CPSIA – 500th Post on CPSIA . . . Now What?

756 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 55 days left until Election Day.

I have been blocked for a little while on the occasion of my 500th post in this blog. I have been prattling on the subject of the CPSIA for almost two years now. To be perfectly honest, this is a sad occasion for me. I have invested a great deal of time and money attempting to do my citizen’s duty to help our government govern better. Now, after 500 posts, an appearance before a House subcommittee, several appearances on the CPSC panels, numerous comment letters, personal meetings and phone calls, a historic rally, and literally countless media appearances, it appears that we have reached a dead end. It appears that Democrats are unable to understand or accept anything I have ever said on virtually any subject.

As I have been noting, and as I will continue to note, the Democrats have been resolute and united in ignoring our pleas, our evidence and our data, all documenting the CPSIA’s fatal flaws. Even with a stagnant economy, there is scant recognition among Dems that this law is a cause of any ills. It’s not like they haven’t been warned of the economic impact of the CPSIA. They have been warned repeatedly but determinedly stood still, insensitive to our needs and to the harm our OWN GOVERNMENT is inflicting on us.

I must say the entire experience leaves me slack-jawed. For example, I was recently reviewing my experiences with Illinois State legislators about the noxious and stupid Illinois lead labeling law. I met with our State Rep in May 2008 and complained about both the then pending Illinois law as well as the then pending CPSIA. Our Rep for Vernon Hills chose to write Jan Schakowsky of all people to help us gain relief. [I didn't realize at the time what a sick joke it was.] Anyhow, I also met with the State Rep for my hometown, and reached out to our State Senator. I explained how many jobs could be imperiled. I explained the cost and the disruption. I explained how ineffective these laws would be to protect anyone from anything. Some of my Illinois State representatives and their staff gave me the impression they thought I might be some kind of serial killer, but offered to consider my views. So this week I checked and lo-and-behold, they were ALL THREE OF THEM co-sponsors of the bill! Nice.

And some people call this representative government. Does it surprise you that they were all Democrats?

On the occasion of my 500th post, I want to tell you how I feel and what I think happens next. First, I am morose over the likely impact of this law on our business and our industry. If others may be numb to this death by a thousand cuts, I am not. I am outraged that this damage is being inflicted by my own government on our business and on our employees. This is clearly wrong – but it’s happening. I also feel that the CPSC has become a rogue agency which makes up the law and no longer cares what any of its corporate constituents think. I feel the agency is worn out and sick of making rules – CPSC leadership wants to enforce the law, not write it. The Children’s Product definition recently implemented is a case in point – they basically rejected or ignored all comments. The concept of dialogue at the agency has morphed into some sort of public facility for manufacturer venting. But forget about influencing. That door is closed, slammed shut in our faces.

Perhaps most significantly, in the wake of the Children’s Product final interpretative rule, I now expect the worst and am only waiting for the inevitable. I predict the awful and irresponsible rules on Component Testing and Testing Frequency/Reasonable Testing Program to soon “go final” with modest or no changes. Think about what this means – I have stated that the rules by their specific terms will force our company to spend $15 million per year on testing and require destruction of as many as 81,000 units for testing purposes. We don’t have the resources for this. That’s a doomsday scenario for us.

I have previously noted that one effective way to solve the recall “problem” is to eliminate all products. After all, killing the patient ALSO cures his cancer. [I guess that's the silver lining.] Still think this is all hypothetical? I suggest you reread the rule on testing frequency and imagine that the agency will be enforcing this rule against YOU. Imagine that they audit you. I know they don’t do that now, but nothing will stop them from asserting a right to do so in the future. Hmmm. Get your checkbook out . . . or sell your company.

This is not such a farfetched scenario. Remember, the testing stay is due to expire on February 10, 2011. It’s September 8, 2010 now. That’s only five months away. There is no hint that the agency intends to extend the testing stay again. This means they MUST go to final on those rules soon, and to do so procedurally, the rules really need to remain unchanged. The Commission’s inaction on the stay means the jig is up. They will hardly bother to read your comments. They don’t care – they’ve moved on.

And the by-product of this demoralizing state of affairs is business paralysis. What kind of government idiot thinks we will be spending big money on investing in our business with this Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads? That’s absurd, a fantasy borne of ignorance of the real world. Consider the old saying: “The value of the sword is not that it fall, but rather, that it hangs.” Hmmm. Perhaps a nice investment tax incentive will get me out of my funk. GREAT idea, Dems. What insight – handouts solve all problems. . . .

I have committed myself to exacting revenge at the ballot box on Election Day for the Dems’ offenses over the past two years. If you feel as I do, I URGE you to take up your rights as citizens and put DIFFERENT PEOPLE in Congress. If we are successful in reconstituting Congress, we can then begin the urgent process of working to unwind the damage inflicted by the CPSIA and by current leadership at the CPSC.

There is no time to lose. GET INVOLVED WITH LOCAL RACES – NOW. Help them raise money, help them spread the word, ask difficult questions, hold the Dems accountable. They have refused to help YOU for two years. MAKE THEM PAY!

Read more here:
CPSIA – 500th Post on CPSIA . . . Now What?

CPSIA – Apparently, NONE of Us Knows What We’re Talking About

742 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are 69 days left until Election Day.

The CPSC just issued its Final Interpretative Rule on the meaning of “Children’s Products”. For those of you with a pile of reading materials on your desk from the CPSC, this delectable morsel weighs in at 63 pages. Add it to the heap.

Good news, however – you don’t need to waste too much time reading it. The time you spent commenting on the prior draft, now THAT was the waste of time. I burned a few hours on that exercise myself – what-a-fool, I will never learn. The REASON you need not waste time reading the final rule is that virtually all comments you (and anyone else) gave were disregarded or discounted. The changes to the rule were minimal or meaningless and there was no reconsideration of the manifold flaws in the “draft” interpretative rule. If you don’t believe me, have fun deconstructing the 63 pages of drivel against all the comments noted and unremarked upon.

So what is the story we should tell ourselves about this little incident? Here’s a few choices for you:

1. Commenting on these rules is a waste of time because the CPSC is tired of the game – they want to get this done, and that means dealing with comments is not in the plan anymore. [Connect the dots with the pending expiration of the testing stay, and you may get a sense of the urgency.]
2. The solicitation of comments is compelled by law but there is no obligation for the agency to accept any of our comments. Since they know best, they no longer care what we think and have decided not to even pretend anymore. It’s a sham process.
3. We’re all incompetents, which is perhaps why we need to have a CPSC so desperately.

I bet it’s no. 3 – we’re all idiots and our comments reflect it. It’s hard to face up to one’s shortcomings . . . but I appreciate the gentleness of the message from the CPSC. Rather than embarrass us by announcing that we business people know nothing, they just politely ignore our ravings.

And think – now that we’ve established that they know everything and we know nothing, processing of recalls and other financially-impactful events with the agency will be much easier. They are right, by definition, and we are wrong, by definition. Simple! We’ll save a lot on legal fees, too, because there won’t be any point in arguing. No, I’m not talking about the PGA. . . .

I love government of the people, by the people, for the people – especially if those people are unchecked regulators!

Read more here:
CPSIA – Apparently, NONE of Us Knows What We’re Talking About

CPSIA – Illinois Politics in the Gutter

742 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are 69 days left until Election Day.

After two years of banging my head against the wall on the CPSIA, it has become clear that much of the problem is in Congressional leaders from two states, California (Waxman, Boxer, Feinstein) and Illinois (Durbin, Rush, Schakowsky). [I hope I'm not forgetting any other "worthies".] I live in Illinois. The fact that our state is part of this disaster is no surprise. I get to follow the local political goings-on in the paper and on the Internet. Of course, people talk, too. We sure know how to pick ‘em in Illinois . . . .

I think it’s well-known that I am not a big fan of Ms. Schakowsky for her cheerleading for the noxious CPSIA and her leadership of the gang that stymied any effort to fix that awful law and its regulatory by-products. And it’s hard not to be utterly disgusted by her legislative agenda, which earned her the rank of NUMBER ONE SPENDER IN CONGRESS and which has been a job-killer of the first order. She provides many reasons to dislike her passionately . . . but did you also know that her husband is a FELON? As a lawyer, I have very little sympathy for felons. One never becomes a felon by accident. [As a matter of fact, the prospect of being accused of a felony under the CPSIA is one of my hottest "hot buttons" as I deeply resent that our government could make something that inappropriate possible under federal law.]

Yes, in fact, Schakowsky’s husband is a crook. Robert Creamer was convicted of financial crimes in 2005 (check kiting and tax evasion, a $2.3 million fraud committed against nine financial institutions to fund his salary, among other things) while Schakowsky was a sitting member of Congress, served five months in the pokey for his felonies and then was placed under house arrest with his member of Congress spouse for 11 months. Perhaps you think this is some sort of Illinois sitcom or perhaps a new kind of reality show. Here is Creamer’s jail release record, if you are curious.

Creamer’s criminal record is absent from his bio, interestingly enough. Anyone shocked to learn that Creamer was an important advisor to our very own Governor Blagojevich, a fellow felon? Creamer has quite a business going as a political consultant – Democrats from all over the country clamor for his help. Hmmm.

And the Illinois sewer continues to spew to this very day. Mr. Creamer, who was a critical thought leader and trainer for the 2008 Obama campaign (Obama is another Illinoisan with a CPSIA taint), is now apparently part of Democrat Alexi Giannoulias’ campaign for Senate against Mark Kirk. Here’s a still of Alexi Giannoulias posing with Mr. Creamer:

Also conversing with Mssrs. Giannoulias and Creamer is lobbyist Larry Suffredin. Here’s what Wikipedia says about his lobbying practice: “Suffredin is a registered lobbyist with Cook County, the City of Chicago, and the State of Illinois. Suffredin lobbyist clients include resort and casino company MGM Mirage, owners of the Grand Victoria Casino in Elgin, Illinois, and Penn National Gaming, owners of the Hollywood Casino, Aurora, Illinois, the Illinois Alliance of Competitive Telephone Companies, the Donors Forum of Chicago, the Illinois Arts Alliance, and Illinois Citizens for Handgun Control, the Chicago Bar Association, and Kankakee Regional Landfill LLC. He is also a registered lobbyist for Abbott Laboratories, Nursepower Services Corporation, and Quest Diagnostics.”

I assume the three of them were discussing the weather. “Pretty sunny out today, Bob.” “Larry, did you see that rain cloud as you drove in?” “Alexi, surely it won’t rain on your parade!”

This still is from a Giannoulias campaign video pitching an endorsement by Jan Schakowsky. Perhaps there are a few dots to connect here. . . . Giannoulias chats with Creamer at the 1:45 point in the video, check it out yourself:

An Illinois Senatorial candidate hanging out with a felon who stole from banks? Hey, isn’t that practically the very question that dogs Giannoulias in this campaign? How ironic! And then there’s the issue of members of Congress who consort with thieves. This is even more ironic given the Dems’ practice this year of viciously bashing banks and bank bailouts. Perhaps defrauding banks is okay, but keeping them afloat is not. there an odor in the room???

What integrity! How inspiring! Can’t wait to vote . . . .

Read more here:
CPSIA – Illinois Politics in the Gutter

CPSIA – CPSC Calls for Comments on 100 PPM Lead Limit

738 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are 73 days left until Election Day.


The CPSC recently called for comments on the CPSIA’s scheduled reduction in permitted lead limits to 100 ppm on August 14, 2011. This is one of the most disruptive provisions of a truly disruptive law and therefore this call for comments DESERVES YOUR ATTENTION.

Let’s review the situation – the CPSIA requires that the lead limit be lowered to 100 ppm if it is “technologically feasible” (Section 101(a)). This determination can be made product-by-product or even by product class. In other words, some of us might get a free pass because the CPSC decides it isn’t “technologically feasible” for them, but the rest of us might get screwed. Figure that the big guys with the money to put in comments prepared by highly-paid consultants have an advantage here. Big surprise . . . .

The definition of “technological feasibility” is found in Section 101(d) in the CPSIA.

“(d) TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY DEFINED.—For purposes of this section, a limit shall be deemed technologically feasible with regard to a product or product category if— (1) a product that complies with the limit is commercially available in the product category; (2) technology to comply with the limit is commercially available to manufacturers or is otherwise available within the common meaning of the term; (3) industrial strategies or devices have been developed that are capable or will be capable of achieving such a limit by the effective date of the limit and that companies, acting in good faith, are generally capable of adopting; or (4) alternative practices, best practices, or other operational changes would allow the manufacturer to comply with the limit.” [Emphasis added]

To help explain what “technological feasibility” means, I have coined this expression – “If Rolex can do it, you HAVE to do it.” Yes, that means that this term has been defined to focus solely on technological capability with an explicit and intentional omission of any economic considerations (how expensive it might be for you to lower your products to this level). A single example of a product produced within these extreme limits is apparently an insurmountable obstacle to an exemption under this provision. No matter that it is extremely expensive. The all-platinum ATV comes to mind.

The meaninglessness of this reduction from a health or safety standpoint is likewise legally irrelevant.

A quick scan of the Request for Comment shows that the CPSC intends to follow its earlier path of exempting materials that are ALWAYS under the 100 ppm limit. I have “criticized” the conclusions of the previous CPSC effort. Expect nothing less than the insights from the CPSC’s last try which authorizes the use of super-expensive materials and by-products of nuclear waste in children’s products. Anyone for an osmium-laced baby blanket?

You will also note that there is ZERO reference to economics in the Request for Comment. In other words, money factors are totally irrelevant. This might matter to you if you project that this requirement could lead to sudden and deadly losses in your business or otherwise hasten your departure from the children’s product market. Not that the Dems (who are driving this thing) or the CPSC give a darn about your little problems.

YOU NEED TO SEND IN COMMENTS ON THE 100 PPM LIMIT. Ideally, you will gather data and make a reasoned argument. PROTECT YOURSELF – this is an important request for comment. Comments are due on SEPTEMBER 27, 2010.

And one last note: despite your government’s current attitude, this remains YOUR country. Please consider how you feel about a law like this and its impact on your stakeholders (owners, employees, customers, suppliers, consumers, community). You don’t need to accept the fate Mr. Waxman and his merry band have in mind for you. There’s an Election Day coming. Don’t waste it.

Read more here:
CPSIA – CPSC Calls for Comments on 100 PPM Lead Limit

CPSIA – EU Warns on Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act

738 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are 73 days left until Election Day.

The EU has served notice of its objections to Henry Waxman’s latest brainstorm, the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2010. This profoundly misconceived bill, championed by leftist consumer groups for its supposed benefits to consumers while ignoring the real problems likely to cripple commerce, has garnered increasing corporate interest in recent weeks. With more and more attention being given to persistent job losses and anemic (if any) economic growth, this bill seems suicidal. That apparently is no deterrent to our saviors, the Democratic majority in Congress. Reliable sources tell me that this bill will resume its relentless march toward law upon the return of Congress to Washington later this Fall (before Election Day).

Don’t mistake this bill for good policy. We have gone over the many unforgivable flaws of this legislation in this space in the past. It is starkly anti-small business and is an economic depressant. The likely impact would be akin to a trade barrier tariff and could be this generation’s version of Smoot-Hawley. It is also almost certainly a flagrant violation of the WTO and would trigger retaliatory regulations in our principal export markets. Trade war – just what we need . . . since export sales is about all that’s working here now. Small business owners, please consider the impact on your export business if you need to set up registered agents in 50, 60, 70 countries. Think of the legal fees, think of the potential litigation that would be invited. How many such markets would you close?

There’s more cooking in Congress to “help” us this election season. These guys are going to keep trying to “save” you until you save yourself on Election Day. Stay tuned.

Read more here:
CPSIA – EU Warns on Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act

CPSIA – Obama Doesn’t Get It . . . .

In response to the release of yet more terrible jobless claims numbers this AM, President Obama renewed his call to lower taxes on small business and to ease the small business credit crunch. The legislation, which promises to lower certain taxes on small business and to increase federal funding of loans to small businesses through various means, is “stuck” in Congress. Mr. Obama blamed the Republicans for “blocking” the bill: “‘There will be plenty of time between now and November to play politics,’ Obama said. ‘Let’s put aside the partisanship for a while and work together.’”

I think this is rich, personally. We run a small business and I know what it feels like to be a small business in the Obama-cized children’s product market. We are facing skyrocketing costs nicely matched with soft revenues and mounting taxes (funded by the company, too). Cost increases include $300K in new medical plan expenses to accommodate the terms of the Obamacare initiative, plus astronomical all-in costs for increased safety testing under the new CPSIA rules and related manias. The increased testing has yet to reveal any useful information of identify any health threat that constitutes a human safety risk – so all that money is wasted.

These costs have a common link – they are both a result of increasing regulation. I know, I know, Mr. Obama has lectured us that we really need all these new regulations. Well, I don’t agree, but in any event, we see these regulations as major impediments in our business. These high costs affect our cash flow and our business outlook – to the bad. Do the Democrats think we maintain our sunny disposition when we face a shaky market lacking confidence (soft revenues), higher costs (a lot higher) and mounting cash needs from higher taxes and other federal regulatory expenses? This is rather a recipe for managers who want to hide until the storm passes. Who will spend money on new investment now? While we are not cutting our product development efforts, we haven’t bought new equipment, fixtures or additional office/warehouse space in several years now. And we have no plans to do so. Welcome to the Dems’ economy. No wonder new jobless claims are over 500,000 in the last month.

In the case of the CPSIA, the Dems are only too happy to whack us with heavy regulations, all justified by imaginary benefits. The imaginary benefits of the new CPSIA regulations are as invisible as the imaginary problems they are designed to solve. The absence of data on effectiveness is matched by the absence of data suggesting that there was a problem in the first place – the “know nothing’s” jacked up your costs and destabilized your business to no purpose. Now Mr. Obama wants to fix it all with another handout. Throwing money at the problem is new style. And after that handout is parcelled out, the Dems will proceed to raise taxes on higher income individuals (read, small business owners, particularly S Corp owners) to attempt to staunch the hemorrhaging Federal deficit, and then express “shock” at the sluggish economy. No doubt the next step will have to be more handouts and perhaps Cap-and-Trade to raise more costs. What a great cycle. . . .

Is there another way? Well, as for small businesses in the children’s product market, I would note that the voluminous new CSPIA rules (two feet high and growing) impose massive costs on industry (to comply) AND on government (to enforce). I think of the stupid health official bent on enforcing his food handler’s license rule against the little girl in Portland operating a lemonade stand – many of the new CPSIA rules are pointless from a safety standpoint and cost big money to administer as well as to comply with. If the Dems seriously want to stimulate the economy and add jobs, here’s an efficient way to do it for NO out-of-pocket cost – DROP your boundless regulations and go back to something more modest and manageable. This also means that the Obamite idea that life is better with lots more government needs to be shelved. I submit the recent rules on testing frequency and “reasonable” testing programs as evidence that inviting bureaucrats to become involved in operating businesses brings nothing but trouble, inefficiency and devastation. There must be a better way.

Hey, I figured out some time ago that I am talking to myself here. The CPSC certainly doesn’t care or understand what I am talking about (or else they might have done something about it perhaps 300 blogposts ago). The Democrats in Congress likewise are deaf and disinterested. I cannot name a single Democrat, NOT ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT, who will stand up in front of their peers and demand significant amendment or revocation of the CPSIA. The Dems are in lockstep agreement – no light shines in if your head is in the sand, after all.

You can’t work with people like this.

I urge you (URGE YOU) to select the CPSIA perpetrator of your choosing and WORK to knock them out of Congress in this election cycle. Remember – they are trying to put YOU out of business. You need to return the favor.

Return the favor . . . this is my theme song until polls close on November 2. Then the party begins.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Obama Doesn’t Get It . . . .

CPSIA – Thank You Sir, Please Give Me Another . . . .

Today I was assaulted with the news that our company had just received a bill for more than $4,000 to test one of our older items as required by one of our major retail clients. This particular retailers requires that we test every shipment to them using their lab, their prescribed assortment of tests and their pricing – at our expense. There are no exceptions to this rule and no negotiations are tolerated. It’s said to be “a cost of doing business”, and we are supposed to take this cost into account when we price our products to them.

This item has been tested I don’t know how many times. Many times in many forms. Every test was a pass. This latest $4,000 test told us NOTHING we didn’t already know. Had we done the tests ourselves using our primary test lab, we would have spent a fraction of the $4,000 we were required to pay by our retailer client. The product is no safer with this latest test. Most of the money (60%) went to phthalates testing.

Although there is nothing about this test that does NOT irritate me, proving the absence of the six banned phthalates is BY FAR the most offensive. We use materials that do not contain the banned phthalates. This is something that our supply chain management is supposed to address. Even more to the point, since these chemicals have been banned for almost two years for use in toys (for better or worse), they are largely absent from the supply chain without our doing anything at all. Yet, the geniuses who wrote the CPSIA require that we test each product, over and over, to prove they’re not there. Phthalates cannot spontaneously generate themselves – they are an ADDITIVE. Having jacked up penalties to the sky and hit several retailers with highly-publicized irrational and vindictive penalties, the CPSC has created a caustic environment in which testing is not negotiable with large retailers. Hence, we must prove again and again that the phthalates that weren’t there, aren’t there. This costs BIG MONEY. It accomplished absolutely nothing.

And the $4,000? We were theoretically supposed to charge the customer for the testing in our product pricing, but in fact, in most cases, we must absorb the cost. That’s the real world. So we make $4,000 less in profit. We have $4,000 less to invest in our business, $4,000 less to pay health care costs, $4,000 less to pay for innovative product development, $4,000 less to pay bonuses. No one is safer, either. And this is good for all of us? A good way to run a country?

And where did the $4,000 go? To China. The lab which our client requires we use is a public company, and the chosen lab is located in China. Notwithstanding the lab’s low operating costs, the prices we pay for this testing are full boat, un-discounted, nosebleed pricing. They simply vacuum up as much of our money as they are allowed, and your wonderful Democrat Congress shrieks with delight.

We’re so safe now . . . .

I can only hope that the jobs of the Democrats who are keeping us in this CPSIA hell aren’t as safe come November. That seems to be the only recourse we have left.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Thank You Sir, Please Give Me Another . . . .

CPSIA – Transparency, Tenenbaum/Adler-style!

In a truly creepy decision today, the Democrat-dominated CPSC Commission today voted down Anne Northup’s motion to have a public debate of the agency’s recommended changes to the CPSIA. The vote was 2-2 along party lines. [Party affiliation should NEVER be predictive of positions on safety.] By this vote, the Commission ensures that there will be no public airing of views on the agency’s recommendations for amending the awful CPSIA before their report to Congress is due on January 15 (see below). Apparently, the general public’s interest in understanding this critical debate was deemed by the Democrats to be a low priority.

It is ironic that the Democrats would choose to spurn the Government in the Sunshine Act (”Sunshine Act”) so brazenly. The decision to leave Northup’s item off the upcoming meeting agenda is not technically a violation of the Sunshine Act, but then again it is certainly NOT on the list of exceptions to the public meeting rule (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(c)). In my humble opinion, it is a clear violation of the spirit of the Sunshine Act and can hardly be characterized as “transparent” government. As Ms. Northup noted, the sponsors of the Sunshine Act would be appalled. So why did the Dems do it?

Before I recap and analyze of this incredible event, I would like to quote Inez Tenenbaum on the importance of “transparency” (emphasis added):

• CPSC Press Release (July 9, 2009): “Ms. Tenenbaum identified three major areas of focus for her common sense approach to serving as Chairman. ‘First, I want CPSC to be more accessible and transparent to parents and consumers. By creating an electronic database of product incident reports that consumers can search and by collaborating with state and local agencies and consumer groups, we can give the public confidence that CPSC is working openly and in their best interest,’ she stated.”
• APEC Conference Keynote Address (August 1, 2009): “My regulatory philosophy embraces open dialogue, information sharing with all stakeholders, and a commitment to finding mutual interests. . . . Enforcement is actually one of my three top priorities as Chairman, along with government transparency and consumer education and advocacy.”
• Statement Before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection (September 10, 2009): “In my first two months leading the CPSC, I have focused on three key goals: transparency and openness to those we serve . . . .”
• Keynote Address, 3rd CPSC-AQSIQ Safety Summit (October 21, 2009): “I embrace open government, information sharing with all stakeholders, and a commitment to finding mutual interests.”

With Ms. Tenenbaum’s apparent commitment to “transparency”, it should not be surprising that she originally moved to add an agenda item to discuss this very topic (apparently for today’s brief meeting), and then somehow the decision was voted down 3-1, presumably Tenenbaum, Moore and Adler voting against, Northup voting for, and Nord on leave (she’s back now). [I cannot find any record of this vote on the "wonderful" CPSC website and gave up, sorry.] So at one time at least, Tenenbaum was publicly calling for a public discussion of five Commissioners on this critical subject.

One must wonder who spoke to whom to get this flip flop accomplished. Assuming Ms. Tenenbaum meant what she said publicly about the need for “transparency”, someone must have really put a wet blanket on the idea of publicly discussing this subject. I wonder who might have strong views on the wisdom of an unstaged, open discussion of these issues . . . .

Consider Ms. Northup’s argument: This is one of the most critical issues to come before the Commission. The CPSIA has been controversial and difficult to work with two years now. The Appropriations Committee has asked us to give recommendations on how to change to the law. [See this link, pp. 33-34 for the actual instructions.] There is no disagreement that blood lead levels need to be a top priority in children’s safety but none of the CDC, NIH or EPA point to children’s products as a serious lead threat. The Sunshine Act prevents the Commissioners from meeting other than one-on-one without calling a public meeting, which means we can never sit down together to discuss these issues. The issues are too important to relegate to a game of “telephone”. A hearing is the only way for the five of us to discuss this issue at one time.

Tenenbaum’s response was telling: The Staff has been working night and day on this and everyone has had a chance to put in their comments. Each Commissioner has had some drafting responsibility. Each Commissioner has the right to submit their own statement to Congress and likewise to request to testify to present their own personal views. Given our ability to have “extensive discussions” one-on-one, this debate is best held in private. We should NOT have a public hearing on this subject.

Okay, are you persuaded? This is coming from Ms. Transparency, to judge from her many uses of that old chestnut in various speeches and testimony.

Nancy Nord made the point that the reason to have a Commission is to meet publicly and have discussions openly and transparently. Apparently this didn’t persuade the Dems. Bob Adler amplified the “argument” against trusting the American public to listen in to the debate: After conceding that he would sound like the “Prince of Darkness”, he stated that an open Commission hearing should involve give-and-take but a hearing on this topic would not involve deliberation but instead speeches telling him why he’s wrong and the others are right. He said he was very comfortable with the current process because he knows everyone’s views quite well and besides, so does the public via blogs, tweets, statements and so on. The minority Commissioners are not being “squelched”. He said that a public meeting removes the ability to think out loud. “As soon as you say it [in a public meeting], it’s all over the blogosphere.” [Thanks for the plug, Bob.]

So what does this MEAN? A few thoughts:

- The Dems don’t want to allow an unruly public debate of the issues – why? There are several possible reasons – (a) they have been told a public debate is “not a good idea” by Congressional Dems who have consistently refused to hold public hearings, (b) they have been told that many/most changes are “non-starters” by Guess Who so don’t even think about suggesting them, or (c) they don’t want to defend their views publicly because . . . there is no way to put a good face on their views.

- The Dems were outfoxed today. By putting up the request to discuss this subject publicly, the Republicans forced their fellow Democratic Commissions to stand up publicly – before you, the general public – and try to defend “smoke filled room” politics. Now that’s “Change We Can Believe In!” In other words, they were caught between a rock and a hard place – their Congressional handlers said “no way” and to get this result, they had to publicly wave their arms and try to convince us that secrecy is somehow openness. The Dems can NEVER again say they are all about transparency. If they do, they will expose themselves as being all about . . . something else.

- The “commitment” of the Commission to find middle ground and vote more cohesively as a group, which they achieved after considerable effort on the recent Stay decision (lead testing and certification), is apparently paper-thin. Ms. Tenenbaum obviously knew of Ms. Northup’s motion ahead of the meeting today (she had her response drafted in advance). [Did anyone else catch the chill in the air during the meeting?] So, if they all knew this was coming, where was that commitment to work together? To consider everyone’s views? Forget it. It’s also hardly an advertisement for the ability of the Chairman to steer this group.

- The illusion that this government cares about the mess it made or is making any reasonable effort to fix it has been blown up. The game is fixed and has been fixed from the get-go. You need only read the Appropriations conferee report (link above). The Democrats control both Houses of Congress – so this statement was written by Democrats: “The CPSIA was signed into law on August 14,2008 and is considered to be the most significant piece of consumer protection legislation enacted since the CPSC was established in the early 1970s. The legislation received nearly unanimous bipartisan support in Congress. Congress passed this legislation in the wake of a massive number of consumer product recalls in 2007 and 2008–more than 20 million-many of which involved toys manufactured in China. The conferees strongly support this legislation but are aware of concerns surrounding implementation of certain aspects of the law.” Of course, I have already documented that 43 Senators and 96 Members of the House have either sponsored or voted for CPSIA amendment legislation. It’s a complete mischaracterization of the current reality – but when read by Ms. Tenenbaum into the record during the meeting today, it almost sounded true . . . .

This process is some sort of Kabuki Theater for your amusement. Having fun yet?

Today’s decision is par for the course in a twisted, bass-ackwards debate over safety characterized by ideologues out to steal our legal system, bureaucrats devastating markets that they simply do not understand, regulators witnessing the destruction of their agency to serve a small number of Congressional “masters” with a broad, world-changing agenda. To propel it along, the Dems now propose to shield their work under the cloak of darkness. Does it really matter? Well, Bob Adler already knows what everyone thinks and doesn’t care to be told he is wrong (and others are right). So I guess it really doesn’t matter. His mind is made up, Waxman’s mind is made up – and no one cares what you think.

So, when you have to let a few more people go to cover ridiculous testing costs or to pay your lawyer extortionate fees to keep you on the straight and narrow, or when you cut your product line or drop some customers to find profit elsewhere, just remember: the Democrats on the Commission thought it would be best to have the debate on the CPSIA one-on-one in private, rather than let you understand their views or participate in an open hearing.

Just remember that . . . on November 2, 2010.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Transparency, Tenenbaum/Adler-style!

CPSIA – Waxman To Amend the CPSIA . . . Who Can We Trust?

In a remarkably-timed event, an amendment to the CPSIA was unveiled right on the heels of the two-day CPSC workshop on the “15 Month Rule”. The amendment, expected to be attached shortly to the Defense Appropriations Bill (believed to be S. 1390 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010), was developed by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Democratic majority (Waxman and his staff) WITHOUT consulting with the Republicans on the Committee. Attaching the amendment to a moving bill in another committee is a procedural way for the Democrats to amend the law without hearings or discussion by the committee that drafted the CPSIA – and thus never lose control of the process. This maneuver is particularly outrageous given that Rep. Joe Barton, the Ranking Republican on the Committee, has a bill pending to amend the CPSIA (H.R. 1815, co-sponsored by 29 Representatives) and also has requested hearings on the CPSIA (which requests were ignored).

The outrages of this new bill extend beyond discourtesies in Congress. Equally remarkable is Waxman’s apparent consultation of the General Counsel of the CPSC on the text of the amendment without informing certain of the Commissioners. This shocker to the Commissioners is quite extraordinary and possibly poisons the well for Inez Tenenbaum’s CPSC Commission. There seems to be big issues of trust here. It is not known how many Commissioners knew of the existence or terms of this amendment, but it is strongly believed that this language was drafted in consultation with and perhaps under the supervision of Ms. Tenenbaum and her staff. It is also known that the Republican Commissioners were entirely in the dark as recently as 3 PM EST today. The apparently schism in the Commission has now broken into the open with the exclusion of Commissioners from this critical collaborative process along strictly party lines. Apparently safety IS a partisan issue.

The amendment tracks the little-publicized admission by Chairman Tenenbaum in response to the written questions of Rep. George Radanovich (R-CA) that a “functional” exception to the CPSIA lead restrictions is needed. [See paragraph 16(b) of the attached document.] This amendment is primarily focused on her request. The subject of a “functional” exception to the law has been discussed behind closed doors by many stakeholders but no common vision of such language emerged. As recently as a few days ago, Congressional staffers were denying that language would be attached to the new appropriations bill. Ah, truth in politics!

The draft language, said to be “final”, can be summarized as follows:

• Redesigns Section 101(b)(1) by adding a VERY limited “functional” exclusion.
• The new language now permits a component to be excluded.
• Gives the Commission the power to exclude WITHOUT a hearing. Evidence no longer needs to be “peer-reviewed”.
• Preserves the loathed “result in the absorption of any lead into the human body” language in the exclusion provision.
• Allows exclusion for product, component part or material “by reason of its functional purpose because it is highly impracticable or not technologically feasible to remove or make inaccessible the lead in such product, component part, or material” if “contact by a child with the lead . . . may reasonably be expected to be infrequent” and it is not expected to be mouthed.
• Each product, component part or material excluded must be labeled to indicate the presence of “accessible lead”.
• The Commission may by regulation require the reduction of lead in the excluded item or material and/or establish a schedule for full compliance.
• The new amendment restricts the ability of the Commission to exclude “an entire product” if ANY part of the product does not meet the foregoing requirements. This provision is entitled “NARROWEST POSSIBLE SCOPE OF EXCLUSION”.
• “Ordinary books” and “ordinary paper-based printed materials” are excluded from the lead restrictions under the CPSIA. This exception seems to include “quick copy” print materials, too. Materials not meeting the strict definitions of these terms are NOT excluded.

This language is not likely to make anyone particularly happy other than publishers and the library people:

The Pro’s:

1. Waxman acknowledges, finally, that the law produced by a “perfect legislative process” needs some tweaks.
2. There is no denying now that the CPSC can’t fix all the problems, and Waxman apparently concedes this point.
3. The Commission can now grant exclusions without a hearing.
4. Books were inadvertent inclusions in the CPSIA, and libraries were unfair victims. That has been corrected.
5. An awkward path for fixing ATVs, bikes and perhaps pens now exists. It is also possible that even rhinestones can be addressed, at least in part, under this language.

The Con’s:

1. The amendment leaves in place the terrible “any lead” language, making exemption requests a (bad) joke.
2. Exclusions will be hard to get and require a great deal of expense to obtain.
3. ALL exclusions come with a Proposition 65-like “consumer right to know” label, making the sales of the product highly unlikely. Few products can carry an accessible lead label and still be sold in volume.
4. The narrowness of the exclusion inherently limits the freedom of the Commission to act according to common sense.
5. The Commission and the CPSC are still not empowered to assess risk.
6. Small business issues were completely ignored, as were testing cost, liability and labeling issues.

Some additional observations:

• The approach of Waxman to fixing this law demonstrates that the CPSIA is now a House Democrats’ law. I will spit every time someone mentions the original 424-1 vote – the illusion of bipartisanship has been snuffed out once and for all. The exclusion of Republican Congressmen and Republican CPSC Commissioners from this process speaks volumes about how Washington intends to administer this law.
• Ms. Tenenbaum’s technique in obtaining this “relief” makes her look like Mr. Waxman’s bag man. The close alignment of Bob Adler and Ms. Tenenbaum on the Commission puts Mr. Adler into this camp, too. [When this subject comes up, Mr. Adler's prior job on Waxman's staff always has heads nodding.] The quiet development of this language breaks the illusion that talking to the Democrats on the Commission will somehow bring changes independent of Mr. Waxman. This bill makes it look like he maintains staffers on the Commission.
• The exclusion of books is nice, but smells a bit funny to me. The American Association of Publishers appointed Tom Allen as its CEO in April. Mr. Allen, a Democrat, served under Henry Waxman on the Energy and Commerce Committee and often followed his lead as a Congressman. Small wonder he got this job, right? It wasn’t a real shock then that books were excluded in this amendment. Despite the holier-than-thou rhetoric, it’s “business as usual” in Washington under Obama and Pelosi. A friend in need is a friend indeed.
• The narrowness of the exclusion process and the requirement of labeling despite the apparent admission that such exclusions pose few health risks strongly suggests that the legislative process is being controlled by zealots who will not yield to reason. The “true believers” who now dominate Washington have a world view that you need to take on board – Californiziation. There is no compromise on these issues, regardless of common sense or hard reality. Given the exposure of the axis between these Congressional leaders and the control block on the Commission, there seems little reason to be especially optimistic of serious advances in implementation of the CPSIA by the agency.
• The Chairman and Democratic majority on the Commission lack the political will to take on Waxman in an effort to fix the CPSIA. This potentially sacrifices the long term effectiveness of the agency in its stated purpose to protect consumer safety and possibly also the vigor and competitiveness of the American children’s product industry, all to avoid the unpleasantness of a contentious job. Complaints at the CPSC that it should be renamed the “Children’s Product Safety Commission” or the “Consumer Product Compliance Commission” will likely gain traction. The lack of political will to fight the good fight and to stand up for common sense create the conditions for a terrible legacy. Will these Commissioners be able to say they left the agency better off than they found it? An interesting question. Guys, there are no free moves in this game . . . .

I continue to shake my head over the timing of this development. Were I Chairman Tenenbaum, I might have told Mr. Waxman that I didn’t need this kind of help. Consider what may have been lost: (a) the bonhomie and trust built in the last couple days at the workshop as CPSC Staff and all sorts of stakeholders mingled in good faith and with open dialogue, (b) the goodwill generated by the CPSC efforts to protect Cepia LLC and their Zhu Zhu Pets from unfair consumer group attacks, goodwill that now must be reevaluated, and (c) the general appearance of a new cooperative, open-minded wind blowing through the CPSC in the last six weeks. I now have my doubts about the candor of discussions and the legitimacy of stated intentions to “fix” the system. The good intentions and well-meaning of the CPSC Staff is not really in question here – but the leadership must be held accountable. You can’t ask for trust and then expect this kind of thing to be ignored. You are either a partner . . . or you aren’t.

The Stay is now on the table. The CPSC Commission has been meeting behind closed doors with a sense of purpose and urgency to figure out what to do with it. Your letters and emails are being read . . . but the open question is whether enough Commissioners care. The Republicans on the Commission have been open in their support for extending the Stay, but the three Dems are unaccounted for. One is said to feel strongly that the Stay needs to go away, on the grounds that Congress wants it gone. Let’s not make any bones over this – it’s not Congress, it’s Henry Waxman. If it were Congress (in other words, a bipartisan movement supporting the existing CPSIA), then perhaps Mr. Waxman wouldn’t have to sneak around to get a CPSIA amendment through Congress without hearings or discussion. So when you hear that “Congress” wants something with this law, connect the dots.

A very disappointing way to wrap up a promising week.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Waxman To Amend the CPSIA . . . Who Can We Trust?

CPSIA – Waxman To Amend the CPSIA . . . Who Can We Trust?

In a remarkably-timed event, an amendment to the CPSIA was unveiled right on the heels of the two-day CPSC workshop on the “15 Month Rule”. The amendment, expected to be attached shortly to the Defense Appropriations Bill (believed to be S. 1390 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010), was developed by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Democratic majority (Waxman and his staff) WITHOUT consulting with the Republicans on the Committee. Attaching the amendment to a moving bill in another committee is a procedural way for the Democrats to amend the law without hearings or discussion by the committee that drafted the CPSIA – and thus never lose control of the process. This maneuver is particularly outrageous given that Rep. Joe Barton, the Ranking Republican on the Committee, has a bill pending to amend the CPSIA (H.R. 1815, co-sponsored by 29 Representatives) and also has requested hearings on the CPSIA (which requests were ignored).

The outrages of this new bill extend beyond discourtesies in Congress. Equally remarkable is Waxman’s apparent consultation of the General Counsel of the CPSC on the text of the amendment without informing certain of the Commissioners. This shocker to the Commissioners is quite extraordinary and possibly poisons the well for Inez Tenenbaum’s CPSC Commission. There seems to be big issues of trust here. It is not known how many Commissioners knew of the existence or terms of this amendment, but it is strongly believed that this language was drafted in consultation with and perhaps under the supervision of Ms. Tenenbaum and her staff. It is also known that the Republican Commissioners were entirely in the dark as recently as 3 PM EST today. The apparently schism in the Commission has now broken into the open with the exclusion of Commissioners from this critical collaborative process along strictly party lines. Apparently safety IS a partisan issue.

The amendment tracks the little-publicized admission by Chairman Tenenbaum in response to the written questions of Rep. George Radanovich (R-CA) that a “functional” exception to the CPSIA lead restrictions is needed. [See paragraph 16(b) of the attached document.] This amendment is primarily focused on her request. The subject of a “functional” exception to the law has been discussed behind closed doors by many stakeholders but no common vision of such language emerged. As recently as a few days ago, Congressional staffers were denying that language would be attached to the new appropriations bill. Ah, truth in politics!

The draft language, said to be “final”, can be summarized as follows:

• Redesigns Section 101(b)(1) by adding a VERY limited “functional” exclusion.
• The new language now permits a component to be excluded.
• Gives the Commission the power to exclude WITHOUT a hearing. Evidence no longer needs to be “peer-reviewed”.
• Preserves the loathed “result in the absorption of any lead into the human body” language in the exclusion provision.
• Allows exclusion for product, component part or material “by reason of its functional purpose because it is highly impracticable or not technologically feasible to remove or make inaccessible the lead in such product, component part, or material” if “contact by a child with the lead . . . may reasonably be expected to be infrequent” and it is not expected to be mouthed.
• Each product, component part or material excluded must be labeled to indicate the presence of “accessible lead”.
• The Commission may by regulation require the reduction of lead in the excluded item or material and/or establish a schedule for full compliance.
• The new amendment restricts the ability of the Commission to exclude “an entire product” if ANY part of the product does not meet the foregoing requirements. This provision is entitled “NARROWEST POSSIBLE SCOPE OF EXCLUSION”.
• “Ordinary books” and “ordinary paper-based printed materials” are excluded from the lead restrictions under the CPSIA. This exception seems to include “quick copy” print materials, too. Materials not meeting the strict definitions of these terms are NOT excluded.

This language is not likely to make anyone particularly happy other than publishers and the library people:

The Pro’s:

1. Waxman acknowledges, finally, that the law produced by a “perfect legislative process” needs some tweaks.
2. There is no denying now that the CPSC can’t fix all the problems, and Waxman apparently concedes this point.
3. The Commission can now grant exclusions without a hearing.
4. Books were inadvertent inclusions in the CPSIA, and libraries were unfair victims. That has been corrected.
5. An awkward path for fixing ATVs, bikes and perhaps pens now exists. It is also possible that even rhinestones can be addressed, at least in part, under this language.

The Con’s:

1. The amendment leaves in place the terrible “any lead” language, making exemption requests a (bad) joke.
2. Exclusions will be hard to get and require a great deal of expense to obtain.
3. ALL exclusions come with a Proposition 65-like “consumer right to know” label, making the sales of the product highly unlikely. Few products can carry an accessible lead label and still be sold in volume.
4. The narrowness of the exclusion inherently limits the freedom of the Commission to act according to common sense.
5. The Commission and the CPSC are still not empowered to assess risk.
6. Small business issues were completely ignored, as were testing cost, liability and labeling issues.

Some additional observations:

• The approach of Waxman to fixing this law demonstrates that the CPSIA is now a House Democrats’ law. I will spit every time someone mentions the original 424-1 vote – the illusion of bipartisanship has been snuffed out once and for all. The exclusion of Republican Congressmen and Republican CPSC Commissioners from this process speaks volumes about how Washington intends to administer this law.
• Ms. Tenenbaum’s technique in obtaining this “relief” makes her look like Mr. Waxman’s bag man. The close alignment of Bob Adler and Ms. Tenenbaum on the Commission puts Mr. Adler into this camp, too. [When this subject comes up, Mr. Adler's prior job on Waxman's staff always has heads nodding.] The quiet development of this language breaks the illusion that talking to the Democrats on the Commission will somehow bring changes independent of Mr. Waxman. This bill makes it look like he maintains staffers on the Commission.
• The exclusion of books is nice, but smells a bit funny to me. The American Association of Publishers appointed Tom Allen as its CEO in April. Mr. Allen, a Democrat, served under Henry Waxman on the Energy and Commerce Committee and often followed his lead as a Congressman. Small wonder he got this job, right? It wasn’t a real shock then that books were excluded in this amendment. Despite the holier-than-thou rhetoric, it’s “business as usual” in Washington under Obama and Pelosi. A friend in need is a friend indeed.
• The narrowness of the exclusion process and the requirement of labeling despite the apparent admission that such exclusions pose few health risks strongly suggests that the legislative process is being controlled by zealots who will not yield to reason. The “true believers” who now dominate Washington have a world view that you need to take on board – Californiziation. There is no compromise on these issues, regardless of common sense or hard reality. Given the exposure of the axis between these Congressional leaders and the control block on the Commission, there seems little reason to be especially optimistic of serious advances in implementation of the CPSIA by the agency.
• The Chairman and Democratic majority on the Commission lack the political will to take on Waxman in an effort to fix the CPSIA. This potentially sacrifices the long term effectiveness of the agency in its stated purpose to protect consumer safety and possibly also the vigor and competitiveness of the American children’s product industry, all to avoid the unpleasantness of a contentious job. Complaints at the CPSC that it should be renamed the “Children’s Product Safety Commission” or the “Consumer Product Compliance Commission” will likely gain traction. The lack of political will to fight the good fight and to stand up for common sense create the conditions for a terrible legacy. Will these Commissioners be able to say they left the agency better off than they found it? An interesting question. Guys, there are no free moves in this game . . . .

I continue to shake my head over the timing of this development. Were I Chairman Tenenbaum, I might have told Mr. Waxman that I didn’t need this kind of help. Consider what may have been lost: (a) the bonhomie and trust built in the last couple days at the workshop as CPSC Staff and all sorts of stakeholders mingled in good faith and with open dialogue, (b) the goodwill generated by the CPSC efforts to protect Cepia LLC and their Zhu Zhu Pets from unfair consumer group attacks, goodwill that now must be reevaluated, and (c) the general appearance of a new cooperative, open-minded wind blowing through the CPSC in the last six weeks. I now have my doubts about the candor of discussions and the legitimacy of stated intentions to “fix” the system. The good intentions and well-meaning of the CPSC Staff is not really in question here – but the leadership must be held accountable. You can’t ask for trust and then expect this kind of thing to be ignored. You are either a partner . . . or you aren’t.

The Stay is now on the table. The CPSC Commission has been meeting behind closed doors with a sense of purpose and urgency to figure out what to do with it. Your letters and emails are being read . . . but the open question is whether enough Commissioners care. The Republicans on the Commission have been open in their support for extending the Stay, but the three Dems are unaccounted for. One is said to feel strongly that the Stay needs to go away, on the grounds that Congress wants it gone. Let’s not make any bones over this – it’s not Congress, it’s Henry Waxman. If it were Congress (in other words, a bipartisan movement supporting the existing CPSIA), then perhaps Mr. Waxman wouldn’t have to sneak around to get a CPSIA amendment through Congress without hearings or discussion. So when you hear that “Congress” wants something with this law, connect the dots.

A very disappointing way to wrap up a promising week.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Waxman To Amend the CPSIA . . . Who Can We Trust?

Next Page »