CPSIA – How We Were Forced to Deal with A Misleading Database Entry

As you may recall from yesterday, we were confronted with a false, misleading and inaccurate complaint submitted to the CPSIA database in its “soft launch”. We submitted definitive information to the CPSC attesting to the error (or whatever) by the filer and were REJECTED. We were told by a senior staff person at the agency (who should know better) that the complaint needed to be posted based on the facts (the filer THOUGHT she spotted a safety issue). Our evidence that the anonymous filer’s musings were flat-out WRONG were not persuasive because this is a “consumer database” and as such, our evidence did not reflect on how the anonymous filer felt. As far as I can tell, that’s all that matters, unless they misidentify our product. That seems to be the only “out” (although I can’t find that sentence in the law).

Get it? I wish I did.

In some respects, this controversy didn’t add up to much because the complaint won’t go into the database. No filings made during the “soft launch” will go into the database. It’s all practice (until tomorrow morning). However, the CPSC made a policy decision in our case. Don’t say you weren’t warned. NEXT TIME THIS COMPLAINT WILL GO INTO THE DATABASE.

Because everyone’s “practicing” now, we decided to practice by filing a “comment” to this complaint even though it won’t be published either. This will no doubt become a standard approach for most people. There’s little point and maybe even some downside to pushing back on a complaint. [What if the CPSC takes a look and makes a call that THERE IS A RISK OF HARM? It all seems so innocuous until they lower that boom on you . . . .] The soundest practice is probably to not protest these filings at all (feel the shaft yet?) and simply publish your own comments to be juxtaposed with the complaint.

To craft this “comment”, we consulted our lawyer. Cha-ching! Don’t worry, we’re used to legal fees at this point. I would note that this took two person’s time at our office and we had to drop everything to process this baloney complaint as if it were the most pressing matter in our little universe. Consider the cumulative waste of resources and the cost of distraction and disruption across the entire economy all owing to this database. Sounds grrrrrreat!

Our comment is reproduced here for your interest:

“The Smart Snacks Sweet Heart Sayings product has been tested for compliance with ASTM F963, the federally mandated safety standard for small parts and has passed all applicable tests with an independent test lab. The company believes this product incident report is materially inaccurate because the product does not present a small parts hazard and the complainant has provided no evidence to the contrary. As such this allegation is completely unsubstantiated.”

I wonder if Congress and the CPSC can come up with even more effective ways to piss me off. Chances are they are working on it right now! I can’t wait to raise more money for Republicans in the next election cycle . . . .

Read more here:
CPSIA – How We Were Forced to Deal with A Misleading Database Entry

CPSIA – My Answer to Slate.com on the CPSIA Database

Dear Mr. Noah,

I read with interest your March 8th article on the CPSC database entitled “Who’s Afraid of the CPSC?” and was disappointed at the inaccuracies in the piece and your blanket dismissal of the business community’s legitimate concerns about the database. The database has devolved into a divisive partisan issue simply because of the utter refusal of consumer groups and their Congressional allies to acknowledge the flaws in the database as well as the law that established it – the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).

I’ll try to address the inaccuracies one-by-one:

Database cost – $3 million or $29 million? The cost figure of $3 million sparked a public dispute between the CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum and her fellow Commissioner Anne Northup at a House hearing last month. In response to Ms. Tenenbaum’s testimony on the cost of the database, Ms. Northup testified that the figure of $3 million had never been shared with the CPSC Commission and that the only database cost figure she was familiar with was $29 million. Interestingly, in April 2010, the Associated Press reported, based on information provided by the CPSC, that the cost of the http://www.saferproducts.gov/ website would be about $20 million, and the CPSC apparently saw no reason to update the media with the good news that the cost had shriveled to $3 million until the February 2011 hearing. . . . Hmmm.

The supposedly noncontroversial CPSIA database. Why didn’t anyone kick up a fuss about the database in 2008? A better question is “Why didn’t Congress listen when the business community protested?” Here’s what I said in a letter to each Congressional conferee dated June 25, 2008: “While we support public notice of recalls, we oppose a national database of reports of injury, illness, death or risk of injury. This forum will not be subject to appropriate findings of fact and thus will be a forum subject to considerable abuse. In a society where tort lawsuits are an ever-present risk for all businesses, a risk that can wipe out a lifetime’s work in a heartbeat, the very real potential for abuse by competitors or mischief-makers far outweighs the public’s ‘right to know’. Once the CPSC has adjudicated a case appropriately, made a reasonable finding of fact and determined the right course of corrective action, public notice would be appropriate.”

I continued to try to make my point to CPSIA Congressional conferees in another letter dated July 21, 2008, just ahead of final consideration of the CPSIA: “CPSC Searchable Database: The well-intentioned idea for complete safety transparency is an open invitation to mischief makers. This is a real threat to our business, as we know from hard experience. The better way is to let the CPSC filter this data first. Please remember, even YouTube will take down videos on request. The proposed law won’t give defenseless toy companies the same recourse as YouTube. Is that an appropriate way to regulate an entire industry?”

It wasn’t only me. Many others in the business community opposed the creation of a database that would contain inaccurate or misleading accusations and complaints. That’s the story of the CPSIA in a nutshell – no one was listening when the law was originally drafted, and now three years later, we are fighting City Hall to restore common sense to federal safety law. Please consider the assertion that consumers really need this database, that it is essential to their children’s safety. In fact, there are many places on the Internet where consumers can and do post their experiences without controversy. Why would a federal database be a greater cause for concern? Well, for one thing, this one is called “SaferProducts.gov” and is sponsored by the federal government. Notwithstanding the lawyer language disclaimers all over the website, it is crystal clear that the public will place a lot of credence in these postings. After all, why would our federal government allow misleading or inaccurate information to be posted on a website called SaferProducts.gov? Ms. Tenenbaum is famous for her defense of “dot gov” websites: “I say don’t believe everything you read on the Internet, except what you read on Web sites that end in dot gov.” [Keynote speech at ICPHSO, February 17, 2010] She may not be the only one who feels this way.

The NHTSA database exists; ergo a CPSIA database is a good idea? The NHTSA database can be distinguished in several important ways: (a) auto accidents are a leading cause of death in this country (consumer products are not), (b) every use of automobiles is known to be hazardous and the risk to human life from reckless use of cars is obviously magnified (not true for consumer products), (c) the auto industry is one of the largest components of our entire economy – we all use cars and many of us owe our livelihoods to automobiles in one way or the other (the average sale of consumer products is far less than a car), and (d) at all levels, the auto industry is highly consolidated among a relatively small number of massive companies that are well-prepared for litigation and regulatory issues (consumer products is not a consolidated market and there are many small companies involved in the trade). I think GM, Ford, Toyota and other multi-billion dollar automakers can handle the burden and risk of a database of consumer deaths and serious injuries from use of their products. Our family business, Learning Resources, on the other hand, ain’t no GM or Toyota. The NHTSA database is NOT an appropriate precedent for consumer products for all of the foregoing reasons.

“One of the ironies in Pompeo and others screaming bloody murder that the database will kill jobs is that most of the appliances likely to get dinged in the database won’t even be American products.” This remark completely misses the point, unfortunately. It is American companies that are going to be hurt by the misinformation in the database, whether those companies are manufacturers, importers, private labelers or retailers. Even worse, thousands of American small businesses are going to be put at risk with no practical means to defend themselves. Is this the “American Way” at work? Who will pay when jobs are lost from companies shifting away from this market or dropping products to limit exposure to liability? This is just going to be another self-inflicted economic injury from misguided and overzealous regulation.

Whether the product is made in China, the U.S. or India, it should not matter from a safety perspective. Companies must ensure that they market safe and appropriate products no matter where the products are made. The reality is that every product can break, and accidents and other bad things happen to good people. The database will be unforgiving and if filled with post-it-and-forget-it garbage, will harm innocent victims – American companies that employ your neighbors and make products for your schools. Unqualified and unverified complaints on SaferProducts.gov WILL induce consumers to take our products away from children – pending a recall that may never be forthcoming . . . because nothing’s wrong.

Chairman Tenenbaum has publicly encouraged consumers to rely on the postings in the database – to draw conclusions on the likelihood of future injury. This is quite alarming, given that Ms. Tenenbaum also testified in a Congressional hearing in February that the agency will likely post unverified or inaccurate information to the database. She admits that this information will be faulty. As she said in testimony, “that’s what the rub is”.

Claims of inaccuracies are low in the soft launch. Given the short life of the database in its test phase and the small population of registered users, reports of few data problems must be greeted with skepticism. Less than 1000 companies have registered with the CPSC for the database, an absurdly small percentage of the number of companies whose products will be in the database. Taking into account that many consumer product companies (such as Disney) will need to register numerous brands, product lines and corporate divisions to ensure that the right data flows to the right paper pusher, the current registrations are even paltrier. If companies are not registered, it is unlikely they are even aware of the soft launch, let alone that there may be inaccurate claims against their products being sponsored by the federal government.

Sadly, we are likely to confirm that the CPSC’s faulty processes are damaging companies only AFTER the damage is done. Let’s not forget that the agency is all set to launch a big “public awareness” campaign for the new database – in other words, the federal government will soon be beating the bushes for consumer complaint submissions. As usual, consumer advocates hype uncertain and unquantifiable losses (someone somewhere might not know about something that COULD have been in the database and later be injured) to distract Congress and the media from the certain losses that will befall companies with damaged reputations. Good for plaintiff lawyers but maybe no one else.

Our small company in Illinois has already experienced a materially inaccurate submission – in the very first “complaint” we faced – and were unable to block it from the database. The anonymous posting concerned a consumer’s “feelings” about one of our products based on a photograph she found on the Internet. Unfortunately, she was clearly wrong and we could prove it. The CPSC wasn’t impressed by our valid CPSIA test reports or photographic evidence of the consumer’s error. I can safely assure you that misleading and inaccurate claims will not only be submitted to the database and but will be posted by the CPSC knowing full well that the claims are untrue. I wrote about my experiences in my blog.

I hope you will reconsider your views on the CPSIA database and weigh more carefully the legitimate concerns of businesses serving the children’s marketplace. We are in this business for a reason – we are devoted to making children’s lives BETTER. The new database will not further our mission, nor will a database filled with garbage benefit consumers. We can do better, and we MUST do better.

Sincerely,

Richard Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.
Vernon Hills, IL
My blog: http://www.learningresourcesinc.blogspot.com/

Read more here:
CPSIA – My Answer to Slate.com on the CPSIA Database

CPSIA – A Fuller Response to Rep. Butterfield

At yesterday’s hearing, Ranking Member Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) questioned our use of a strange lead label on our rock kits. We mark our rock kits with a label that says “Caution: Federal law requires us to advise that THE ROCKS in this educational product may contain lead and might be harmful if swallowed.” We also mark fossil kits with a similar label. I characterize this label as humiliating to us.

As I often say to people, these labels only tell half the story. We don’t warn people to not eat our rocks for the real reason – that they are rocks. Eating rocks can break your teeth. Eating fossils destroys our fossil record, too. This is not a good idea.

Mr. Butterfield questioned whether this label was really a CPSIA issue. I can understand the confusion. As I testified, we have to work hard to master the 3,000+ pages of CPSIA rules and law that pertain to our business. We have 5.5 people in our QC department now, including me, and an outside lawyer to help us, too. After about three years of work, we think we have a pretty good idea about how the rules work. Maybe on a good day . . . .

Much of this gobbledygook makes no sense – and count this example as Exhibit A for nonsense rules. I testified that I did not want to use this label and that we had a one hour conference call with our lawyer over this one label. I was overruled – we had to use it. I was not happy and remain miffed over the label.

Why did we have to do it?

Well, we sell rock kits that are intended for kids and schools. There’s no question about that. If you make a product aimed at kids, every part has to be lead-free, even if it’s a rock, a fossil or something else made by G-d long before man showed up to roam the Earth. We can’t “assure” ourselves that we are selling lead-free rocks because every rock is different. G-d’s QC processes predate the CPSIA, you see. Anyhow, to sell rocks to kids, rather than sell them pictures of rocks in our kits, we need an “out”. Otherwise, I suppose we risk jail time.

Hey, I didn’t write the damn law. Don’t blame me . . . .

Fortunately, there is a little crack in the veneer that allows us to keep selling rock and fossil kits. This section from the CPSC’s Q&A gives us a way to keep going:

“Are chemistry sets, science education sets and other educational materials excluded from the lead limits for content and paint and surface coatings if they bear adequate labeling under 16 C.F.R. § 1500.85?

16 C.F.R. § 1500.85 provides that certain articles that are intended for children for educational purposes are exempt for classification as a banned hazardous substance under the FHSA and the lead limits under CPSIA if the functional purpose of the particular educational item requires inclusion of the hazardous substance, and it bears labeling giving adequate directions and warnings for safe use, and is intended for use by children who have attained sufficient maturity, and may reasonably be expected, to read and heed such directions and warnings. For example, an electronics kit or robotics kit would be considered educational and the inclusion of a lead-containing component would not subject the kit to the lead testing requirements because the use of lead in some components is required to make the electronic device. Similarly, the materials used for examination or experimentation for science study such as soil, rocks, chemicals, dissections, etc. would also be exempt.” [Emphasis added]

In my opinion, this is shameful and wrong and misleading to consumers, but it’s our only choice. The CPSIA forces us to hire lawyers to figure out how to legally bend over, pick up a rock, put it in a box and sell it.

I have boldly decided to not label the flagstones leading to my front door because they’re not “Children’s Products”. If Trick-or-Treaters choose to lick the sidewalk on the way to our door next October, no one can blame me!

Blame Congress instead.

Read more here:
CPSIA – A Fuller Response to Rep. Butterfield

CPSIA – Tenenbaum/Adler Comments Revealed

A little birdie dropped off what are purportedly the comments of Chairman Inez Tenenbaum and Commissioner Bob Adler on the Waxman Amendment. This is one interesting document. First of all, it’s quite secret (but not anymore). You can’t find it on the CPSC website. Other members of the CPSC community haven’t seen it and have been refused a copy. It also doesn’t have Tenenbaum’s or Adler’s name on it so it has appropriate deniability. Oddly, it speaks in sentence fragments. Hmmm. In an era of greater “transparency”, this secrecy is something of a shock. Perhaps the Prince of Darkness is at work here.

Among the “highlights”:

• The comments recommend incorporation in the legislative report of the consumer group belief system assertion that there is no safe level of lead. If enacted, this change would enable, if not instruct, the Commission to reason from this “principle” and presumably ban many safe products. The hypocrisy of this position (or its obliviousness) in light of the permitted lead in our air, water and food is part and parcel of the CPSIA.
• The suggested report language clarifying the “no measurable adverse effect on public health and safety” will perpetuate the exemption morass confronting the Commission and regulated community. The comments state explicitly that anything that can be empirically measured will be impermissible, the exemption process will remain a hollow shell, a phantom provision. Why not just delete the exemption process and save everyone a lot of time, money and aggravation?
• Tenenbaum and Adler seem to miss the point that requiring a warning label for a product deemed safe is fatally inconsistent. Why warn for something determined to be safe in an exemption process? They ask for more discretion – to do what? What exactly is the risk here?
• The Commissioners note an openness to using a different term than “low volume manufacturer”, such as “small batch manufacturer”. This is apparently important to the HTA but seems to connote nothing of substance as both phrases are just terms or labels. I am stumped.
• The Commissioners basically go along with the definition of “low volume manufacturer”. As if to dispel any notion that they favor relief for small business, they note simply that the $200,000 revenue limit should be restricted to manufacturing or importing revenue. The fact that this revenue level is both absurdly low and that the provision itself is designed to be useless to almost everyone did not garner comment from Tenenbaum and Adler.
• Their comment about the need to “assure” compliance by LVMs confirms my reading of the Waxman Amendment that it is NOT designed to change testing requirements on small companies – they must ALL “assure” compliance through a reasonable testing program. The “assurance” will require third party testing. Here is the comment offered by Tenenbaum and Adler: “At this time, CPSC staff believe that reasonable testing methodologies meeting this criterion could be developed for only a few of the CPSIA testing requirements and that third party testing will still be required in many instances. However, this provision could provide greater relief in the future as new technologies develop that the agency may be able to recognize as capable of ensuring compliance through reasonable testing methodologies.” I guess LVMs can lump it . . . .
• The comments clarify that “imminently hazardous consumer products” incorporate the definition in Section 12 of the CPSA. Here is the definition from the CPSA: “[The] term ‘‘imminently hazardous consumer product’’ means a consumer product which presents imminent and unreasonable risk of death, serious illness, or severe personal injury.” The comments simply remove any reference to “being made aware of” – perhaps to avoid the implication that the CPSC has to act before it has “identified” the risk, whatever that may mean. Remember, current law requires going to court – the new language merely requires that the agency “identify” the risk. That’s quite a change – especially if you are on the receiving end. Think baby slings.

The comments by Tenenbaum and Adler did not comment on the perils of the “technical” provisions in the Waxman Amendment previously documented in this space. As I have noted, Rumorville has it that some or all of these changes appeared on a mysterious and secret document sent by Tenenbaum to the Hill with her 20 requests for changes to the CPSA and CPSIA. This secret document has not been revealed yet. It is therefore no surprise that her comments would endorse the approach of the Waxman Amendment (as in the foregoing tweaks). Perhaps Rumorville is right that these changes were made at her request or with her consent.

Consider the noxious changes to Section 6(b) of the CPSA – Tenenbaum and Adler apparently see nothing to comment on. Did you realize that the Waxman changes permit release of information based on a phone call? Say you make a Section 15 report, the CPSC does some interviews, creates internal documents, sends letters and emails back and forth to you – and a plaintiff’s attorney calls for disclosure of these confidential exchanges and papers. The CPSC may simply ask how quickly the lawyer needs them. Did you also know that this release can be done without notice or even the knowledge of the parties affected by the information release? Did you know that the new language even permits the CPSC to release information it knows to be FALSE? Due process doesn’t matter when you are protecting kids!

Can you believe that Tenenbaum and Adler had no comments on this terrible provision?

Or, how about the problems associated with damage to physical evidence subpoenaed by the CPSC which are also the subject of a civil suit? There is apparently substantial risk that this would be held against the defendant (you) under a principal called “spoliation of evidence“. What might happen? If the evidence is damaged, “[the] finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.” Ouch – that means you lose, big.

To judge by their comments, it appears that Tenenbaum and Adler don’t believe we deserve any procedural protections here.

It would appear that the “governing principle” demonstrated by yesterday’s passage of the health care bill applies here. There is little need for Democrats to try to build a consensus. They have control, so bipartisan support will only be achieved when those with opposing views capitulate or are outvoted. Brave New World, I feel so safe now. . . .

Very disappointing.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Tenenbaum/Adler Comments Revealed

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!