This isn’t government work

I read Norman Ellefson’s letter to the editor to vote no on Initiative 1183. His main concern is how many state jobs will be lost. My question is why we keep an agency just to save jobs.

The state employees that lose their jobs might be able to apply at the grocery stores that will be selling the liquor. Private-sector employees do that when they lose their jobs. Those jobs at the grocery stores are not minimum-wage jobs.

It has been my experience that the private sector is always more efficient in running a business than the government agencies. The reason is that the private sector has competition unlike the government. They also can do the job cheaper than the government.

The commercials against I-1183 are saying that more minors will have more access to purchasing liquor. How many minors will be able to afford the liquor? If the state was really that concerned about minors getting liquor, they should have made the public go to state stores to purchase beer and wine, which can be currently purchased in grocery stores and convenience stores.

The state could still impose a tax, but they would not be able to mark up the liquor as they do now.

Patricia McManus

Spokane Valley