the unequivocal notion

Popkey in the Statesman.

This is another one of those subjects that get under my skin whenever it pops up in the news — I don’t buy a ton of booze but the whole hypocrisy thing slays me. Next time an Idaho Republican tells you that they believe in the free market ask them about Idaho’s liquor laws.

What’s too bad is that if the state were to open up liquor sales to the free market they could probably increase the amount of revenue generated. They sit on a valuable, revenue generating commodity because they think that Idahoans aren’t capable of making adult decisions — you know, that whole “personal responsibility” thingy. It’s more important for them to be able to tell citizens where they can and can’t buy booze than to collect valuable tax revenue that would benefit all Idahoans.

Of course, if some legislators in the annex had their way, Idahoans would be issued a little liquor coupon book so that they can’t go over the amount of booze that the legislature deems sufficient.

Today’s Idaho Statesman had a nice collection of stories regarding Gov. Otter’s recommendations to the legislature.

• John Miller’s great coverage.
• Kathleen Kreller’s story here.
• Some details of the reform bill.

Why the Otter camp negotiated with a guy who has stakes in over 20 liquor licenses is beyond me. The goal of the task force should have been to make Idaho’s liquor laws fair for everyone, not just those investing/speculating on government issued licenses.

I hate to fall into the frame of mind that says, “my God, these people are thinking way too much into this”, but that’s what seemed to have happened. Not to over simplify; but wouldn’t have made more sense to give tax credits to businesses who bought licenses on the secondary market up to the cost they paid for it? From there allow local governments decide on the issuing of new licenses.

Then allow the state to collect their usual taxes on booze and call it good — the state shouldn’t be rewarding/supporting people who made investments on government licenses. The current proposal supports people who gambled with government issued — it doesn’t do anything to level the playing field, unless you open up a full restaurant.

And yes, I’m sure there would need to be more details worked out — I’m just a guy with a pc and an internet connection — the common sense in me says that this would be a good starting point.

The ultimate goal should be to keep the state legislature out of it — the last thing I want is that group of people to be deciding on what the morality of this state should be. Section 24 of the Idaho Constitution should be removed — it, like our current set liquor laws is antiquated.

One of Gov. Otter’s initiatives that I’ve been waiting for; ending Idaho’s moralistic, antiquated liquor license quota system.

Unfortunately it doesn’t seem like it’s going to level the playing field for bar owners, or potential bar owners — only for restaurant and lodging interests.

On the surface this reeks of “we don’t want to hamper any out-of-state chain restaurants when they want to move into Idaho”. Any Joeblow from Idaho that wants to open up a neighborhood imbibing joint is still left out in the cold unless he wants to buy an artificially inflated, exuberantly priced liquor license.

More here from Hoffman’s Daigle’s article in the Boise Weekly.

Frankly, I don’t understand why we are essentially using taxpayer dollars to subsidize the artificial value of these liquor licenses — it’s very un-Libertarian of the Governor — the government shouldn’t be in the business of backing up investments or speculation by individual businesses. They should be providing an equal opportunity to both Joe Average Idahoan and out-of-state chain operators.

Now, not to leave current holders out in the cold, I do think that they should have gotten a tax break for a period of time in order for them to make back what they paid for their liquor license, but no more. In essence, you are still forcing someone who wants to open up a bar to pay upwards of $150K for a license that originally cost around $550.

Idaho politicians will jump through hoops of fire to make schemes like Tamarack happen but on the next business day they’ll do whatever they can to make the lives of ordinary Idahoans as difficult as possible.

This is pretty disappointing coming from Gov. Otter.

BLOGS: Idaho Falls Today! (from Jan. of ‘08) Joe makes a good point; if we can sell state sanctioned licenses, why can’t we sell our drivers license to someone for 3 grand if we wanted to?

• Oy, good think the President is going to be on at 7pm tonight instead of later. Was starting to think he may piss me off once more by interrupting The Office. We don’t watch that much network TV at all, but The Office is a Thursday night must.

• Bad news for state retirees, Gov. Otter still wants to remove them from the state insurance rolls.

• The Idaho Press-Tribune launches some new blogs, follow Idaho’s Democratic legislators here, and Republicans here.

• Rogue Brewery (which also has some distilled spirits) has started making “Dead Guy Whiskey”. I’ve been looking for some of Rogue’s spirits in our local liquor stores but have yet to see any.

I had some friends that when down to watch the Broncos play in the Poinsettia Bowl in San Diego last week and they were thoughtful enough to pick up some fair-market-priced booze while in California and bring back some as gifts. You see, those wacky, pinko, socialists down in California believe that the government shouldn’t control the market for a particular good, as opposed to the God fearing, small government-loving Conservatives that make up Idaho’s legislature.

Case in point; the cost of TWO half-gallon bottles of the most excellent Crown Royal from a Costco* in California; $61.00. The cost of ONE half-gallon bottle of the most excellent Crown Royal in Idaho; $57.00 — that’d be a difference of 4 dollars for an extra half-gallon.

And to top this off, word on the street is that there is a proposal to raise the liquor tax even higher this legislative session. Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind paying higher than normal taxes for alcohol for state programs, but marking a product up nearly a 100% is a bit much.

*California like 31 other states allow booze to be purchased in privately owned stores — not state run stores or ones operated by state approved contractors. They also allow the price to be set by the free market, not by the “state”.

It should also be noted that part of the mission of the Idaho Liquor Dispencery is to “promote temperance and sobriety”, which I find mildly ironic concerning their “job” is to sell Idahoans booze.