Per Chris's post this morning, I just wanted to remind folks that Judd Gregg (R-NH) - who has built up a record of voting for every single corporate-written trade deal of the last generation - will now be heading the government agency that is supposed to enforce the meager fair trade laws we have on the books, and whatever new fair trade laws get passed.
That's right, the Commerce Department is the home of the International Trade Administration, whose mission is to "ensure fair trade and compliance with trade laws and agreements." During the Bush administration, this key agency was used to enforce the protectionist provisions in trade deals that help corporations - stuff like patents and intellectual property. But it could also be used to enforce the minimal human rights, anti-dumping and anti-currency-manipulation provisions in trade deals, as well.
And though Barack Obama campaigned on specific fair trade promises, it's hard to believe that the government's trade enforcement apparatus will be focused on fair trade now that Gregg will run it.
As I said, Gregg is the guy who voted for almost every single corporate-written trade policy in the last generation. He's a guy who took to his state's largest paper to deride efforts to reform the proposed Colombia Free Trade Agreement (that Obama says he opposes) - an agreement that includes no labor, human rights or environmental provisions, and would reward a right-wing government that colludes to execute union leaders.
In a very real sense, the appointment of Gregg is the equivalent of the Bush administration hiring people to government offices they had previously worked to destroy. Gregg not only voted to eliminate the Commerce Department he now heads, he will run the trade enforcement agency he has worked to undermine.
Had Obama traded the Commerce slot for a Democratic senator, there might have been a case that the Gregg appointment was understandable - even in the context of trade. You could have argued that with another Democratic vote in the Senate, it would have been that much easier to pass new fair trade reforms. But the fact that that's not happening as part of the deal, means the Gregg appointment is just a straight-up sell out on all the issues that Commerce oversees - trade being one of the biggest. The idea that there's no one better than a radical free trader to head up the Commerce Department in the administration of a president who campaigned against free trade is preposterous.
Whether or not you are one of the tiny minority of Americans who think our current trade policies work (and I stress, you would be be among a tiny minority), it's undeniable that Obama campaigned throughout the key industrial states promising a real commitment to fair trade. The Commerce Secretary position is a critical cog in fulfilling - or reneging on - those promises. And indeed, this appointment flies in the face of those promises.
Sorry, but this is not "change we can believe in." This is "more of the same."
