Liquor reform for a gas extraction tax?: It should be a nonstarter |

Liquor reform for a gas extraction tax?: It should be a nonstarter

There’s a big difference between compromise and capitulation. The Pennsylvania General Assembly soon will reveal if it knows the difference.

There’s talk that the newly emboldened majority-Republican Legislature (though not veto-proof) might trade a tax on natural gas extraction with incoming Democrat Gov. Tom Wolf for a privatized liquor system.

Maybe the pols in leadership positions aren’t saying as much — in fact, incoming House Speaker Mike Turzai says revenue discussions must start with liquor reform — but at least one analyst thinks as much.

Perhaps Republicans are so frustrated by four years of inaction on marquee issues and Mr. Wolf so wants to avoid gridlock that a deal could be cut, Muhlenberg College poli-sci professor Christopher Borick speculated for the Trib’s Dave Conti.

But since when does trading one great idea for one truly lousy idea make sense? How could any GOP pol argue with any credibility that enacting an onerous industry-retarding tax (on top of a corporate tax already too high) is a fair and balanced trade to end a Soviet-style liquor system that has perverted the marketplace and handicapped consumer choice since Prohibition ended? As rational economic policy goes, it’s a nonstarter.

It once was said that while compromise makes a good umbrella, it makes a poor roof. It’s an axiom Republicans must remember as Harrisburg embarks on a new era.

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.