Profile In Courage: Mel Gibson

My “Freindly Fire” column, never mistaken for being fluffy or politically correct, routinely hammers hypocrites, frauds, and otherwise unsavory characters in politics, business, entertainment, and yes --- the media. So when a reader recently inquired whom I respect, I gave it some thought. 

Since it was Easter week, I didn’t have to think too much, for a person came to mind whose courage is legendary and who has literally changed the world like no other.

While profiled extensively, it is not his brave heart that is the usual subject matter, but vitriolic attacks waged by those jealous of his professional success and threatened by his personal and religious convictions.

There is a saying that one’s worth can be judged by his enemies.  And given that Mel Gibson rankled the Hollywood elite like no other in history, beating them at their own game, he is definitely a man of high worth.

Gibson’s award-winning career has been a storied one.  He has reprised many roles defending persecuted people incapable of fighting for themselves, from Braveheart to The Patriot, where freedom was a central theme.  Freedom from tyranny and oppression, freedom from crime, freedom from fear. 

But most significantly, the message of Gibson’s premier work was freedom from eternal damnation.

The Passion of the Christ was one of the most successful movies in history, and the highest grossing non-English language film of all time. Yet if Hollywood had its way, it would have never been produced.

Despite the over two billion Christians in the world, which would seem like a pretty good target market for a movie that follows Jesus during his agonizing last hours, nobody in Tinsel Town wanted to touch Gibson’s idea. Not a whole lot in Hollywood makes sense, but that one takes the cake.

Walk away from a movie that any third-grader could have told you would make hundreds of millions right out of the gate?  If Hollywood is about one thing, it’s money.  While The Passion’s religious message is anathema to much of that town’s culture, one would have thought The Almighty Dollar would have been all the religion Hollywood would have needed.

But rather that quit, Gibson spent his own money ---almost $50 million --- to produce and market the film, and ended up distributing it himself along with a small company, since no major distributor wanted anything to do with film.

Can we say cowardice and religious bigotry?

But that was just the beginning. Gibson faced an onslaught of criticism from a small number of loud-mouthed whiners who wanted to see their names in the papers.  So, incredibly, they attacked Mel for not rewriting history to their liking, cavalierly throwing out charges of bigotry.  

Fact is, The Passion is an historically accurate masterpiece with absolutely no elements of bigotry, but once those types of charges are leveled, it’s difficult to forge ahead.

Gibson could have chosen the easy way out: he could have canceled the whole project, choosing to not place his money at risk.  He could have produced a politically correct movie by ignoring historical fact, thereby averting the disparaging attacks on him and his family (his father, a dedicated family man was also ruthlessly attacked ). He could have downplayed his conservative Catholicism and avoided the numerous questions about his personal beliefs.

He could have settled.  But he didn’t.

He didn’t make the film for money, since he already had plenty of it.  Nor did he do it for fame, since he was routinely listed as one of the world’s biggest superstars.

But rather than sell his soul like most in Hollywood, Gibson persevered.  And because of that, the greatest story of all time was re-told in the most realistic way anyone had ever seen. The sacrifice, the passion, the very idea of faith itself --- all brought home to billions the world over. 

And certainly not just Christians benefitted from The Passion, since people of all religious faiths flocked to take heart in the film’s universal messages of redemption, forgiveness and hope. (So powerful was the film that it was censored in some countries and not distributed in others.  Makes one wonder what made those leaders fear so much).

The same attention-seekers who attacked Mel Gibson (and some continue to do so) will no doubt level charges that this column is defending a man who, years after the film, allegedly made anti-semetic and bigoted remarks. And they would be right. I am defending Mel Gibson the man, not his remarks.

Gibson spent a career defending principles that are incessantly under attack, and his most brilliant work rekindled the faith of billions in a way no church, no preacher, not even the Bible itself could duplicate.  Our world becomes more visual by the day, so The Passion, with portrayals that make the true passion story come to life more realistically than any other medium, takes its place in history as the movie that changed the world more than any other.

Has Gibson made mistakes?  Sure, and has admitted so and taken responsibility for them.  “I've never treated anyone badly or in a discriminatory way based on their gender, race, religion or sexuality -- period," he recently told Deadline Hollywood.  Referring to comments made to an ex-girlfriend that were deliberately blown out of proportion by those wishing to bring down Gibson, he said they didn’t  “represent what I truly believe or how I’ve treated people my entire life.”

Should he be believed?  Given his history of character and conviction --- rare in the world and virtually nonexistent in Hollywood --- and the fact that many other celebrities are “forgiven” by the public for things a whole lot worse after making disingenuous apologies, absolutely.

The ultimate message of The Passion is redemption, and because of Mel Gibson’s courage, that message continues to resonate around the world. 

Gibson himself deserves nothing less.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative

reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries

and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including

The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick

Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in

Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national

television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Joke Budget Deal Leads To S & P Credit Warning

It is a sad truth that America has been transformed from a tough-as-nails powerhouse into a nation that prefers to bury its head in the sand, pretending problems will go away if simply ignored.  Being the world’s only superpower, the United States has gotten away with that dangerous mentality for years.  But now it is finally time to pay the piper, yet Congress’ continued lack of action has pushed America to the brink of insolvency.

America’s debt (the total amount owed) stands at $14.3 trillion, and its deficit (the amount of red ink incurred just this year) is nearly $1.7 trillion. 

As a comparison, the 2011 deficit equals the ENTIRE budget in 1999.  In other words, we are borrowing more this year than all government expenditures for all of 1999.

The recent effort to “rein in spending” by cutting $100 billion from the current budget turned into a $38 billion compromise. But the independent Congressional Budget Office concluded that the actual savings were just one percent of that, a mere $352 million.

Since trillions and billions are meaningless, incomprehensible terms (a point not lost on those wishing to confuse the public), it makes sense to break down America’s dire fiscal situation in real world terms.

Let’s say the Debt and Deficit Restaurant (D & D) wants to dramatically expand, something it has done each year for decades. Despite the fact that D & D is already stretched thin because of its numerous loans for past expansions, and the fact that the debt-holders are starting to view its mounting debt warily, there is faith that it will pay its bills, and financing is once again approved.

For its current operating year, D and D’s revenue is $21,000 (equivalent to the nation’s $2.1 trillion in tax receipts). Not enough to satisfy the owners (Congress), another $17,000 (our $1.7 trillion debt) is borrowed to buy everything else they want but can’t afford.  The restaurant already owes a staggering $143,000 to its creditors ($14.3 trillion debt), but the owners, rather laying off employees or downsizing, think the best action is to borrow more and expand anyway, ignoring the fact that skyrocketing interest payments now account for a huge percentage of revenue.

Some D and D patrons (the electorate who voted the GOP into power), foreseeing the negative impact of that strategy, have suggested that the owners cut back and make hard decisions that, while painful, are necessary if the five star restaurant is not to become a fast food joint, or worse, close its doors altogether.

Reluctantly, the owners agree.  At first, they commit to cutting about 6 percent of the $17,000 they borrowed this year, equating to $1000 (the original $100 billion figure), not enough to make a dent.  But upon reconsideration, they lack the courage to commit, and settle for a cut of $340 (the $38 billion compromise).

The owners are quite happy with their self-proclaimed business acumen, but an independent auditing firm (CBO) concluded that the cuts actually amount to less than one percent of the $340 compromised figure!

So D and D’s “solution” to its impending disaster is to cut three dollars out of the $17,000 owed this year, resulting in its total debt ballooning to $160,000 (the debt will rise to $16 trillion next year because the deficit was not reduced). 

It doesn’t take an economist to see that D & D will soon become insolvent. In real life, D & D would have failed long ago, but the U.S. government has been printing money to stay afloat.  But inflation is now rising, and interest payments on the debt will soon consume so much tax revenue that basic government functions will go unfunded.

Here’s what the political class is missing. It makes absolutely no difference whether it’s conservatives or liberals making excuses for lack of cuts and justifying budgets deals, and it doesn’t matter how much merit their programs have.

Two plus two always equals four, whether or not we believe it. For all practical purposes, the United States’ insolvency it is a mathematical certainty, short of monumental change.  Could the iceberg be averted? Sure, but the political will simply isn’t there from either Party to steer the ship to safety. From forsaking energy independence to raising debt ceilings to treating entitlements as sacred cows, the lack of inaction has led the Republic to the edge of the abyss.

And as Lou says to Charlie Sheen’s character in Wall Street: “Man looks in the abyss, and there's nothing staring back at him. At that moment, man finds his character. And that is what keeps him out of the abyss.”

Standard & Poor's downgrading of ourAmerica’s credit worthiness confirms that our nation is unquestionably looking into the abyss. The question is, do we possess the character to keep us out of it?

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative

reporter who operates his own news bureau, http://www.freindlyfirezone.com/

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries

and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including

The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick

Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in

Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national

television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

$5 Gas? We Are The United States Of Arabia

“Drill, baby, drill!”

That political phrase is fast approaching “Read My Lips, No New Taxes” territory, but its message is infinitely more important. The need to become energy independent is an absolute, since America’s increasing reliance on foreign oil threatens its national and economic security like never before.

With fuel prices skyrocketing, millions of jobs are threatened, and petro dollars flow from the United States to countries which wouldn’t shed a tear over another 9/11.

Because no new oil refineries or nuclear power plants have been constructed in over three decades, one leader in particular has been attempting to reduce America’s insatiable appetite for imported oil. Last year, he opened up over 500,000 square miles of coastal waters to oil and gas exploration for the first time in over twenty years, including the Atlantic Coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and northern Alaska.

He summed up why: “The bottom line is this: given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth, produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we're going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy.”

In addition, this politician said, “I will tap our natural-gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology and find ways to safely harness nuclear power."

It’s no surprise that this call for drilling was a “bitter disappointment for environmentalists and Democrats,” as one press report noted. 

The surprise, however, is that this leader happens to be the head of the Democratic Party - --none other than President Barack Obama.

Obama’s actions --- pushing nuclear power in particular, as he arranged loan guarantees for two new plants --- are akin to a conservative Republican calling for a ban on handguns.  The Democratic Party has long been captive to the radical environmentalist wing, who view Obama’s push for oil and nuclear as nothing short of treasonous.

One would think that if these folks are labeling Obama’s efforts a “betrayal,” the GOP would be embracing the President on what has traditionally been part of the Republican platform.

One would be wrong.

From the 2008 campaign to the 2010 State Of The Union address, where energy independence was a major theme, the standard Republican responses have been, “Well, he really doesn’t believe that,” and “his plan doesn’t go far enough.”

Far enough?  From what?  The standard GOP policy of America bent over a Middle Eastern barrel?

Even the Tea Parties are not immune.  The President recently toured a wind turbine manufacturing plant in Bucks County, using the occasion to further tout his energy policy.  One of that region’s largest Tea Party organizations staged a rally, billing their event as a protest to Obama “discouraging domestic oil production” by “ignoring the necessity to drill for oil in our vast national reserves.”

Hey, never let facts get in the way of the truth.

The intransigence of the Republicans to run with what should be their core issue is simply incomprehensible. And while energy independence should never be a partisan issue, given that it affects our future more than anything else, it is clearly obtainable only if the GOP/Obama version is executed.

Alternative energy sources are most certainly important, but will never produce anything remotely close to the nation’s energy needs.  The indisputable fact is that black gold, natural gas and nuclear will always be the mainstay, at least until a new source is discovered.

But what has the GOP done, both when it had majorities and after it lost them?  Nothing positive.

George W. Bush could have opened up the ANWR in Alaska with virtually no opposition had he called for such in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.  Instead, it took him seven years to call for lifting the offshore drilling moratorium put in place by… the first President Bush.  Too little, too late.

During a radio interview I conducted in March 2010, a Pennsylvania Republican congressman actually said he couldn’t introduce an offshore drilling bill because he was “in the minority.” Sorry, but Civics 101 says otherwise.  Any bill can be introduced; the issue is whether it would make it out of Committee.  The political leverage would come from pitting the obstructionist Democratic Congress against its own President.  But that never happened.

And then-Minority Leader John Boehner’s response to Obama’s plan? Nothing but rebuke rooted in pure partisanship. “It's long past time for this Administration to stop delaying American energy production off all our shores and start listening to the American people who want an “all of the above” strategy to produce more American energy,” he has said.  But Boehner’s rubber never met the road.  Not when the GOP controlled the Congress and White House.  Not when they were in the Minority.  And not now.

Where were the Tea Party folks and Obama-bashers when the Republicans did nothing to achieve energy independence, despite holding all the cards?   They had better be careful, because selective memory and deliberate inconsistencies are the hallmarks for losing all credibility with The Great American Middle.

Is the President’s plan perfect? Of course not.  The rigs in the Gulf still sit idle, moratoriums still exist, and drilling in the ANWR isn’t on the President’s agenda.  It’s inexplicable and inexcusable that his willingness to explore options for energy independence has been met with a Republican brick wall. 

Whether it’s pure partisanship, a GOP tactic to win the Senate and White House next year, or simply the insular nature of Congress, the inability to make energy the number one issue is catastrophic. The huge growth platform that energy independence creates is the ONLY way for America to solve its budgetary woes.

Yet nothing happens.

The current inaction pushes the nation further into the red, endangering Americans’ welfare in an unprecedented fashion.

The ugly reality is that the USA may soon stand for United States Of Arabia.

Doesn’t have quite the same ring, does it?

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Tastykake’s Demise: Too Reliant On Government

“Nobody bakes a cake as tasty as a Tastykake.”  

While that jingle can be hummed by most Philadelphians, odds are that another company will soon be baking Tastykakes (if they are still baked at all), and the company’s products will be manufactured somewhere other than Philly.

Will it be a shame if that happens? Absolutely.  The financially ailing company has been synonymous with Philadelphia for decades, a unique part of the cultural landscape. More important, should the bakery shut down its new facility at the Philadelphia Shipyard (a plant subsidized by the taxpayers to the tune of $31 million, where Tasty enjoys local and state tax abatements through 2018), many will lose their jobs.

No matter how you bake it, the outlook for Tastykake isn’t peachy.  The company sees its stock trading at a 28-year low, has delayed payments to creditors (including the state), and has yet to file its (now overdue) annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Sure, there are the company-line reasons for Tastykake’s demise: increased ingredient costs, a large customer (A & P) filed for bankruptcy, and the new factory was meeting neither targets nor anticipated cost savings.

All true, but also, quite possibly, symptoms of a much greater illness: a chief executive’s vision more rooted in government solutions than the free market.

Despite all his rhetorical fluff in past years that Tastykake was on the right track, embattled President and CEO Charles Pizzi, boss since 2002, has presided over the once-vaunted company’s precipitous decline. Were some things out of his control? Can some of Tastykake’s problems be blamed on the recession? Yes, but welcome to the club.  There’s not another CEO who isn’t facing similar issues.

A recent article in the Inquirer by Joe DiStefano discussed Tastykake’s dire situation, with some of Pizzi’s former associates circling the wagons in his defense.  Of particular note is the common theme: Pizzi’s “relationships” with government officials was the cornerstone of his leadership.

DiStefano put it best in outlining the issue: “Tasty's troubles - and Pizzi's - are a test of Philadelphia's industrial policy: The long campaign by city and business leaders to use taxpayer subsidies and personal connections to rebuild a shrunken industrial base.”

And therein lies the problem.  Despite getting away with that flawed policy for years, it’s time to pay the piper. For far too long, government officials have been in bed with business leaders who, for some reason, think they are entitled to taxpayer money whenever a financial need arises, from pet projects to shipyard bailouts to yes, a “state-of-the-art” new bakery.

That practice has led municipalities, states, the nation --- and pension funds --- to the brink of collapse, as countless billions have been squandered on projects having nothing to do with the core functions of government. It didn’t matter that many of these initiatives were so risky that the private sector wouldn’t touch them, because there is “no risk” when taxpayer dollars --- Other People’s Money (OPM) --- are involved. 

It’s a No-Lose Proposition: People pay ever-increasing taxes, re-filling government coffers, and the money supply for outlandish “investments” continues unabated.

That is, until the economy tanks. And the house of cards comes crashing down.

As a result, there is no money left for basic government services, such as education, infrastructure and pension payments, let alone bailouts and loans to private companies. (Unless, of course, you are Governor Corbett, who, like Ed Rendell, threw a bone to the unions by bailing out the Aker Shipyard in Philadelphia to build two ships with NO buyers).

As DiStefano noted, “Before the Tasty board hired Pizzi in 2002, bankers suggested selling the company,” but the company “…gambled on Pizzi and his connections. If his wasn't a typical CEO resumé, his exposure to then-Gov. Ed Rendell, then-State Sen. Vince Fumo, and other key politicians was useful in arranging taxpayer financing for a state-of-the-art bakery that would fit in South Philadelphia, a neighborhood also home to taxpayer-subsidized private projects such as the Eagles and Phillies stadiums and the ailing Aker Philadelphia Shipyard.”

Being politically-connected is smart corporate policy, but when that becomes a centerpiece of business strategy, you have problems.

Just look at some comments in the Inquirer referencing Pizzi’s “success:”

- “Charlie's M.O. is, 'There's no problem that's too big that I can't use my relationships, nontraditional ways, to solve a problem,' " said Chris Cashman, who worked with Pizzi in prior jobs. “If he hadn't taken bold, risky, flamboyant steps, four years ago we'd have been talking about what a great company Tastykake was." 

In other words, taxpayers staved off the company closing its doors, when the free market dictated otherwise.  And how is taking OPM in any way risky?  The risk wasn’t in getting the money, but thinking that the company could still operate profitably. Cashman added that Pizzi’s only ideology was that, “he has a deep respect for the fact this (Tastykake) is a Philadelphia treasure.”  If only that ideology wasn’t predicated on government intervention, perhaps that “treasure” wouldn’t be the doughnut that it is --- high in fat and with little substance.

- “Even if Pizzi loses control of Tasty Baking, even if shareholders, taxpayers, and the bank lose millions, Pizzi has accomplished a key mission, his friends say,” DiStefano wrote.

It’s nice being loyal to a friend, but that’s a head-scratcher. So you preside over a company which is run into the ground --- despite the taxpayers’ generosity --- and that’s “accomplishing a key mission?”  If that’s “success,” one has to shudder as to what “failure” might be.

“Like Aker (the shipyard that Corbett bailed out), the new Tasty bakery is competitive, once you get past the debt, says William Hankowsky,” another former colleague of Pizzi's.

What does that even mean? Subsidize ships that no one will buy, for a shipyard that can't make it on its own, because it's only taxpayer money at stake? Bail out Tastykake so it can keep the doors open just a bit longer, even though it can't make the grade? 

 It’s classic Bury-Your-Head-In-The-Sand 101.

Hey, William, here’s a thought.  Perhaps the millions of Americans who have foreclosed on their homes wouldn’t have done so if only they didn’t have that pesky thing called a mortgage. And the Inquirer wouldn’t have filed for bankruptcy if it hadn’t had that darn $400 million debt.  And America would be competitive if it didn’t owe $14 trillion.

And, yes, Butler could have been the NCAA Champion if it hadn’t missed 80 percent of its shots.

But this isn’t Fantasy Land.  In the real world, these things exist. What separates innovative leaders from the also-rans is what they do with the challenges they face.

In Pizzi’s case, his background should have been a harbinger of things to come.  He had virtually no experience running private sector companies, but just the opposite.  He presided over the Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, a sell-out and wholly impotent organization whose only action is throwing events patting itself on the back for maintaining the status quo.  The result of the Chamber’s Business As Usual approach?  Philadelphia remains the highest taxed city in America.  Nice track record.

For two decades, Pizzi worked in city government positions, including Commerce Director, an executive of the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation (a City-Chamber entity which later loaned money to Tastykake), the Mayor’s Development Cabinet, and served on transition teams of two governors; he now sits on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank Of Philadelphia. The only thing Pizzi knows is government, so expectations that he would turn around Tasty were simply naïve.

While some will certainly criticize this column as a “hit piece” on Pizzi, it is nothing of the kind.  It merely points out the flawed thinking of those who believe government can and should be the answer to private sector challenges.  Career politicians and business leaders who have grown accustomed to raiding the people’s Treasury have now been slammed with the harsh reality that the free ride is over.  Companies and governments that adapt, becoming more efficient with fewer resources, will survive and eventually prosper. Those that can’t will fade away, just as they should.  Sadly, Tastykake is in the latter category.

Perhaps if Tasty’s leadership had concentrated more on free market solutions and less on feeding at the public trough, it would have weathered the storm and its profits would be icing on the cake.

Instead, a Philadelphia institution will soon be cooked, another inevitable casualty of corporate reliance on Big Government.

Twinkies, anyone?

                                                                                                                        

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative

reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries

and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including

The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick

Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in

Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national

television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Why Is Corbett Punting On Privatizing Liquor?

Last November, Pennsylvanians elected Tom Corbett to solve the state’s problems. But instead of leadership, they’ve received task forces and blue ribbon panels.  In just three months, commissions have been formed to deal with Marcellus Shale natural gas (with a whopping 31 members), explore the core functions of government, and figure out how to privatize liquor.

Sorry, but isn’t that why people elect politicians?  Isn’t it their job to solve these problems? 

Commissions and task forces are simply code-speak for passing the buck and kicking the can down the road.  We might as well just hang a sign that reads, “Welcome to Pennsylvania, Blue Ribbon State.”  And if GOP leaders don’t start following through on campaign promises, the only “Red” they’ll see is voter anger when the state turns Democratic Blue.

*****

Since privatizing liquor is one of the only issues which enjoys a large consensus, and would provide billions to balance the ballooning budget deficit, it’s baffling why Corbett would punt away such political capital when he needs it most. Delaying the privatization initiative by instituting yet another study commission was a move that left many observers scratching their heads --- and state store union employees punch-drunk with elation.

Even more perplexing is that Corbett has a solid ally in House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, who had been spearheading privatization legislation for years. Turzai had a right to expect that, with strong GOP majorities in both Houses, the Governor would come charging out of the gate on an issue that was a cornerstone of his campaign. Instead, Corbett felt compelled to reach into the “Business As Usual” drawer and pull out another meaningless commission, which looks increasingly like a bad political calculation.

*****

Sometimes you have to walk out your door to realize that the grass really is greener somewhere else. For Pennsylvanians, that “green” is all the money saved by consumers in other states because they aren’t gouged when purchasing alcohol. 

For the uninitiated, following is a primer for how the Pennsylvania alcohol monopoly works:

Pennsylvania is the largest purchaser of booze in the world.  The state government, through the Liquor Control Board (LCB), controls the purchase, distribution and sale of all wine and liquor.  You might think that with such immense purchasing clout, its citizens would have outstanding selection and competitive pricing.  But as any Pennsylvanian knows, that’s clearly not the case.

Interestingly, the LCB is charged with two distinct, and inherently contradictory, roles.  While it is responsible for raising revenue through the sale of wine and liquor, it is also charged with controlling the sale of booze throughout the state.  By definition, if the LCB is succeeding at one, it must be failing at the other.

Every bottle of liquor bought in the state comes with an added bonus: an 18% "temporary" tax, which is in addition to the 6% sales tax.  So a $10 bottle jumps to $11.80 before the sales tax is calculated, culminating in a whopping $12.50.  In all fairness, the 18% tax was well intentioned --- it was passed by the legislature to rebuild Johnstown after a devastating flood that destroyed the town.

 In 1936.  So much for “temporary” taxes.  

Anyone who has traveled outside Pennsylvania knows how refreshing it is to enter a grocery store, and, remembering that you need a bottle of wine for dinner, walk two aisles over to the plethora of vino at your fingertips. Since others accomplish this with little difficulty, it’s incomprehensible that the nation’s sixth largest state can’t --- or, more correctly, won’t --- do the same.

It is infinitely more efficient when a private company, responsive to the needs of the free market (instead of bureaucrats), stocks its shelves with items that consumers want, at a fair market price.  It is the core principle on which America was founded.

But Pennsylvania remains stuck in the Dark Ages, and what makes the sin mortal is that it chooses to remain there. It hasn't dawned on the politicos in Harrisburg that they are losing untold revenue because of their Draconian system, with millions of residents crossing state lines to fill their liquor cabinets.  (No offense to Governor Christie, but anytime New Jersey offers a better alternative, you know you have major problems). 

And despite the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, if you are caught bringing alcohol into Pennsylvania, it’s a criminal offense.  In fact, such "criminals" used to have their cars confiscated for doing so.

To be fair, today's LCB has made substantial progress in its operations and "customer service.” Not too long ago, all of its locations were "counter" stores, meaning that customers had to know exactly what they wanted before placing their order, since browsing was not permitted.  The clerk would then disappear into the bowels of the store, only to return five or ten minutes later, more often than not stating that they were "out of stock" and asking for a second choice.  Now imagine this scene playing out at Christmas time, with twenty five people in line.

But that's not all.

Nothing in the store was chilled. No ancillary items such as tonic water were sold. No employees were permitted to offer advice.  And no LCB stores accepted credit cards.  

And all this because former Governor Gifford Pinchot, who as a young man became violently sick while imbibing in Germany, became bound and determined to make alcohol as difficult as possible to obtain. 

But the LCB's improvements amount to being valedictorian of summer school.  The whole system has to be scrapped.

The ultimate irony is that the Keystone State, birthplace of American democracy and cradle of liberty, continues down the path of state control and government regulation, to the detriment of its twelve million citizens. 

And what are liquor privatization’s chances?  Dead for the spring session, possible in the fall, and virtually nonexistent for 2012. With the make-up of the legislature sure to change next year, the time to take a “shot” is undoubtedly now.

The people have awakened from their stupor, demanding change.  Instead, all they get is a (Pabst) “Blue Ribbon” commission.

Time for another drink.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative

reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries

and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including

The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick

Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in

Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national

television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com