Who's in Charge Here?

Last year, the legislature created a Commission on International Trade and State Sovereignty.  The opening lines of the Commission's overview document states that

Trade is a growing part of the economy that affords Vermont opportunities for economic growth. 

So far, so good.  I hope that when the idea of "economic growth" is mentioned, it doesn't just mean jobs, but also lower prices, higher quality, and more choices for individuals.

But then, the dark clouds come in:

However, trade agreements may undermine state sovereignty and preempt state law.

In much the same way, I suppose, that the unwritten laws of economics and the written U.S. Constitution may undermine state sovereignty and preempt state law.

Legislators can't write a law that says that gasoline must not cost more than $1.50 a gallon, nor can they write laws that say we can't trade with New Hampshire, Cuba, or China.  (I refer to this document for the former (see especially Book 1, Chapters 1-3), and this for the latter (see section 8).

Legislators are apparently concerned that

 Trade agreements also may undermine the ability of states to regulate the environment, health care, agriculture, and professional regulations among other fields.

Much as the U.S. Congress can undermine the ability of states to do those same things.  I thought that the deal the states entered into with the United States is that they gave up certain of their sovereign rights in exchange for participation in the federal system.  For example, we can't coin our own money, use our own system of weights and measures, or enter into trade agreements (or limit trade) with foreign nations. 

And the legislation gives some specific examples of why they are concerned:

Agriculture: Negotiations are ongoing to address the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, with many countries pushing to ban agricultural subsidies, including state subsidies.  A WTO panel already has held that the U.S. cotton subsidy violated the WTO Agreement, and, in 2007, Canada initiated a challenge to the U.S. corn subsidies in 2007.

Funny, I think that ending U.S. cotton subsidies is a good thing (although remember that the WTO has no enforcement mechanism).  Ending cotton subsidies helps provide higher incomes to destitute cotton growers in Africa and it gives U.S. cotton consumers lower prices--and last time I looked, there were more cotton consumers than cotton producers in the U.S..  Could it be that the legislature thinks that at some time in the future, the state of Vermont's ability to raise the price of milk to 600,000 Vermonters in order to give higher prices to 1,000 Vermont dairy farmers may be jeopardized by an international agreement?

Anyway, on October 20, the Commission will be holding a public hearing in South Burlington on some of these issues.  My guess is that only anti-trade activists will attend.  The rest of us will be too busy working and enjoying time with friends and family to attend.  And maybe in future years, legislatures will focus their time and energy, and our tax dollars, on issues that the state can actually do something about.

Comments

[CP]

Thank you for calling attention to this "commission". If you read the statute about who serves on the commission, is there any wonder that it is loaded with anti-trade views. The irony is that Vermont is #1 in exports per capita (thanks, IBM!).