One Perspective

I wrote a letter to my state senator and emailed it last night. It says a lot about what I don't like about the political system...the deception and outright falsehoods. I thought I'd let you read what I wrote. The liquor issue is only a vehicle for me to tell the senator that I don't appreciate being misled...in the end, I don't care who sells strong liquor.

Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 10:58 PM
To: Dick Kelsey
Subject: Liquor Debate

Dear Senator Kelsey,

I am interested in the ongoing debate over allowing grocery and convenience stores to sell "strong" beer, wine, etc. The prevailing statistics for those wanting the change come from a study done by Arthur P. Hall, PhD, of the University of Kansas School of Business. Those statistics, as you well know, show an economic impact of more than 15,000 new jobs and 340 million dollars created in the state.
I have wondered for as long as I've been aware of this debate just where that money is coming from and how those jobs would be funded. It would seem to me that there would need to be increased liquor sales sufficient to generate at least 340 million dollars in new cash in the state.
Silly me. The report does not talk of generating new cash or creating new wealth. In fact, the summary clearly says that there will not necessarily be any creation of wealth...only the redistribution of existing resources. I quote the summary: "There is no evidence to suggest that deregulation of beer, wine and spirits sales will change prevailing alcohol consumption patterns, only shopping patterns."
In other words, consumption will not necessarily increase...meaning no new wealth is created. However, the places where people spend their existing money will change. How that will result in 15,000 new jobs and creation of a third of a billion dollars in wealth is far beyond me. Where is that money coming from? Where was it before the new law? Where is it after the new law? Where is that money going? To out of state corporations (Kroger [Ohio], Quik Trip [Oklahoma])?
According to USDA statistics (http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Kansas/st20_2_001_001.pdf), in 2007 only 8 counties in Kansas had total gross farm commodity sales greater than the 340 million dollar number being used by the pro grocery/convenience liquor sales folks. Does it make sense to you, Senator, that this change in the law will bring in more money than the total gross farm commodity sales of 97 of our 105 counties in 2007? It doesn't make sense to me, either.
Someone, it seems, is playing fast and loose with the numbers. It matters not to me who sells what strength liquor. What does matter to me is that it appears that we are being misled and deceived. I'm tired of that kind of politics. I hope you are as well.

Thanks much for listening,

The good senator responded promptly, which I've always appreciated. He "got" my point. He wrote, "I agree with your perspective. I do not believe this bill will move forward or be approved by the Senate or House."

Senator Dick Kelsey