On right track |

On right track

After four years and countless hours wasted in a debate over dismantling the Liquor Control Board, the agency continues to deliver for consumers and all Pennsylvanians ( “LCB nets record revenue because of strong wine sales, revamped stores” ).

In short: another year and another sales record set. As the Trib noted, improvements to the stores as well as to the agency’s operations helped drive $2.24 billion in revenue, according to the LCB’s annual report. Those improvements include adding at least one retail wine specialist to each of the agency’s 75 premium collection stores.

The fact is that the LCB could do more for its consumers and for taxpayers. Commonsense proposals, supported by both Democrats and Republicans, to improve customer convenience could lead to more than $185 to $200 million a year in new revenue for the state. These proposals include adding Sunday stores and increasing Sunday hours, opening more stores inside of or next to grocery stores and creating more premium shops.

The additional revenue will only add to the more than $550 million in taxes, profits and other transfers that the LCB provided the state last year. This revenue helps to support vital state programs and services, from the state police to our public schools.

Last year’s results make it plain that the LCB is on the right track. It’s time for lawmakers to get out of the way and allow this agency to continue improving its operations for all Pennsylvanians.

Anthony M. Helfer

The writer is president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 23 in Canonsburg, which includes state store workers.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.