CPSIA – Jan Schakowsky’s Expert Opinion

790 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 20 days left until Election Day.

I guess I’m famous now. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL9) is talking about me to the Wall Street Journal:

“Ms. Schakowsky said Mr. Woldenberg’s success as a fundraiser, is proof that ‘very cynical … special interests are highly engaged in the [Ninth District] campaign.’“

It seems strange that Ms. Schakowsky is so certain that I am an official Special Interest, a cynical one at that. When I ran into her at the BJBE candidate forum on Monday night, she asked me who I was. I was just a touch insulted, since as a cynical Special Interest, I would have expected her to know who I am. After all, she did tell Elizabeth Williamson of the WSJ that I was attempting to cynically influence the election in her district. This is what cynical Special Interests do, apparently.

What sneaky business am I up to? I want to amend the CPSIA. Ms. Schakowsky does not want to change her seminal law. That makes me a Special Interest. In other words, I disagree with her. And I thought my “special interest” was educating kids. Apparently not.

I never met a Special Interest before but now I know what one looks like. Here’s a picture of a Special Interest:

What makes Ms. Schakowsky such an expert on Special Interests, anyhow? Well, it turns out she has experience. For instance, Crain’s Chicago Business recently pointed out the “highly unusual intervention” by Ms. Schakowsky to stop foreclosure procedures against a “group” of borrowers in her district. What a caring, generous act, always looking out for her constituents! Here’s Ms. Schakowsky both explaining and congratulating herself:

“In an interview, Ms. Schakowsky says she was concerned that Devon Avenue ‘essentially would go dark. . . . If there are communities that are (in danger of being) decimated, I assure you that any member of Congress would do everything they could to deal with the devastation of foreclosures. I feel very proud of this,’ she says, adding that Mr. Singh’s contributions had nothing to do with her decision to help. ‘It was clear to me there was a widespread problem,‘ she says.” [Emphasis added]

What a swell Congressman!

Ummm, some of the borrowers were donors to Ms. Schakowsky and her Democratic cronies. Is it okay for the Congressman to do this? Should she be “proud” of her magnanimous act? Republican challenger Joel Pollak filed an updated House Ethics Complaint against Ms. Schakowsky providing following details:

• “While initial reports suggested that Schakowsky had helped about 20 businesses in the local South Asian-American community, court documents show that 19 of the 24 loans (80%) in foreclosure . . . were held by just three individuals: Mr. Amrit Patel (12, including 3 held jointly), Mr. Balvinder Singh (5), and Ms. Shahira Khan (4, including 2 held with Patel). One of the remaining 5 loans is held by Mr. Haresh Patel, who is apparently Mr. Amrit Patel’s son.”
• “Court documents indicate that only 3 of the 24 affected properties are actually located on Devon Avenue. Only 4 are actually in the neighborhood. Except for those few, and for a small cluster of multi-unit properties further north near the intersection of Touhy Avenue and Clark Street, most are well outside the area, including properties as far away as Calumet City, Itasca, Barrington, and Sauk Village, IL.”
• “Some of the key individuals who benefited from Schakowsky’s actions have close political ties to her and her allies. Mr. Singh contributed $500 to Schakowsky in 2004 and $2000 in 2006. He has also given thousands of dollars to other federal, state, and local Democratic candidates. Mr. Patel contributed $1000 to Ms. Schakowsky in 2002, and raised $50,000 for former governor (and convicted felon) Rod Blagojevich (D) in 2006. He also paid $34,000 to Mr. Blagojevich’s wife in real estate consulting fees; similar transactions were probed by prosecutors during Mr. Blagojevich’s recent corruption trial. . . . In addition, Mr. Patel’s lawyer is Democratic state senator Ira Silverstein, whom Schakowsky backed successfully in 2008 for the position of 50th Ward Democratic Committeeman.”

Cozy! Does that sound like a Special Interests story to you? If it does, perhaps Ms. Schakowsky IS an expert on such things . . . .

[Btw, I am Joel Pollak's Finance Chair. On the occasion of the WSJ profiling me in that role, Ms. Schakowsky labeled me as a Special Interest.]

Still wondering about her authority on the topic of Special Interests? According to FEC records, Ms. Schakowsky seems to hang out with Special Interests by the basketful. How many Labor Unions, lobbyists and trial lawyers does it take to be tainted by Special Interests? Or are Special Interests just small educational toy companies which complain about laws that Schakowsky defends???

Let’s see who gave money to Rep. Schakowsky through June 30:

PACs:

Union PACs:

• AFL-CIO COPE PAC
• Air-line Pilots Association PAC
• Amalgamated Transit Union PAC
• Am. Fed of Govt Employees PAC
• Am. Fed. Of State, County and Municipal Employees PAC
• Am. Fed. Of Teachers (AFL-CIO) PAC
• Am. Postal Workers Union PAC
• United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners PAC
• Letter Carriers Political Action Fund
• Intl Brotherhood of Teamsters DRIVE PAC
• Intl Union of Operating Engineers
• Intl Assn of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Ironworkers PAC
• Intl Assn of Firefighters PAC
• Intl Assn of Machinists and Aerospace Workers PAC
• Intl Brotherhood of Boilermakers Campaign Assistance Fund
• Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers PAC
• Laborers International Union of North America PAC
• Natl Air Traffic Controllers PAC
• Natl Assn of Social Workers PAC
• SEIU COPE
• Transport Workers Union PAC
• United Auto Workers PAC
• UniteHere (Garment and Textile Workers) PAC
• United Food & Commercial Workers Intl Union PAC
• United Pilots PAC
• United Transportation Union PAC

Medical Interest Group PACs –

• Am. Academy of Family Physicians PAC
• Am. Academy of Neurology Prof. Assn BrainPAC
• Am. Academy of Phys. Assts PAC
• Am. Assn of Nurse Anesthestists CRNA-PAC
• Am. Assn of Orthospaedic Surgeons PAC
• Am. College of Radiology Assn PAC
• Am. College of Surgeons PAC
• Am. Congress of Oby-Gyn PAC
• Am. Hospital Assn PAC
• Am. Nurses Assn PAC
• Am. Occupational Therapists Assn PAC
• Am. Optometric Assn PAC
• Am. Podiatric Medical Assn PAC
• Blue Cross Blue Shield PAC
• Natl Community Pharmacists Assn PAC
• Natl Emergency Medicine PAC

Corporate PACs -

• CME Group PAC
• Coca-Cola Enterprises PAC
• Credit Union PAC
• Emergent Biosolutions PAC
• Entertainment Software Association PAC
• Ford Motor Civic Action PAC
• General Electric PAC
• Illinois Central Rail Co. PAC
• Harris N.A. PAC
• Hospira Inc. PAC
• Kellogg Company PAC
• Kraft Foods PAC
• Lockheed-Martin PAC
• Microsoft Corporation PAC
• Natl Assn of Chain Drug Stores PAC
• Natl Assn of Realtors PAC
• Natl Beer Wholesalers Assn PAC
• Natl Cable and Telecom Assn PAC
• Northern Trust Corporation PAC
• Raytheon Company PAC
• UPS PAC
• Walgreen Co. PAC

Trial Lawyer PACs–

• American Association for Justice (formerly the Assn of Trial Lawyers of America) PAC

Law Firm PACs

• Drinker Biddle
• Dykema Gossett
• Hogan Lovells
• Holland & Knight
• McGuireWoods
• Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough (former firm of Inez Tenenbaum’s Chief of Staff Matt Howsare and CPSC Executive Director Kenneth Hinson)
• SNR Denton US LLP
• Venable LLP (VEN-PAC)

Others –

• J Street PAC
• Medical Marijuana PAC

Individuals:

Lobbyists –

• Michael Bauer (community organizer/lobbyist)
• Jonathan Cuneo
• Andrew Fields
• Ken Inouye
• Charles LaDuca
• Andrew Quinn
• Ed Rothschild (Podesta Group)
• Larry Suffredin See also this link.
• Susan White (health insurance lobbyist)

CPSC-related -

• Pamela Gilbert (former Exec. Dir. of CPSC under Ann Brown; partner in Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca law firm and lobbying firm; member of Obama Transition team – with now Commissioner Bob Adler – responsible for the CPSC)

Plaintiff/Trial Lawyers –

• Patricia Bobb
• Thomas Clancy
• Robert Clifford
• Kevin Conway
• Philip Corboy, Jr.
• Anne Megan Davis
• Jay Paul Deratany
• Linda Friedman See also this link.
• Andrew Greene
• Keith Heibeisen
• Penny Nathan Kahan
• Thomas Keefe See this link, too.
• Clint Krislov
• Jerry Latherow
• Joseph Power
• Thomas Prindable See this link, too.
• Larry Rogers
• Antonio Romanucci
• Mary Stowell [She gave a mere $98,525 in 2008 campaign donations, and recently felt it was her "duty" to file a complaint with the FEC about Republican Bob Dold's June 30 campaign disclosure for the missing cost of a bus (bill not received).]
• Candace Wayne

Other Notable Lawyers:

• Patricia Curtner (bond lawyer)
• Lynn Cutler (government affairs lawyer)
• Elizabeth Gracie (real estate tax lawyer) See also her 2008 campaign contributions.
• Gail Morse (state tax specialist)

Large Contributors to Dem Causes –

• Lucy Ascoli
• Prudence Beidler
• Pam Crutchfield
• Grace Allen Newton
• Bettylu Salzman
• Susan White
• Lois Zoller

Others –

• Gila Bronner (prominent government contractor)
• Anna Giannoulias (mother of Democratic Senatorial candidate Alexi Giannoulias and family owners of well-known failed bank)
• Laura Ricketts (part-owner of the Chicago Cubs)
• Sheli Rosenberg (executive in various Sam Zell entities)
• Howard Trienens (longtime Chairman of Board of Trustees of Northwestern University)

This list gives me a whole new perspective on Schakowsky’s campaign slogan “A Fighter on Our Side”. Which side is that, precisely?

While I am sure Ms. Schakowsky meant “cynical . . . special interest” as a compliment, I hardly deserve to be in such august company as her campaign contributors. I am sure she really meant “Shoo, fly, shoo”.

On November 2nd, we’ll see who shoos. Don’t forget to VOTE!

Read more here:
CPSIA – Jan Schakowsky’s Expert Opinion

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

GUEST BLOG: Etienne Veber – Learning the CPSIA Civics Lesson…the Hard Way

Five years ago, I joined Learning Resources eager to leverage my previous experiences for the benefit of a small business that makes a positive and lasting impact on our society. Little did I know then that this decision (one of the best in my life) would totally change my view of our government.

This past week-end my wife and I visited our older son who is currently working as a summer intern for a Member of Congress. We indulged in a personal tour of the Capitol (a pretty amazing working environment if you ask me…). As we went thru the various halls of our legislative branch, we stumbled upon this quote from Louis Brandeis: “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding”. Of course, he was not thinking about our current CPSIA situation when he wrote these words in 1928. However, if the combination of good intentions with a lack of understanding is not a main source of many unintended consequences in our laws, I do not know what is.

Our Constitution was built to protect us against these types of situations by encouraging all sorts of meaningful dialogue between various opposing groups, and by establishing good science as the foundation to make sound and nonpartisan decisions. Then, why after so many months – with the overwhelming market evidence, the many companies “going under”, so many jobs lost, so many voices shouting for reasonable adjustments, so many questions still unanswered- why has the myriad of unintended consequences of the ill-fated CPSIA still not been addressed yet?

Sadly, the answer has become all too clear.

The Democratic leadership in Congress has consistently refused to have any meaningful dialogue with the various groups involved in this issue, unless they agree with their point of view. I do not need to remind the regular readers of this blog how long it took to have a proper hearing on the CPSIA! And, what has happened since then? NOTHING, absolutely nothing. Obviously, this lack of action demonstrates beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Democratic leadership in fact does not intend on making any adjustments to the law. It does not matter that the CPSIA does not make our products safer, but simply more expensive, effectively destroying an entire portion of our economy (the small/medium companies who cannot afford all these senseless compliance activities).

What really matters is that the Democratic leadership and other CPSIA-supporters look like they are protecting our children in front of a camera. After all, who can argue against more safety for children products? So, while we are at it, let’s have lots of recalls to make people feel that the situation is really dire and that the terrible cost of this legislation (hundreds of thousands of lost jobs) is a necessary consequence!

However, the absurdity of some of the recent recalls and their numbers have reached such proportions that even consumers are now simply tuning out. Did you not hear growing up that one should not cry “Wolf!” too many times, or risk finding oneself without support when it is really needed? This fast evolving situation is the direct result of the political decision from leading Democrats (Waxman & Co.) to strip the CPSC from any true independence. The Commission has stopped using sound judgment and making decisions strictly based on sound science. By playing along with a populist political agenda, the CPSC leadership is responsible for creating a situation that is out-of-hand. The separation of power between the legislative and executive branches was created for a reason!

So what does this means for me? As the president of our company, I have had to eliminate jobs, terminate projects, stop investments in our future growth, and reduce the number of new products we develop each year. Why? Simply to pay for all the incremental and constantly increasing costs of complying with the CPSIA. With new revisions constantly being added to the law and some retail customers “pouring oil on fire,” we may not be done cutting our workforce and stopping investing in the future!

Our products help children engage and develop an early passion for math or science. I think we can all agree that these are the kinds of children’s products we need right now.

Over the last 25 years we have built one of the most prolific innovation engines in the education market. So, the real “losers”, thanks to the CPSIA and the Democratic leadership, will be our children and with them the future of our society!

Did I mention that all these incremental costly requirements will result in absolutely ZERO incremental benefits in terms of safety for our children? Surely you have seen the compelling and comprehensive set of data that Rick has documented so diligently over the last 18 months in this blog. Did I also mention that for more than 25 years our safety record has been impeccable? This situation is absolutely maddening.

I have now learned a civic lesson that I will not forget for a very long time. I want these “well intended ” leaders out the door! I owe it to my co-workers, the teachers that we serve, and to the children that need our products. I can accept a misguided law, but I cannot accept continued intolerance and ignorance from our leaders.

Being on the frontline of this battle, as the president of a small business, has opened my eyes and I am better off from it. Our country needs jobs, lots of them right now, and it is the small businesses – that this wrongheaded Congressional leadership is working so hard at destroying – that can provide them.

Do not close your eyes. Speak up against this CPSIA absurdity and those responsible for its awful implementation!

Etienne Veber is President/CEO of Learning Resources, Educational Insights & Northpoint Horizons

Read more here:
GUEST BLOG: Etienne Veber – Learning the CPSIA Civics Lesson…the Hard Way

CPSIA – Losing Sight of the Issue in Pool Deaths

These are the people who are protecting you:

“[The] CPSC, which kicked off a pool-safety campaign Thursday, emphasized that [pool safety] issues go beyond drains: At least 70 people drowned in pools since Memorial Day; 80 more almost drowned. ‘There were thankfully zero drain entrapment deaths in 2009,’ says CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson. ‘Our campaign is aimed at reducing child drownings and keeping entrapment deaths to zero again this year.’” [Emphasis added]

USA Today, July 3, 2010 “Pool-safety advocates decry loss of drain backup rule“

Yes, the safety enforcement circus carries on. The USA Today reports that AT LEAST 70 people have died in pool drownings since Memorial Day (May 31). The July 3 article appears 33 days after Memorial Day, so that’s more than TWO DEATHS A DAY. Another 80 almost drowned – the total serious injuries and deaths is about FIVE A DAY. And the CPSC’s reaction – if the deaths didn’t occur from pool drains, we can all breathe a sigh of relief. WHEW! If they had died from a pool drain, that would have been really TERRIBLE.

Of course, the victims are still dead. Not a safety concern, apparently. We must stay focused on pool drains . . . .

I know you think I’m kidding BUT to judge by the reality-detached hyperbole of our heroic Democratic Congressional leaders, you’d never know it. Consider the remarks of the estimable Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, one of Ms. Pelosi’s attack dogs in the CPSIA drama: “CPSC interpreted the law in the ‘most egregious and narrow way possible’ by eliminating the requirement for backup systems, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., and co-sponsors of the law said in a letter to CPSC Commissioner Robert Adler last month.” [USA Today article]

And why did Ms. Wasserman Schultz think this action was so “egregious”? Here are her words: “We understand that the interpretation that CPSC adopted is the same one that the pool and spa industry endorsed, and is not the interpretation that public interest groups and victims’ families had urged the Commission to adopt.” Aha – how DARE the CPSC defy consumer groups in favor of evil industry?! Doesn’t the agency know that if industry wants something, it must be bad for consumers?!

Democratic Senators pitched in as well they could. Drawn from the same rogue’s gallery that brought you the noxious CPSIA (Pryor, Durbin, Klobuchar, Nelson (FL) and Dodd), the Senators stated that the Commission violated “both the spirit and the letter of the act.“

Okay, Junior Scientists of Congress, committed to making us so so SOOOO safe, please note that deaths from pool drains totalled 11 in ten years according to the CPSC. However, total deaths from pools is more than two a day since Memorial Day, and has averaged 385 per year for children under 15 in recent years. So you guys are hassling the agency over a design flaw that causes 11 deaths a decade, and seemingly want it to be the priority of the agency over, say, general pool deaths which total almost 4,000 kids each decade (about 3,000 are under five). Perhaps you should have sent your letters to the families of the 70 victims in the last 33 days so they’d know how much you care.

For a change (it’s been a long-g-g-g-g time coming), the agency was trying to make a practical decision on how to implement a very expensive law focusing on a small problem. The data now suggests that the expense of the Virginia Graeme Baker repairs are prohibitively high, especially in light of the infrequent injuries (however horrific).

Sadly, when it could finally take the high road, the agency flinched in front of the press, insulting the memory of the 70 recent drowning victims. To slough off the 70 recent deaths because they weren’t caused by pool drains is nothing short of abdication of duty (or resignation to failure). I don’t know about you, but I am plenty tired of politically-motivated, pet project, holier-than-thou safety. This benefits no one other than the pandering politicians hoping to dupe you into voting for their reelection.

Will this madness EVER end???

Read more here:
CPSIA – Losing Sight of the Issue in Pool Deaths

CPSIA – McDonald’s Fallout Continues

The spectacle of the McDonald’s cadmium “scare” continued to unfold today.

Let’s not forget that this recall was “urged” by the CPSC although the CPSC admits in writing that the glasses are “non-toxic”. In other words, the glasses are safe. As the manufacturer notes: “‘It could have been any glass company,’ said Ron Biagi, an executive with Arc International, which made the glasses. ‘We all do the same thing using materials from the same suppliers.’” McDonald’s clearly had no choice in the matter, suffering a terrible loss of prestige no matter what the outcome. So the CPSC, Rep. Jackie Speier, one anonymous tipster and a hyperbolic press forced a highly wasteful and destructive recall.

The tumult, chaos and confusion thoughtlessly spawned by the CPSC continues to unfurl in almost predictable fashion: “But the returns [to McDonald's] are just the beginning of the next chapter in the cadmium debate, with the CPSC poised to set new limits on the metal even as it downplays the McDonald’s recall and environmental advocates aim to use the episode to build momentum for reform of federal toxics law.”

A terrible move deserves an even worse follow-up.

What’s the cause for alarm here? The glasses are safe, so says the CPSC . . . as it dramatically lowers the standard for cadmium. Yeah, nobody’s worried.

The consumer group talking heads can’t resist chiming in: “Don Mays, senior director of product safety for Consumer Reports, said cadmium was being used in some manufactured goods to replace lead, which has been eliminated from many products in response to heavy regulation and widespread health concerns. Many of those goods were once commonly associated with lead, like paint and inexpensive jewelry. ‘We’re just starting to see this,’ Mr. Mays said. ‘It’s starting to creep into a lot of consumer products that never had it before.’”

Does anyone care that the CPSC SAYS THIS ISN’T TRUE? “After an Associated Press investigation first uncovered the high cadmium levels in some children’s jewelry, CPSC Chairwoman Inez Tenenbaum publicly warned manufacturers in Hong Kong not to replace lead with cadmium or other toxic metals. Tenenbaum told senators in April that ‘we really don’t think’ companies are deliberately swapping out lead for other hazardous chemicals, ‘but we think they’re being careless and not realizing that you cannot use these metals in children’s products.’” [Emphasis added]

Some in the press aren’t persuaded. After all, urban myths are true . . . aren’t they? “[David Lazarus of the LA Times] notes that Cadmium has probably stayed off the radar for so long because people weren’t widely aware of its use. The focus has primarily been on the danger of lead products, and lead product replacements weren’t a primary concern. Chinese manufacturers began using Cadmium insted [sic] of lead to get the same vivid pigments in product colors.” Right. David Lazarus knows all about this.

And then there are our Democratic leaders in Congress. It’s election season so there’s little incentive to be a calming influence. “Congresswoman Jackie Spear [sic], who first received the anonymous tip about the Shrek cups, doubts Europe is the Cadmium culprit due to its strict manufacturing rules. Spear [sic] suspects either a subcontractor or ingredient provider in China; China is one of the leading Cadmium producers in the world. . . . Spear [sic] says she has legislation in the works that would expand the Cadmium ban in U.S., specifying removing its use in any product for children.”

And the basis for Rep. Speier’s hunch is . . . what, exactly? The glasses were made in a U.S. factory: “In contrast to the Chinese-made children’s jewelry recalled earlier in the year, the drinking glasses were manufactured in the United States, by the Millville, N.J.-based company ARC International. Ron Biagi, vice president for North American sales at ARC, said he was surprised by the recall and vouched for the safety of the glasses. While environmental and consumer groups pointed to the importance of identifying the producer of the cadmium-tainted enamel used on the McDonald’s glasses, Biagi declined to name ARC’s supplier. ‘It’s not fair for me to pull them in,’ he said.” OMG, somebody decent is left in the world! I had about given up hope.

Having set off the blaze, CPSC Director of Public Affairs Scott Wolfson again spewed more of his patented mixed signals sure to sow seeds of doubt: “‘What’s so important is for parents to understand the difference. … Children are not at an acute risk; the glasses are not toxic,’ Wolfson said, adding that ‘there are no signs we’re looking at a wave here of cadmium becoming the next lead.’” Which is why, Scott, you and your agency acted so promptly to push for a recall of this non-toxic product made of common materials in wide distribution in this country for years without any detectable adverse health effect? Which is why you told America to stop using the oh-so-safe glasses “immediately” in your OnSafety blog? Do I have this wrong? Clear as mud. Very believable, too.

There are terms for this that are too crass for a family publication like my blog. Let your imagination run. How will all this resolve itself? Of course, not very well. Justified by fear of “bone softening” (that sounds HORRIBLE, doesn’t it?) and other bizarre maladies that supposedly COULD befall us from unspecified exposure to cadmium, we will get many new and ineffective regulations imposing yet more devastating costs and devastating risk on the children’s product industry.

While hatred of government is a necessary by-product of the massive self-inflicted injury of the CPSIA, we will more pertinently be faced with the difficult challenge of protecting our life’s work – our businesses. The livelihoods of our friends and associates at our company, the economic well-being of our customers and suppliers (often our close friends, too) and in our case, the economic future prospects of the kids who are being educated with our products, all hang in the balance. I don’t know what stops this freight train before it tragically collides with reality. Certainly not leadership or a show of character from our government.

I hate to close these essays sounding like a Tea Bagger (not that I resent the label). I don’t wish to be marginalized for having strong views about an abdication of leadership and judgment by our government leaders. Say what you will, the McDonald’s fiasco was fomented by politicians with agendas. Many companies and people – and our economy – will be severely damaged as a result.

There’s nothing to be proud of here.

Read more here:
CPSIA – McDonald’s Fallout Continues

CPSIA – McDonalds Recall Urged by CPSC – WHY?

The CPSC has put in writing that the Shrek glasses recalled by McDonald’s last week are “non-toxic”. Nonetheless, the CPSC (perhaps the commission itself, as noted in certain press reports) “urged” the company to make the recall.

So now it appears that the CPSC thinks it’s okay to ask a company to recall a product for reasons that it acknowledges pose no safety issue. Why?

Let’s not forget all the expense that this move imposes on the company coerced into making the recall. The law restrict the power of the agency to take this step, in part to preserve the incentive to make “at risk” investments in new products. There’s also that small detail called “due process”. My previous post noted that the CPSC does not have the authority to make recalls of products absent a “substantial product hazard”. This suggests that the CPSC was exceeding its authority in the McDonald’s case. By almost any measure, the CPSC’s actions were inexplicable. Why demand a recall of a safe product?

I cannot answer this question for the CPSC or its Chairman, Inez Tenenbaum. However, here’s a few salient facts to chew on:

1. The Member of Congress (Jackie Speier) that “tipped off” the CPSC about this matter is a Democrat.
2. Jackie Speier represents a California Congressional district (12th) that abuts Nancy Pelosi’s district (8th).
3. Shortly after first being elected to Congress in a 2008 by-election, Speier was appointed by Pelosi to serve as a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, then chaired by none other than Henry Waxman. Waxman resigned this chairmanship to take over as Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4. Ms. Speier has publicly endorsed the “black box” requirement for cars that Mr. Waxman supports. She also wants to create a federal law restricting cadmium in jewelry. Her concept of Congressional activism is very closely aligned with Mr. Waxman, another California Democrat and patron of the Democratic majority on the Commission.
5. Today, Speier is a member of three committees. Besides Oversight, the other two committees are chaired by Edward Markey and Barney Frank, two close allies of Waxman and Pelosi.
6. Jackie Speier is running for reelection in one of the most phobic of states, California. The Democrats need every seat they can get in this Mid-Term election.
7. One of the three Democrat Commissioners appointed by Obama was a member of Henry Waxman’s staff for several years (Adler).

And can anyone imagine a Democrat-controlled CPSC telling a Democratic Member of Congress from the San Francisco area that her highly-publicized call for investigation of Shrek glasses because of cadmium was, in fact, unmerited, that the product was perfectly safe and the large corporation responsible for the glasses had protected consumers very well? In an election year with Nancy Pelosi in charge of the House and Henry Waxman directly overseeing the agency?

Nope, can’t think of a single reason why the leadership of the CPSC would urge McDonald’s to recall the safe glasses.

At least the CPSC won’t have to pay the costs of the recall. That’s McDonald’s problem.

Read more here:
CPSIA – McDonalds Recall Urged by CPSC – WHY?

CPSIA – A Page Torn from the CPSIA Playbook

The Dems’ Central Command tore a page from Waxman’s CPSIA playbook and, according to the New York Times, is apparently advising Democratic candidates running for Congress to avoid town hall meetings. All the better to avoid feeling the wrath of their constituents, you know, the people they represent. The NYT article reveals the strategy:

“The reception that Representative Frank Kratovil Jr., a Democrat, received here one night last week as he faced a small group of constituents was far more pleasant than his encounters during a Congressional recess last summer. Then, he was hanged in effigy by protesters. This time, a round of applause was followed by a glass of chilled wine, a plate of crackers and crudités as he mingled with an invitation-only audience at the Point Breeze Credit Union . . . . The sentiment that fueled the rage during those Congressional forums is still alive in the electorate. But the opportunities for voters to openly express their displeasure, or angrily vent as video cameras roll, have been harder to come by in this election year. If the time-honored tradition of the political meeting is not quite dead, it seems to be teetering closer to extinction. Of the 255 Democrats who make up the majority in the House, only a handful held town-hall-style forums as legislators spent last week at home in their districts. It was no scheduling accident.”

Here’s the Dems’ genius strategy in a nutshell: last year – hung in effigy; this year – invitation-only, closed door “feedback” sessions. Problem solved!

This master stroke allows the Dems to stage manage a myth, perpetuating the illusion that everything is A-Okay. Of course, this brings to mind Henry Waxman’s refusal to hold CPSIA hearings for almost two years and his staff’s perpetual rebuffing of any criticism of the “perfect” CPSIA. See no evil, hear no evil – therefore there must not be any evil . . . right?

The big question is who will be fooled by the Dems “hiding in plain sight” strategy. Does anyone actually believe that avoiding the people will keep the Dems in control of Congress?

It’s hard not to feel that the Dems think they are ruling us, not governing as our representatives, and aren’t accountable for their actions. It seems the height of arrogance to not stand before constituents and talk about the issues of the day. Perhaps they think we are too dim to remember what we are pissed off about.

Just like the CPSIA. Does anyone remember why we are mad about this law??? Someone needs to remind me . . . .

So the Dems are going to avoid you and your problems. This kind of treatment makes voter anger turn into voter rage. Let’s keep this in mind as we head to the polls. When the Dems are out of office, they can see how they like being ignored.

Read more here:
CPSIA – A Page Torn from the CPSIA Playbook

CPSIA – Why Do Dems Want to Ban Rhinestones?

Why indeed. The Democrats apparently have it in for rhinestones and are so uptight about this “menace” that they are willing to write an outright ban into the CPSIA, via Mr. Waxman’s new amendment. No more bling for you!

Have we finally entered the land of the looneys?

The Dems’ rallying cry on rhinestones goes way back. On September 10, 2009, Rep. Bobby Rush welcomed Inez Tenenbaum to the one CPSIA hearing since August 2008 by commending her for bravely banning rhinestones.

Let’s think about the basics here:

• Rhinestones are simple embellishments. They are found in inexpensive jewelry, on clothing and shoes, in craft kits, used in scrapbooking, are decorations on kids’ pageant and athletic costumes, adorn hair bows and barrettes, etc. They are bling.
• Rhinestones have no history of causing lead poisoning.
• Rhinestones are even okay to sell under the obnoxious Proposition 65.

Chairman Tenenbaum has conceded in writing that the stones are not dangerous: “Commission staff recognized that most crystal and glass beads do not appear to pose a serious health risk to children . . . .” Of course, CPSC Staff are just scientists and Ph.D.’s, not lawyers writing important laws.

Unfortunately, Tenenbaum recanted her stance in Congressional testimony on September 10, 2009. On September 17, I wrote a letter to Chairman Tenenbaum about her rhinestone testimony . . . but never received a reply. The letter asks her to back up her assertion in testimony that swallowing rhinestones presents a lead poisoning risk. This is an unsupportable contention and perhaps this is why my letter was never accorded a response. In particular, I made the following point about the literal “danger” of rhinestones:

“[T]he Exponent study submitted [by the FJTA] on February 2 indicates that the FDA has determined that six micro-grams of lead per day is required to produce a one micro-gram of lead per deciliter change in blood lead levels in children six years old or younger. Thus, to produce such a change in blood lead levels from jewels would require sustained daily ingestion of 12 grams of stones (roughly 4,000 stones or hundreds of pieces of jewelry) or mouthing of 42 grams of stones (roughly 14,000 stones or more than 1,000 pieces of jewelry). Clearly, this is unlikely to occur, particularly accidentally.” [Emphasis added]

As noted, Tenenbaum never answered this letter.

[See also my posts of July 21, July 21 (no. 2), September 10 and September 12.]

Of course, the natural ally of the Dems, the consumer groups, bang the drum mindlessly for banning rhinestones, too. In my September 20 post, I recounted the attack of Nancy Cowles on the rhinestones “menace”. Here is Ms. Cowles’ suggestion for those who value their bling:

“In an interview with BNA, Nancy Cowles, executive director of Kids in Danger, praised the commission’s July decision on fashion jewelry accessories. Cowles told BNA that lead is a severe toxin with no safe level. She added that while more common sense could be applied to determining which products are hazardous, consumers overall do not want products containing lead. ‘People will come up with other ways to put [jewelry] on children’s clothing that isn’t toxic. Whether the lead [in rhinestones] leaches out fully, it’s hard to know, but we don’t want lead in our children’s products. We will come up with other ways to decorate our clothes,’ Cowles said.”

It’s okay, they just want to protect you.

At this point, I have to ask – what on Earth happened to our country? How did we get to this point? I can’t say for myself, I don’t know how this kind of stridency and absence of BASIC common sense took over our nation. Politics no longer makes sense to me. In today’s New York Times, Senator Evan Byah blasts this theme as he explains why he is dropping out of the Senate after 12 years. It’s a depressing read.

More depressing still is how the Democrats are making such a mess of things and disillusioning so many people, myself certainly included. In yesterday’s Barron’s Magazine, the Dems’ ability to actually govern is questioned. That’s a “wow”. This small article details how Senator Max Baucus’ jobs bill (written in response to President Obama’s call for more economic stimulus), was gutted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for “speedy” passage:

“So Reid selected four provisions that he believes all Senate Democrats and Republicans can agree on: tax breaks for small-business investment; more money for highway construction; expansion of the Build America Bond program, and a payroll-tax exemption for employers hiring someone who’s been jobless for at least 60 days. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is openly opposing the payroll-tax exemption, a stance which has fiscally conservative Democrats near despair. ‘Democrats are in danger of demonstrating they cannot govern on the most basic level,’ a progressive Democratic party leader said last week.”

That’s right – the Dems are failing at the most basic level. The CPSIA saga and the politics/populism infecting CPSC leadership and policy these days are part and parcel of the same phenomenon. Rhinestones are this week’s victim. Who is next in line – you?

When are you going to say “ENOUGH”?!

Read more here:
CPSIA – Why Do Dems Want to Ban Rhinestones?

CPSIA – Why Do Dems Want to Ban Rhinestones?

Why indeed. The Democrats apparently have it in for rhinestones and are so uptight about this “menace” that they are willing to write an outright ban into the CPSIA, via Mr. Waxman’s new amendment. No more bling for you!

Have we finally entered the land of the looneys?

The Dems’ rallying cry on rhinestones goes way back. On September 10, 2009, Rep. Bobby Rush welcomed Inez Tenenbaum to the one CPSIA hearing since August 2008 by commending her for bravely banning rhinestones.

Let’s think about the basics here:

• Rhinestones are simple embellishments. They are found in inexpensive jewelry, on clothing and shoes, in craft kits, used in scrapbooking, are decorations on kids’ pageant and athletic costumes, adorn hair bows and barrettes, etc. They are bling.
• Rhinestones have no history of causing lead poisoning.
• Rhinestones are even okay to sell under the obnoxious Proposition 65.

Chairman Tenenbaum has conceded in writing that the stones are not dangerous: “Commission staff recognized that most crystal and glass beads do not appear to pose a serious health risk to children . . . .” Of course, CPSC Staff are just scientists and Ph.D.’s, not lawyers writing important laws.

Unfortunately, Tenenbaum recanted her stance in Congressional testimony on September 10, 2009. On September 17, I wrote a letter to Chairman Tenenbaum about her rhinestone testimony . . . but never received a reply. The letter asks her to back up her assertion in testimony that swallowing rhinestones presents a lead poisoning risk. This is an unsupportable contention and perhaps this is why my letter was never accorded a response. In particular, I made the following point about the literal “danger” of rhinestones:

“[T]he Exponent study submitted [by the FJTA] on February 2 indicates that the FDA has determined that six micro-grams of lead per day is required to produce a one micro-gram of lead per deciliter change in blood lead levels in children six years old or younger. Thus, to produce such a change in blood lead levels from jewels would require sustained daily ingestion of 12 grams of stones (roughly 4,000 stones or hundreds of pieces of jewelry) or mouthing of 42 grams of stones (roughly 14,000 stones or more than 1,000 pieces of jewelry). Clearly, this is unlikely to occur, particularly accidentally.” [Emphasis added]

As noted, Tenenbaum never answered this letter.

[See also my posts of July 21, July 21 (no. 2), September 10 and September 12.]

Of course, the natural ally of the Dems, the consumer groups, bang the drum mindlessly for banning rhinestones, too. In my September 20 post, I recounted the attack of Nancy Cowles on the rhinestones “menace”. Here is Ms. Cowles’ suggestion for those who value their bling:

“In an interview with BNA, Nancy Cowles, executive director of Kids in Danger, praised the commission’s July decision on fashion jewelry accessories. Cowles told BNA that lead is a severe toxin with no safe level. She added that while more common sense could be applied to determining which products are hazardous, consumers overall do not want products containing lead. ‘People will come up with other ways to put [jewelry] on children’s clothing that isn’t toxic. Whether the lead [in rhinestones] leaches out fully, it’s hard to know, but we don’t want lead in our children’s products. We will come up with other ways to decorate our clothes,’ Cowles said.”

It’s okay, they just want to protect you.

At this point, I have to ask – what on Earth happened to our country? How did we get to this point? I can’t say for myself, I don’t know how this kind of stridency and absence of BASIC common sense took over our nation. Politics no longer makes sense to me. In today’s New York Times, Senator Evan Byah blasts this theme as he explains why he is dropping out of the Senate after 12 years. It’s a depressing read.

More depressing still is how the Democrats are making such a mess of things and disillusioning so many people, myself certainly included. In yesterday’s Barron’s Magazine, the Dems’ ability to actually govern is questioned. That’s a “wow”. This small article details how Senator Max Baucus’ jobs bill (written in response to President Obama’s call for more economic stimulus), was gutted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for “speedy” passage:

“So Reid selected four provisions that he believes all Senate Democrats and Republicans can agree on: tax breaks for small-business investment; more money for highway construction; expansion of the Build America Bond program, and a payroll-tax exemption for employers hiring someone who’s been jobless for at least 60 days. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is openly opposing the payroll-tax exemption, a stance which has fiscally conservative Democrats near despair. ‘Democrats are in danger of demonstrating they cannot govern on the most basic level,’ a progressive Democratic party leader said last week.”

That’s right – the Dems are failing at the most basic level. The CPSIA saga and the politics/populism infecting CPSC leadership and policy these days are part and parcel of the same phenomenon. Rhinestones are this week’s victim. Who is next in line – you?

When are you going to say “ENOUGH”?!

Read more here:
CPSIA – Why Do Dems Want to Ban Rhinestones?

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?

« Previous Page — Next Page »