You know, for all my criticism of government bureaucrats, reading a story like this makes me want to be one:

[Recently resigned Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board Chairman Jonathan H. Newman] often stayed in style, at times booking $500-a-night New York City hotel rooms, an Inquirer analysis of documents obtained through the state's Right to Know law shows.

Newman yesterday vigorously defended the travel, arguing that his wine-buying trips to Napa Valley, the Bordeaux region and Rome generated millions in profits for the state through sales from the Chairman's Selection program he started three years ago to give consumers better wines at a better price.

Haggling for the best wine bargains can't be done over the phone, "sitting on your derriere," he said.

"I'm working my tail off. I'd rather be home with my family. I'm working from 8 in the morning to 10 at night," he said. "And I brought back these new, great products and generated millions in profits for the commonwealth."

Between 2004 and the end of last year, the PLCB spent $47,188 for Newman's travel. Expenses for the two other board members - Thomas Goldsmith and P.J. Stapleton - totaled $35,887 and $20,048, respectively.

Activists who are pushing for greater financial restraint in Harrisburg pounced on the spending reports.

"There is no justification for this type of extravagant, excessive and lavish lifestyle," said Eric Epstein, founder of RockTheCapital.org. "When you become drunk with power, you make impaired decisions."

Stapleton, who replaced Newman as chairman, said yesterday that he was unaware until recently of many of the travel bills, but planned to send a memo to the agency's senior staff next week mandating that more discretion be given to picking hotels.

This story highlights a contradiction inherent in the state control of alcohol distribution. If you're going to be sent on a wine-buying trip to places which are vacation spots for the rich and famous, wining and dining kind of go with the turf -- even if you're a bureaucrat.

The irony, of course, is that a private liquor dealer would probably do a better job of wining and dining the French, the Italians, and even the Californians -- precisely because of the lack of oversight that's present here. "Accountability" would be based not on bureaucratic oversight -- but on whether he turned a profit.

In California, wines are sold in the supermarkets' wine sections, and they are cheaper and have a better selection than the Pennsylvania state stores. The customers neither know nor care how much money the stores' wine buyers or distributors might spend on hotels. What's an "entertainment writeoff" for a private business is a career-ending "scandal" for a bureaucrat.

Putting bureaucrats in the liquor business is a good way to make "bureaucracy" seem synonymous with hypocrisy.

I really should be more outraged here. Instead, I find myself wanting to be a bureaucrat.

Now that's real hypocrisy!

AFTERTHOUGHT: Geez, I just thought of something about which I'm starting to have second thoughts. Should the government really be put in charge of vice?