Friday, September 3, 2010

$#*! My Liquor Board Says, Episode 1, Part 2

The Seattle P-I's Chris Grygiel also busted the LCB yesterday over its bogus claim that loss of the state store mark-up would strip the LCB of its funding for licensing and enforcement.

The P-I: "State wrongly says privatized booze would hurt enforcement"

But the "clarification" by the LCB's Brian Smith of his original bogus statement is still bogus:
"The $23 million wine tax would cover Board expenses under a privatized system," he said in a recent e-mail to "That money is currently going to the state and local communities because the Board's expenses are currently covered by markup. For the Board to use that will be a takeaway for state and/or local government. I've heard the Initiatives take credit for their initiative(s) to fund the LCB. It (or they) don't. The funding already exists in statute."
As both we and Grygiel pointed out yesterday, the OFM Tax Reference manual specifically states that "expenses of the Board are first funded" by the Wine Tax before any surplus may be distributed to other government programs. Not to mention that his "clarification" is at best accounting gobbledygook. The LCB is already complaining about the total amount of "lost" mark-up. The latest statement is an attempt to count this "loss" twice.

The LCB needs to come clean with a clear and truthful disclosure of its finances.

1 comment:

  1. Thanks for creating this blog to discuss the two initiatives.

    I'll now be voting yes on 1100 and no on 1105.