay the bills. Only a very timy percentage of the labor costs are injected into the local economy. Your claim of $40 million being spent here is pure fantasy, and your assertion that offshore wind can competitively compete with natural gas, hydro, coal, and other conventional sources is hogwash. Link to comment Ninelake wrote: The current wholesale price is 6-7 cents, not 4 as you suggest. And you cannot compare a test project to incumbent natural gas and expect a fair outcome. The pilot project will habe no noticeable impact on power rates due to its small size and yrt it will inject $40 million minimum into Maine’s economy through construction. Long term pricing is a better comparison and at a scale that makes it commercially viable. In the end, the price paid by folks from Mass and Ct shouldn’t be our first concern. —– Options: Reply with “Like”to like this comment, or respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications
So if the test is successful how will you get the energy created to market without the cost of new transmission facilities? Sure, retail impact on power bills might only be .50 on this minute test project but what happens when you move it to grid scale? So exactly how many years do you project it will be before the standard energy option gets to .20 that you are so sure of? 10 – 20 – 30 years? And what how much of an inflationary adjustment will we see on top of the .28-.32 each year? Convenient that you never mention these issues.
You say: “especially since we daily subsidize oil to a much larger degree”. That’s just not true when you compare apples to apples. The current subsidies for wind power are a minimum of 10 times that of coal, gas, or oil (and many would argue that 20 times is a more accurate figure when you look at the whole picture) – when you compare it on a per Megawatt basis. And here’s another “inconvenient truth” for you –
In 2010 the $5 billion in Federal wind power subsidies was more than triplethe subsidy to natural gas and coal electricity combined, despite the factthat coal and natural gas generated 30 times more electricity than wind. If you’ve been scammed into investing in this technology, that’s terrific, just don’t expect me or millions of other Americans to foot the bill through our Federal taxes. This may be private capital for this test unit, but if a grid scale version comes to fruition, Statoil will be standing at the Federal subsidy trough along with the wind and solar scammers. Good luck with your investment. By the way, I’m an independent with fiscally conservative values and the money we’re pouring into wind and solar right now will never pay off. Neither technology is capable of being a base load energy source, and they can’t beat the laws of physics no matter how much taxpayer and ratepayer money they have. Of course we both know that the growth of wind power in the U.S. in recent years has nothing to do with creating any meaningful amount of energy, it’s all about the PTCs, Treasury Grants, RECS, etc. Hell, the largest WP developer in this state (First Wind LLC) stated in their IPO prospectus documents that “we don’t have to generate any electricity to make money”. Just wealthy hogs at the taxpayer trough looking to become super wealthy on the taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ backs. Can you make a valid argument against that?
In 2010 the $5 billion in Federal wind power subsidies was more than triple
the subsidy to natural gas and coal electricity combined, despite the fact
that coal and natural gas generated 30 times more electricity than wind.
If you’ve been scammed into investing in this technology, that’s terrific, just don’t expect me or millions of other Americans to foot the bill through our Federal taxes. This may be private capital for this test unit, but if a grid scale version comes to fruition, Statoil will be standing at the Federal subsidy trough along with the wind and solar scammers. Good luck with your investment.
By the way, I’m an independent with fiscally conservative values and the money we’re pouring into wind and solar right now will never pay off. Neither technology is capable of being a base load energy source, and they can’t beat the laws of physics no matter how much taxpayer and ratepayer money they have. Of course we both know that the growth of wind power in the U.S. in recent years has nothing to do with creating any meaningful amount of energy, it’s all about the PTCs, Treasury Grants, RECS, etc. Hell, the largest WP developer in this state (First Wind LLC) stated in their IPO prospectus documents that “we don’t have to generate any electricity to make money”. Just wealthy hogs at the taxpayer trough looking to become super wealthy on the taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ backs. Can you make a valid argument against that?
I forgot to mention one other aspect of your comment, you say:
“In the end, the price paid by folks from Mass and Ct shouldn’t be our first concern.”
That argument doesn’t hold water either. Everyone who earns a paycheck and pays Federal taxes is and will be impacted for many years to come because of the ridiculously generous Federal subsidies given uniquely to wind power. PTC credits, 1063 Treasury Grants, special accelerated depreciation schedules, … shall I continue?
Also, you seem to conveniently have forgotten that wind power creates the need for new mutli-billion dollar transmission facilities upgrades which Maine ratepayers are stuck paying 8% of regardless of whether those upgrades occur in Maine, Mass, CT., or any other member state of the NE Power Grid.
Need an example, CMP users just saw a 19.6% increase in the transmisson portion of their monthly bills – all due to transmission capability upgrades forced by wind power projects. The pattern of needing to upgrade transmisison facilities to compliment wind power’s inconsistencies has been well established in Europe and here in the U.S.
Privatization is just a cover phrase for political patronage.
Imagine that.
Let’s use the methadone clinics to also include State run liqour stores. All in one shopping and we can pay mileage to get it.
don’t forget the marijuana dispensaries!
Baldacci sold out for quick bucks spent in one year,, Angus King sold student loans for quick bucks spent in one year… Both borrowed 100% of the pension funds from State workers… Both mandated many rules for the towns/city taxpayers to pay for… and you elect these people. LOL!!!
no, he sold it to his friends, he knew what he was doing.
it wasn’t about the “quick money” that he got from the sale, it was about privatizing the exclusive rights to maine’s liquor distribution to one of his buddies.
That too
mainers=bunch of drunks, pot heads and druggies
AKA Liberal voters
I guess you havn’t been to Lepage’s favorite dives in Waterville or Freeport .
Not all of us….but maybe 30% are.
They did indeed sell it for $125M for a 10 year contract, when at the same time the Maine Bureau of Alcoholic Beverages was putting $37M a year into the genreral fund….Ask Rebecca Wycke..she masterminded this whole thing. We gave up a minimum of $370M over 10 years for a meager $125M to cover all kinds of misdeeds…typical liberal math.
booze… the gods of mainers the state of lushes
So because a private company is now doing this work for an annual operating cost of around 7 million bucks, they assume the state can do the same job for no more than that. Wow!
That would turn out to be the only job government ever did for less than the private sector could do it.
If they need money that bad, legalize prostitution and take 50% of the profits. We are already getting “screwed” by the state anyway, might as well make some money off of it! Can’t be any worse of a vice than gambling and drinking.
Our “betters” in Augusta will do anything for a dollar!
“That would turn out to be the only job government ever did for less than the private sector could do it.”
That is such a complete myth. Private does a lot of things better than the govt, but lets face it, govt does a lot better job at some things than the private sector. Do a little research on privatization of prisons, state welfare systems, local fire protection, etc. and you’ll see what I mean.
king,summers,dill are all out of staters, running for US Senator
….there are no mainers running for the US Senator because mainers are a bunch of drunks
“The liquor makes me see it clearly now, Rand” Jim Lahey
This is all very stupid. Let the government license individuals to own their own liquor business and hold them accountable if they sell to underage kids. Get the government out of the way. Government is the problem and not the solution.
Thank you. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Why does the State need a middle man? Please read the whole story.
The State IS the middleman! – get rid of the State middleman and let private citizens, with a license, buy liquor wholesale from the manufacturers and sell retail.
So is this that trickle-down thingy they keep referring to?
this will prove maine people are looked at , as a bunch of drunks
[and there is more from where this came from]:
men from maine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvjdOLpl25U
Please don’t vote if you can’t tell reality from humor
When the state got out of the retail liquor business revenue to the general fund went from 28 million a year to 6 million a year. The state lost more than their shirt.
Note the distinction on hard liquor, something I buy very little of any more. For wines, I checked out the NH state store off the tollway recently and found it to have equivalent or higher prices than in Maine. Didn’t check out beer.
The state would receive much more than $40M in revenue if they went back to distributing liquor themselves.
There is a lot of money being moved around. That is the first clue that someone is making some money. Money is the ultimate motivator to get anything done.
I wish the Republican social conservitives would tell their party that promoting alcohol consumtion is not exceptable.
Oh, Lord, call NH and have a real rant.
I have noticed a lot of right wing republican states are heavy drinkers. Yet the self proclaimed social conservitives just keep on voting GOP.
alcohol consumption is awesome! you should try it sometime.
I’m high on real life these days.:)
Right, Maine does not need any revenues from alcohol sales. We should ban sales of alcohol. I will not stoop to the level of a partisan democrat to say more.
Making it illegal will make things worse and it will never happen with all the drunks who run the GOP. I only wish the goverment would make it illegal to promote it. I know that would cause problems for many business but their are better way to make a buck then pushing booze on people.
Great idea actually… Now the State can con the voters into a $1.00 tax per 10 ounces and claim the money is needed for advertisment to prevent underage purchases as well as treatment for alcohol dependancy… Then the State can wait a few more years and tack on an additional $1.00 per 10 ounces and claim the money realized will be spent to offset healthcare costs… Then alcohol will be on par with Tobacco… Next targets will be soda and junk food, till everything that’s bad for you is taxed to line greedy politicians pockets… God knows they need the extra monies for their mistresses and their kids… Go to sleep America/Maine… You are free, to do as we tell you… You are free, to live how we tell you… You are free, to think how we tell you…
“Those who fail to learn from the past, are condemned to repeat it”…
Cool Allens coffee brandy on my EBT card thanks!
And exactly why should the State have ever been allowed to take over a legal business and run it for decades? Why not allow private distributors to continue to operate in an open and competitive environment? What’s next? Car sales? Lee Auto Mall is making a nice profit. Maybe the state should take it over and put the profits into its own coffers. State owned liquor distribution is essentially socialism.
no,
what happened was crony capitalism. a private, no-bid contract was awarded to a single private company for the exclusive rights to distribute liquor in maine.that means that no other company was permitted to do so BY LAW.that by definition is corporate fascism. the merger of state and corporate power.
I don’t dispute what actually happened. I dispute that the proposed solution should be a state takeover of a private enterprise that can easily be handled by private distributors, as it is done in almost every other state in America. Put a state liquor tax on each bottle and be happy. But don’t suggest that the State can be more efficient than a private, competitive, distribution system for a legal product. It should not be up to the State to determine who can and cannot participate in the business, other than to prevent illegal activity. Subject: [bdn] Re: Plan for Maine liquor contract would cut prices, add $41 million for state
while i almost agree with you….
at least it’s wrestling control of it away from an exclusive (by law) private company and putting it back into the hands of the people.
that’s the first step.
after that, who knows, it’d be great for free markets to reign without the state legislating it to one place.
I wouldn’t mind a well regulated privite booze industry as long as they keep the vile stuff out of view and don’t promote it to the generial public. Alcohol is the single most distructive thing on e earth. It kills children wipes out whole families cost billions of dollars worht of damage every year. It is a absolut e hooror that our representitives in Augusta what to increase the consumpstion of this evil juice.
Are you kidding me??? Liquor prices will go down, liquor that ruins lives and families. This is ludicrous, food prices, gas prices go up, and liquor goes down. This is one sick world if this does happen. Liquor should cost more and more, and more, as well as cigarettes, then maybe it may deter people from drinking and smoking. Both these things kill people, and alcohol destroys families when one becomes an alcoholic. I pray someone with a brain regarding this decision will stop liquor praices from going down, and instead make the price go up the way our food and gas is going up!!!!!!!
so you’d rather have a wall street firm and one of baldacci’s freinds from massachusettes reaping the profits?
the state has lost hundreds of millions of dollars since baldacci sold the exclusive distribution rights to liquor to his friends for 125 million.
I do not care who had the liquor rights..I DO care about peoples marriages and families though…
people are going to screw up their lives regardless of how do it or how expensive you make their means to do so.
if they wanted to, they can already get cheap wine from any store for $5.
Alcohol is a poison. It kills human brain cells and makes people do terrable things. The goverment should not be promoting any drug much less one a evil as booze.
you liberals keep on trying to legislate stupidity.
stop it ffs.
If someone’s going to screw up their marriages or families, then they’ll do it regardless of alcohol or not.
Anyone believing this will be better price wise for the consumer,,,,,well,,,,,,,I have a couple of bridges for sale to sweeten the deal. Just sayin,,,,,
Another gift from the failed Baldacci administration. He sold the liquor business to connected Dem insiders at a fire sale price and the taxpayers of Maine have been paying for it ever since. It finally took wresting power from the inept Maine Dems to get a decent contract and value for the taxpayers of Maine. Where’s Farmer? He was in bed with the failed Baldacci administration when they made this backroom deal.
Hmmm, doesn’t apply to beer. Dammit!
As the owner of an agency liquor store I would like to know how the state would provide us with compensation for our current overpriced inventory before requiring we sell it for a greater loss as they are suggesting? All liquor prices are already determined by the state. Retailers have no say in what retail prices or sales prices currently are. In addition…the profit margins are TINY. We make approximately 9% on each item. So for nips sold at .99, we make .09 BEFORE someone swipes a credit card…sold at a .20 loss if it is the sole sale. On a bottle that costs me $9.99 to sell AND that I must pay to sit in my inventory, I make a .90 profit…again before credit card fees…approximately .60 after fees. And the State of Maine refuses to all Maine business owners the ability to set credit card swipe limits on purchases. I am COMPLETELY for the state eliminating the extra hand in the pot. But what about small business? If there is no money in it for us, or we are losing money to sell “their” goods…why should we help them manage it and sell it? Sitting on $4-5,000 of liquor inventory for tiny margins just isn’t cutting it….and credit card fees are killing those ridiculously slim margins even more. HELP MR. LEPAGE!
How do you like being a prostitute to the booze companies? I would like to have a dollar for every hour of human suffering and misery your booze sales have costs. Shame on you for crying because your not making money on what sick people are losing.
I really don’t care who imports and distributes the liquor. But I do find it interesting that the same police officer who goes to the bar and charges the owner during an OUI investigation, and that same officer charges and enforces liquor and motor vehicle laws, is paid by the same entity that wants to import and distribute liquor. Having said that; if a person who consumes too much liquor in a place other than a bar, is the state somehow involved with their over indulgence because it would be now cheaper, and potentially more readily available? Is the state as liable as the bar owner??? I just don’t think the state shouldn’t have ever been or should be in the liquor business. Let a business in Maine do it.