[SoothingDave]

That’s the way they run it in Qatar, but not PA.

Honestly, it’s not the ideal system, but I can’t imagine change helping the cause. Selling the stores would be a boost of revenue which would put off changes that need to happen. Selling the stores would allow politicians to benefit (and their cronies) and the spoils would go to inefficient things like public transit and education, and to prop up unions and bloated organizations, etc.

Then the money would be gone, we’d be more in debt and no structural change would happen. Plus a source of revenue would be gone. Win-win-win.

Did the people in Indiana benefit from selling off their turnpike?

[WhyisaTexasgirlinPA]

If I recall correctly, when we lived in PA there was a State run store that sold alcohol and wine, but another place sold beer. And you had to buy an entire case of beer, not individual six packs. But, we could go to the local pub and buy a six pack from them. Was that legal or not? (Correction, we never bought from the pub but were told you could and watched it happen several times while waiting for our table for dinner)

I do hope you were joking about only union people being able to handle such a responsibility as the sale of alcohol. And of course government intervention in anything just raises the price of everything involved - so any profit from the stores is probably being eaten up by the cost of union employees.

[CholeraJoe]

I benefitted. My property taxes went down by 67%.