The headline on Senate Democratic Leader Seth Goodall’s column about the Maine’s liquor business was correct: “State deserves for us to get it right.” Below the headline, however, not much else was accurate.

Sen. Goodall says that Gov. Paul LePage “wants the state to take back the liquor business.” That is not true. The governor simply wants the state to take back the significant revenue created by the spirits business, not the day-to-day management of operations.

In 2012, the spirits business in Maine generated $45.8 million in operating income, after it covered all its direct costs. The state’s share last year? Just $8.7 million.

With very modest growth projections, we estimate the first year of our proposal would yield close to $49 million in operating income. As the business grows, so does the state’s income. Why should the state of Maine settle for less than this level of annual income from its spirits business?

Goodall claims “the governor’s proposal is a confusing plan that pulls the state’s liquor business into a deal that requires Maine to borrow from Wall Street in order to pay a debt to the hospitals.” Again, not true.

The governor’s proposal would pay the long-standing hospital debt by pledging liquor income to a revenue bond. Revenue bonds are common tools in many state governments. These bonds present no risk to the state or the taxpayer because the bondholder accepts the liquor business revenue as its collateral.

Goodall states that prior to 2003, the state-operated liquor business was underperforming. Perhaps that was true when it came to store deliveries, but certainly not in regard to financial results for the state and its taxpayers. In terms of sales growth and profits, business performance was actually better before Maine Beverage Company took over management in 2004.

First, the historical average annual profit to the state was $25 million for the 10 years prior to the existing contract. Adding in the $125 million up-front payment the state took, the average has fallen to $23.4 million under the management of MBC — a decline of 6.4 percent.

Second, the growth rate of spirits sales in Maine has been below the average of other liquor-control states in seven out of the eight years that MBC has managed the business. In 2012, the most recent year of sales performance, Maine sales grew by only 2.3 percent, while New Hampshire sales surged by 6.3 percent.

Sen. Goodall would prolong the bad deal for the state. His pay-to-play proposal requires an upfront payment of as much as $200 million just to get a chance to bid.

We strongly disagree with this approach.

The governor’s plan includes a transparent, rigorous RFP process in which the qualifications of bidders will be disclosed for all to examine. All are welcome to bid, including any members of the Maine Beverage Company team — more bidders means a better deal for the state.

Goodall’s proposal dampens competition by limiting bidders to those who can write a $200 million check,

That large, upfront payment to the state would require financing from somewhere — probably a large capital investment firm from Wall Street.

Even worse, the higher interest payments for this kind of financing, which amounts to millions of dollars, would be borne by Maine’s taxpayers.

The governor’s plan includes concrete numbers on revenue generation, wholesale services target payments, consumer price reductions and agency store discount rate improvements. And, unlike Goodall’s bill, the governor’s proposal pays for all these benefits.

Goodall’s bill has no consumer price reduction to help recover sales lost to New Hampshire and no way of paying for a proposed agency store discount rate improvement; unless, of course, he is willing to either raise consumer prices or lower the state’s profit.

Our pockets are being picked by New Hampshire because our state-controlled retail prices are too high and our current wholesale system is too costly. It is within our power to correct this. But Sen. Goodall’s plan would prohibit consumer price reductions, exploiting Maine consumers in exchange for short-term financial gain that goes to private interests.

Also, let’s be clear on what these lost sales cost our state. The lost sales each year amount to approximately $30 million, the lost profit is approximately $11.6 million, and lost taxes make up another $2.1 million. Liquor consumed in Maine should be purchased in Maine. We don’t claim it will be easy to recover those lost sales, but we think we have the right strategy to start.

Gov. LePage has a reasonable, comprehensive strategy to get the best deal for Mainers and make the most of our lucrative liquor business by finally settling unpaid hospital bills, investing in clean water and transportation infrastructure and replenishing the state’s rainy day fund.

We’ve learned from the mistakes made in the past — let’s get it right this time.

Gerry Reid is director of the Maine Bureau of Alcoholic Beverages and Lottery Operations.