Editor’s note: This commentary is by Hayden Dublois, who is a resident of Manchester and an economics student at Middlebury College. He is the Bennington County regional field director for Scott Milne for Governor. The views expressed in this commentary are solely the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any campaign organization.
Gov. Shumlin prides himself on making the Vermont so-often the “first.” First to pass a GMO labeling law, first to ban fracking, first to pass a single-payer health care law. Vermont sure has racked up a number of firsts under Gov. Shumlin. But is being first the best choice for Vermonters? Is it more prudent to allow other states to experiment before we enact a law, or perhaps work with other states together on initiatives? Is doing it alone to finish it first really the best course of action?
GMO labeling is one area we can look to for insight on the answer.
Most Vermonters support our state’s initiative to increase consumer knowledge and food safety. While the benefits or consequences of GMO consumption are up for debate, the issue I am referring to is how the labeling law was passed. The state knew full well that the law would most likely face a massive legal challenge if passed, which of course it has. Four national organizations have filed a lawsuit in the Burlington District Court against the state, and they clearly intend to win.
The state has capped state funding for legal fees at $1.5 million, despite estimates that the lawsuit could cost up to $8 million. While the state first plans to tap private donations, only $300,000 (or 3.75 percent of the estimated costs) has been raised thus far to help the state fight to protect Act 120.
If other states had passed the law prior to Vermont, the results or proceedings of such lawsuits against their regulations could have been incorporated in the initial debate in Vermont’s Statehouse when the law was being considered. While the outcome would have most likely remained the same, it is reasonable to suggest that the Legislature might have at least incorporated a strategy (or, more carefully worded the law) to protect the its goals and reduce the possibility of incurring significant legal fees.
Furthermore, other states have engaged in actions to support GMO labeling without taking on as much risk as Vermont has. For example, Maine passed that a law that will implement GMO labeling once a critical mass of neighboring states pass similar laws, and Connecticut is holding off on the implementation of its law until at least four states with a aggregate population of 20 million pass a similar regulation. If Vermont had taken this approach, we could have, over time, accomplished the same goal of enhancing food safety while limiting our state’s legal risk. A rush to be “first” is certainly not a optimal alternative to careful consideration on such an important matter.
Maine passed that a law that will implement GMO labeling once a critical mass of neighboring states pass similar laws, and Connecticut is holding off on the implementation of its law until at least four states with a aggregate population of 20 million pass a similar regulation.
Act 48, Vermont’s single payer law, is an example of yet another “first” for Vermont. The Legislature rushed the first single payer bill in the nation through the Statehouse in one legislative session, which was passed along party lines. The law was passed with no clear method for financing the law, which has since been estimated to cost over $1.5 billion. Whether or not you support the federal Affordable Care Act, at least it was passed with a full plan of how to finance it.
In Vermont, we passed one of the most significant pieces of state legislation in years without a clear financing mechanism. Even though the law had a deadline for the governor to present his financing plans (which passed by over a year and a half ago) to the Legislature, the governor has failed to follow such a deadline and is still holding on to his financing notes, claiming executive privilege, despite being challenged in court by a state representative, Cynthia Browning, a member of the governor’s own party!
The University of Massachusetts estimates that the state would need to collect $1.6 billion in new revenues to finance the law, and Avalere, a health care advisory company, says the figure is closer to $1.9 billion-$2.2 billion.
This law was passed despite the fact that over 90 percent of our state’s population is insured, our health care performance statistics (such as infant mortality, breast cancer, deaths, obesity, smoking, per person health care spending, and numerous others) beat the national average, and we are ranked the healthiest state in the nation, according to Reuters.
Even among the Vermonters who are uninsured, nearly 50 percent are eligible for Medicaid but have chosen not to enroll. One UVM economist estimates that, even if we only needed to raise $1 billion in new revenues for the single-payer law, we would need either a 23 percent sales tax, a 73 percent meals and rooms tax, a doubling of state income taxes, a 10-fold corporate profits tax increase, or a three-fold increase in the average Vermonter’s payroll tax burden.
Was rushing a law through in one legislative session without any plan to pay for its associated costs really the way Vermont should “lead”? Or should we have examined the proposed costs more carefully before we passed the law? Or, perhaps even better, should we have let another state experiment with this type of approach first?
States have been often referred to as “experiments of democracy.” They are testing grounds for innovative legislation, new ideas and exciting solutions. However, sometimes it pays to take a cautious approach, or wait for others to take the first step. If it means reducing legal exposure, more carefully considering the costs and benefits of a law, or simply allowing more time for debate, not being “first” isn’t such a bad idea.
