Those who are crying over the veto that Gov. Tom Wolf used last week to dispose of a controversial bill to privatize the state-controlled sales of wine and liquor are shedding what we would call crocodile tears, with apologies to the crocodiles.

On Friday, a commentator for the Commonwealth Foundation, a conservative-libertarian policy organization, cried foul over Wolf's action, which the governor said was because of his objections to it as a business proposition."Gov. Wolf had the opportunity to enact historic liquor privatization that would have freed Pennsylvanians from a scandal-ridden relic of Prohibition," said Nathan Benefield, vice president of policy analysis for the Commonwealth Foundation. "Though a majority of voters Democrats, Republicans and Independents want to end the government liquor monopoly, Wolf says it's his way or the highway. Wolf opted to keep consumers bound by a government system that offers less convenience, fewer choices and higher prices."What Benefield did not say, but which is clearly in the back of everyone's mind in Harrisburg, is that the Republican supporters of this idea had a perfect storm of control until the voters threw failed Gov. Tom Corbett out of office in 2014. The GOP had control of the House of Representatives, the state Senate, the governor's office, yet could not come together to get such legislation passed.Wolf, a Democrat in his first year, said that selling off the liquor system was not a good business decision."We can support and bolster consumer convenience without selling an asset and risking higher prices and less selection for consumers," Wolf said. "I am open to options for expanding the availability of wine and beer in more locations, including supermarkets."The liquor bill would have let those who currently hold about 14,000 licenses to sell beer in the state to pay more for the right to also sell wine, liquor or both. The roughly 600 state-owned liquor stores would have closed, one at a time, once private-sector sales were up and running in the area. Senate Republican leaders issued a statement saying Wolf sided with special interests and against the priorities of consumers. They said the plan would have brought the state in line with the rest of the country and generated $220 million in revenue. Liquor privatization will be part of the coming talks to resolve the budget stalemate, they said.But privately, many of those who voted for the liquor privatization bill did so because they knew Wolf would veto it. Thereby they could claim championing the rights of consumers, without having to address any of the economic realities Wolf would have been faced with if he signed the bill. State Sen. Don White, R-Indiana, is one of the lawmakers who voted for the wine and liquor bill despite concerns that he wanted addressed."I think we all did," said White, R-Indiana. "I voted for it with a promise that when and if he does veto it, and we have a chance to renegotiate the bill, I have a chance to make sure my concerns are addressed," said White.We would support wholeheartedly a modernization of the state's liquor sales system, and look to our neighbor to the south, Delaware, for a model. But in the meantime, half-heated supporters of modernization should save us their tears.Delaware County Daily Times