For months now, we’ve heard elected officials in Virginia warn about our impending transportation funding crisis. But is the commonwealth really doing everything it can to drive more money into our roads?

Faced with similar financing challenges, Pennsylvania decided to open up its books and look for things to sell. Perhaps one of the biggest opportunities for both states would be selling or leasing their interest in the liquor business.

Indeed, Pennsylvania looked at that idea just last week. In a hearing in Harrisburg, state senators questioned whether divesting Pennsylvania’s wholesale and retail liquor operations would generate significant revenues to help close a transportation funding gap there. State Sen. Jake Corman actually went a step further suggesting that the legislature should look at all of the state’s assets to see how it could best be utilized to benefit taxpayers.

It’s estimated that Pennsylvania could generate as much as $1.7 billion in one-time revenue from the sale of its liquor assets. Privatization would also benefit the state’s long-term financial outlook.

This story continues below
Advertisement

Taxes on wine, beer and spirits don’t go away with privatization — and would go up with increased sales. Revenues from licensing bars and restaurants would also continue under privatization. However, new revenues are generated in the form of licensing retail stores and the property and income taxes that private establishments pay.

The same financial outlook would work in Virginia as well. Given our huge transportation needs and the continual search for new revenues, maybe it’s time the commonwealth also considered getting out of the liquor business.

There would be other benefits from selling off the ABC stores. Consumers would benefit from increased choice, convenience and lower prices. Private stores have more freedom and flexibility to innovate and tend to be more responsive to customers, so store hours and locations would be driven by market demand. Without a government monopoly protecting them, individual stores would be forced to compete on price, quality and choice.

However, the state would still retain significant control over the sale of alcohol in the state. For example, it would remain the regulatory body of alcohol policy and would continue to set standards and requirements for private ownership and operation.

Despite many fears, there have been no dramatic shifts in alcohol consumption, underage drinking, drinking and driving or alcoholism attributable to privatization in three recently privatized systems: Iowa, West Virginia and Alberta, Canada. A forthcoming study from the Reason Foundation also finds no dramatic differences between control states and license states.

Virginia is currently conflicted in its mission. On the one hand, the commonwealth is responsible for funding alcohol enforcement, but it’s also responsible for maximizing revenue from the sale of alcohol from the public operation.

The focus on enforcement could actually be improved by separating those two functions. As one Iowa state legislator who was considering privatization noted, “It strikes me as hypocritical to have Iowa all uptight about drunk drivers and also sell the stuff.”

Indeed, this disconnection prevents states from pursuing the best opportunities to meet their public health mission and promote responsible drinking.

The bottom line is that privatization of the ABC stores would be a good thing for Virginia. State officials would be able to focus all of their efforts on education and enforcement.

Customers would likely see increased choice and better prices. And taxpayers and commuters would benefit when the untapped value was invested in our transportation infrastructure — without raising taxes.

Geoffrey F. Segal is the director of government reform at Reason Foundation and a senior fellow at the Springfield-based Thomas Jefferson Institute.