Committee Digs In Against Malloy’s Liquor Proposal
by Hugh McQuaid | Mar 14, 2013 5:30am
(4) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Business, Economics, State Budget
Despite a last-minute push by senior members of the administration, the General Law Committee won’t be passing Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s proposed changes to the state’s liquor pricing laws. But the administration does not plan to let the concept die.
Since last year, Malloy has sought to make changes to the state’s minimum liquor pricing statutes.
Currently, the minimum price a package store can charge for a bottle of alcohol is a wholesaler-established and posted “bottle price.” In Connecticut, this keeps alcohol prices at smaller liquor stores in line with larger stores, who otherwise may be able to sell at wholesale discounts.
The governor has argued that the law causes consumers to pay more for alcohol in Connecticut than in surrounding states.
However, small package store owners consistently turn out to oppose the legislation and during a hearing in February, committee members did not seem supportive of the concept.
On Wednesday, Malloy administration Chief of Staff Mark Ojakian and other senior members of the administration met behind closed doors with the committee’s Democratic members.
“We had a conversation to point out the benefits of the governor’s fair pricing proposal. We answered questions and really tried to speak to the fact that this proposal helps consumers,” Ojakian said after the meeting.
It wasn’t enough to convince the committee, whose members do not intend to move the proposal this year either, according to one of its chairmen, Sen. Paul Doyle.
“We’re not moving forward with it this year. We had a Democratic caucus and there really was not support to move it forward,” Doyle said.
Doyle and his co-chair, Rep. David Baram, gauged support less than a week before the committee’s deadline to act on legislation. They met immediately afterward with Ojakian to give him the bad news.
But no piece of legislation is ever truly dead.
Doyle acknowledged the committee’s inaction would not necessarily kill the concept.
“There is a budget process and an amendment process, and if it’s a priority for people, it could come back,” he said.
In a statement, Ojakian said the administration plans to bring the concept back before the session is over.
“Let’s be clear, failure to act on this bill would mean a simple refusal to stand with Connecticut consumers who are being unfairly and unnecessarily overcharged. And let’s also be clear that even if this committee does fail to act, the administration will continue to stand with consumers by advocating for this change as part of the governor’s broader budget proposal this session,” he said.
Carroll Hughes, head of the Connecticut Package Store Association, said the administration should look to reduce the alcohol excise tax if they want to save consumers money. He said package store owners already lost money on increased labor costs when the state legalized Sunday alcohol sales last year.
“We invested $7 million collectively last year for the noble experiment of Sunday sales. It’s somebody else’s turn to make an investment,” he said.
The Malloy administration estimates that the changes to minimum bottle pricing would raise around $5 million for the state over the course of two years. Hughes said he thought the estimates were overstated. Nonetheless, he said the administration’s lobbying efforts on behalf of the bill were “out-of-sync” with the amount of money it might raise.
Tags: Mark Ojakian, Liquor Laws, alcohol, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, Paul Doyle, David Baram, package store, consumer, Hugh McQuaid, dh
(4) Comments
posted by: Noteworthy | March 14, 2013 8:56am
One has to love package store owners who opt to hose their customers, in order to put money in their own pockets. Sure the tax is too high. So is the price. All guilty. And just to be clear, Mr. Doyle - so are you and your committee because you refuse to stand with consumers in your district and across the state. How charming.
posted by: Just another CT resident | March 14, 2013 9:18am
I would like to know how much money is contributed to both State Senator Doyle and State Rep. Ryan by the CT Package Store Assoc over the past few years. (That could be the basis for yet another article on this topic.) Sorry, but I don’t for the life of me understand the rationale for the State to continue to set artificially high liquor prices. Seems to me that these “good” Democrats should be supporting us consumers and not the liquor store owners.
posted by: CTSmallBiz | March 15, 2013 1:16pm
People in support of this measure do not understand the liquor industry in CT. Liquor prices in the state are not significantly higher than in surrounding states. If you want to use MA as an example of lower prices, start with the fact that they do not impose excise taxes on distributors when they buy from suppliers and there is no sales tax on consumers. That alone reduces the price by about 10% per bottle. To be clear, this whole initiative is being driven by big campaign contributions to Malloy from multi-billion dollar distributors and retailers who want to overrun the state at the expense of small businesses. Classic case of big guy greasing politicians to crush the little guy.
posted by: CTRetailer | March 15, 2013 7:02pm
CTSmallBiz has nailed this. It is NOT as simple as the Governor will have you believe. It is reprehensible that he hides behind this false premise of being concerned about consumers. This is all about paying off allegiance to large out of state retailers and international suppliers at the expense of CT businesses and workers. If we really want to start lowering prices in CT, how about we have SUPPLIERS lower their costs and the STATE lower their taxes like they do in other states. KEY POINT: CT RETAILERS DO NOT MAKE HIGHER MARGINS THAN RETAILERS IN OTHER STATES. The difference is that the cost for these products (product costs, state excise taxes, state sales taxes) is higher here, resulting in higher retail prices for consumers. Your legislators recognize this is not the right answer and that’s why they killed the bill. Thank goodness they are smart enough to understand what is really going on here.