Our views: ; Why protect some businesses?; The state should focus on protecting consumers rather than merchants

TWENTY years ago, the state took itself out of the retail liquorbusiness. This was a great leap toward ending the state's ridiculousmonopoly on liquor sales.

To facilitate the change, the state auctioned off 10-year liquorlicenses. In exchange for money up front, successful biddersreceived coveted licenses to operate lucrative businesses.

That was not as good a deal for consumers. Competition reducesprices, and licensing inhibited competition.

The state licensed individual liquor stores - or stand-alonestores, as the Legislature has taken to calling them - as well asretailers that wanted to offer liquor along with other products.

For many West Virginians, seeing whiskey in the drug store wasunnerving and took some getting used to.

Now as the state prepares to sell, at auction, 10-year liquorlicenses for the third time, Gov. Joe Manchin and the Legislaturehave agreed to "protect" the stand-alone liquor stores from thechains of retail outlets.

Independent liquor stores - stand-alones - will be allowed tocircumvent the bidding process for these licenses if they pay theminimum bid plus 10 percent.

Delegate Bill Wooton, D-Raleigh, objected.

"Our job is to represent the taxpayers," Wooton said. "How arethe taxpayers better off to get $100,000 for a license instead of$500,000?"

That's a good question.

Why should the state stick up some retailers while carving out abreak for others? Who owns these sentimental-sounding mom-and-popliquor stores, and what is the state's interest in preserving them?

Better yet, why has the state decided it needs to protectbusinesses from consumers?

While retailers should have to purchase a license of some sort,opening up competition should, over time, drop prices.

It might even boost sales in the 28 counties that borderneighboring states, which would boost the state's collection ofliquor taxes.