Bloggers and food writers have made a stink about recent price increases by the state Liquor Control Board, calling them everything from "weird" to "fascistic " to "gluttonous" and "obscene."

For example, Seattle Weekly bar critic Maggie Savarino wrote that the liquor board was "upp[ing] its profit margin" and encouraged readers to write the board in protest.

The fine people of Washington should be pissed about needing to spend more to get pissed. ...

We already pay too much for liquor in this state, and this is where my obnoxious "Where I'm from..." streak comes in handy. Right now, a 1.75-liter bottle of Stolichnaya vodka costs $46.95 in Washington, while it retails for $32.99 at Sam's Wine in Chicago. At the Liquor Board Class H price—what restaurants and bars pay—that same bottle runs $36.61, meaning a bar in our state still pays more than any average Joe in Illinois. I could play this game all day, with every major brand of spirit.

Yes, paying more for stuff sucks. Yes, it's unclear that "sin taxes"—taxes on products, like alcohol and cigarettes, that have a cost to society as a whole—actually work. And yes, bar owners need to make a living.

But: It is absolutely untrue that the liquor control board is making a killing by hiking liquor prices. In fact, the additional $80 million the board hopes to raise through the increase will pay for K-12 education for 12,000 kids; coverage under the state's Basic Health Plan for more than 27,000 low-income people; financial aid for more than 16,000 state college students; operating costs at 121 state parks; and the cost of operating the Walla Walla state jail. Overall, the vast majority of the money raised by liquor taxes—60 percent—goes into the state's general fund, with another 19 percent going to cities and counties, and 15 percent going into health care coverage.

Nor is it entirely true that the liquor control board "decided" to raise prices. The state legislature mandated that the liquor board come up with $80 million last year, in response to a state budget deficit of $9 billion. True, the liquor board could have sent the question to the voters in the form of a fee, but they didn't really have much choice in the matter.

So if drinkers really want to get mad at someone, get pissed at the state legislature. But you might want to think twice, since the extra buck you pay for a bottle of whiskey today will fund someone else's prenatal care, public education, or college tuition tomorrow.