State Rep. John Bear figures now is the time for Pennsylvania to get out of the liquor business.

With estimates suggesting Pennsylvania could reap a one-time windfall of up to $2 billion by selling the state store system, and the likelihood that a privatized system would still generate plenty of tax revenue, Bear, a Lititz Republican, is one of three local legislators who have co-sponsored a bill that would end Pennsylvania's liquor monopoly.

This week, he wants to find out what the public thinks about it.

At 7 p.m. Wednesday, Bear will host a "Talk Back" forum in Lititz at the Linden Hall Auditorium featuring House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, an Allegheny County Republican who last month introduced House Bill 11, designed to privatize the wholesale and retail operations of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. Several other local House members are scheduled to attend, including Rep. Ryan Aument, R-41, who also co-sponsored Turzai's bill. The third local co-sponsor is Rep. Tom Creighton, R-37, who has not yet confirmed he will attend.

Republican lawmakers have tried to privatize the state store system before. Gov. Dick Thornburgh's attempt fell short; Gov. Tom Ridge's proposal was beaten back. Last year Gov. Tom Corbett said, "We need to move our state out of the 19th century and refocus state government on its core functions and services." Turzai's bill picks up that gauntlet.

For it to be successful, privatization backers will have to overcome objections from the unions representing state store employees, and the unease of a public leery of change — including social conservatives who worry privatization could boost alcohol-related problems.

But Bear believes even social conservatives will embrace the proposal.

"I consider myself a conservative Republican, but I don't see this as a role of government," said Bear.

As to whether his constituents share that view, "we'll find out Wednesday night."

Other arguments
Statewide, not all Republicans are on board. Last week Senate President Pro Tem Joe Scarnati ripped the Turzai plan, saying it would reduce state revenues — which could force the state to cut services or boost the tax on liquor. He also said people in rural areas might have to drive a long way to find a liquor store.

Scarnati's criticisms were widely viewed as political horse trading, "trying to drum up support for his priority, instituting an impact fee on natural gas drillers tapping into the Marcellus Shale deposits under Pennsylvania," as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette newspaper reported.

Coincidentally, Bear is hosting a second "Talk Back" forum next week, on the Marcellus Shale issue. That forum will be held at 7 p.m. Thursday, also in the Linden Hall Auditorium.

Contrary to Scarnati's assertion, Bear insists H.B. 11 would generate at least as much revenue as the existing system — and would lower consumer prices.

The bill would abolish the current 30 percent PLCB markup, eliminate the 18 percent Johnstown Flood Tax, abolish the "handling" tax imposed on every bottle of wine and spirits by the PLCB, and replace them with a "gallonage tax" that would range from $8.25 to $12 per gallon.

It would also more than double the number of retail liquor outlets. Right now there are 620 state stores throughout Pennsylvania; the Turzai bill would create 750 "Class A" licenses for retail outlets 15,000 square feet or larger, and 500 "Class B" licenses for smaller outlets.

The Class A outlets, according to a fact sheet posted on Turzai's website, "would typically be held by grocery stores and 'big box' retail outlets."

H.B. 11 also includes provisions to aid displaced state store workers and, proponents say, would actually strengthen law enforcement by mandating the use of I.D. scanners with age verification software, among other measures.

Wendell Young IV, president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 — which represents about 3,500 state store clerks — says that "it's very clear that the facts don't support what Turzai says" — and the more people find out about the specifics of the bill, he said, the less they like it.

"Look at the polling," Young said. "When the polls started late last year and early this year, 70 percent of the general public said sure, let's sell" the state stores. "But the more people hear how much the system makes, how better off we are than other places in societal impacts, the less attractive it sounds."

Quinnipiac University last week released a poll showing that 62 percent of Pennsylvania residents surveyed supported privatization.

The PLCB reported sales of nearly $2 billion in 2010-11, and transferred a record $496 million in revenues to the state treasury to help fund other programs. It has contributed more than $2.28 billion since 2005.

Government's role
Local lawmakers who back Turzai's bill say their support has less to do with dollars and cents than it does with government overreach.

"Many conservatives, such as myself, see this as an issue centering on the proper role of government," said co-sponsor Aument in an email. And even among social conservatives leery of the proposal, "my sense is that ... opposition to the legislation is crumbling," Aument said.

While there might be some trepidation at the idea of expanded hours, expanded selection — and maybe more liquor sold in Pennsylvania, "many conservatives are supporting this legislation because we believe the bill actually strengthens law enforcement supervision of sales and enhances alcohol safety and awareness programs for buyers and sellers," Aument said.

"I think conservatives are rejecting the notion that the entity promoting sales of wine and spirits be the very same entity that polices those sales," he said.

State Rep. Gordon Denlinger, a Republican from Narvon and a social conservative, said that while he worries about the impact of alcohol on society, he's leaning toward "yes" on privatization.

"Frankly, alcohol consumption, abuse, and related impacts are not much different in private retailer system states than under our state monopoly system," he said in an e-mail. "The tension here for a conservative is to weigh societal concerns against the free market-based desire to get government out of the alcohol sales business. Should the government engage in business activities where there is a ready and willing private sector business community ready to make the investment in licenses and attempt to make a profit?"

Bear agrees: "If we can lease [retail licenses] to responsible vendors and focus strictly on taxation of liquor and enforcement of regulations," that will fulfill government's oversight role — and leave the selling and marketing to the private sector.

But Bear is interested to hear what those who show up at Wednesday's "Talk Back" session have to say. The interactive session will feature live polling as well as a question-and-answer portion.

Young, the union president, indicated that union members might be interested in attending. "Every time this has been pushed, there has been organized opposition pointing out the difference between perception and reality," he said.

But Bear is confident that some of those who have been cautious about similar proposals might come around.

"Lancaster County in the past hasn't been supportive of these bills," said Bear. "But I think the attitude is changing.

"Whether this bill passes or fails in the House may depend on the Lancaster County delegation."

Gil Smart is associate editor of the Sunday News. Email him at gsmart@lnpnews.com, or phone 291-8817.