Posts
As I read around the net, a sadly delusional number of people wish to keep blaming former President Bush for the bill. It's counterproductive for a number of reasons, not least of which being the fact that the guy is gone, he's a private citizen now and there's nothing at all he can do about it.
However, it's counterproductive on another front as well. This was not his bill. He signed it into law when confronted with a filibuster proof majority, but he did spend some time fighting the bill's passing.
Seeing people blame the very person who fought the bill (and caught a lot of grief for it), while looking to Waxman and Rush to 'save' small crafters is like watching a flock of sheep run to the wolves for protection while complaining about the (admittedly poodle-like) watchdog.
So maybe the watchdog didn't do his job. He signed the Democrat bill presented him by the Democrat majority.
That doesn't make the wolves your friends.
This bill did not come out of the Bush administration. The Bush administration actually fought it.
The bill's sponsor was Bobby Rush, Democrat now pretending to be upset that the Commission won't fix his mess, even while secretly refusing to respond to their request that he meet with the Commission to clarify his own bill.
There were 106 co-sponsors (this is a matter of public record). I counted and it looks to me like (unless I missed one or two) 101 of the 106 are Democrats. One of the five Republican sponsors was Ted Stephens of Alaska, now under investigation for a number of crimes, and never a conservative.
It's as though people cannot separate issues in their minds. They hate the war, therefore anybody else who has voice opposition to the war must be their friend and ally on every other issue. They want universal health care so anybody who doesn't must be the Enemy on every other issue.
But you should not have to be a conservative or a Republican to recognize that a bill with 101 Democrats of 106 co-sponsors isn't a 'Bush Administration' product. It only takes a tiny amount of objectivity.
Whatever you think of Bush, this bill did not come from the Bush Administration.
Another story I hear is that this bill was promoted by those evil bogey men of Big Business, Corporate Lobbyists.
Corporate Lobbyists pushing this to get the little guy out of the market? Guffaw. I am sure the people who actually did push this are rubbing their hands in glee at how they have pulled the wool over your eyes and made you think your enemies are your friends and your allies are your enemies (scroll down to see the lobbyists who did push this bill)
As for this being pushed by corporate lobbyists to get the little guys- that's a strange kind of hubris. The small crafters are just not that large a threat to the makers of Disney Babies and Barbies.
Once more, please read Kathleen Fansella's article explaining why this bill hurts the 'big guys' just as much, possibly more, than the little guy.
Here's another point- a lot of people looked at the letter from Waxman and Rush (who are two of the people MOST responsible for this bill in the first place) sent to Nord of the Commission, and cheer, thinking this shows that they want Nancy Nord to do her job.
Wrong. They KNOW that NOTHING she says matters. That two person commission is shortly going to be expired because, according the law the Democrats rewrote (and they know this), sometime AFTER the election the three person commission becomes a five person commission, so there will be new appointees who will have the majority vote as soon as President Obama appoints them and the Congress confirms them.
People are looking to Obama to save them from this bill, well, I hope they turn out to be right, but it doesn't seem realistic to me.
For one thing, it was a Democrat bill when he was serving in the Senate, and he never voted against it. He didn't vote at all on the issue (maybe he wasn't there, but he could have been if he'd thought it important). His new chief of staff was a co-sponsor.
Obama has put into effect an order putting all new regs of the last 60 days on hold. Bush did the same thing when he took office, or close enough. It's fairly common for an incoming President to do this for understandable reasons. But people invested in the CPSIA discussions are expressing hope that this means the CPSIA itself will be put on hold, and that's not true. It's a LAW, not a mere regulation. No president can simply set aside laws passed by Congress because he wishes to. What probably is on hold is the good things- the exemptions that the Commission recently made.
Does anybody imagine Bobby Rush didn't realize that President Obama would do what most Presidents do, and put a hold on new regulations and implementations until his own appointees could look them over? So he knew perfectly well his very public ripping of Nancy Nord was a lot of huffing and puffing at her, ordering her to effectively spin her wheels, waste her time, and most importantly, draw the public's fire so he'd be left alone.
Rick Woldenberg says:
"My sources tell me that at the Congressional staff meeting on Friday Jan. 16 held to clear up "misunderstandings" and "confusion" under the CPSIA, staffers apparently stated that no changes would be forthcoming in the law (aha, that clears everything up quite nicely), and that somehow this law is just a "safety net" for products. [That last remark is fascinating - I don't recall them characterizing the CPSIA as toothless in public. Are they saying different things to different people, depending on the audience? Now I AM getting confused.]
Even more outrageous, unnamed staffers are reported to have stated that no hearing would occur until an additional CPSC Commissioner was appointed, and that CPSC would be "unable" to appear at any earlier hearing. In other words, they have no intention of holding hearings in advance of the February 10 implementation date, despite the reams of data they possess on the many serious problems their law is causing. Actually, it is my understanding that the CPSC has requested such a hearing, but that request apparently fell on deaf ears. Spin, spin, spin - and then tell everyone that all discordant views are misinformation or the confusion of [fill-in-the-blank] people. Finally, to cap it off, we understand that House staffers are simply "too busy" to attend meetings with industry and the CPSC to discuss the details of the real life impact of the law."
It is the goal of the Congressional Democrats who wrote and passed this bill to make everybody blame the Commission, and specifically Nancy Nord, and ignore the fact that THEY WROTE THIS BILL and they passed it in spite of Nord and Bush telling them it had serious flaws. If you look at the Times article posted above, they've been butting heads for two or three years on this issue. The people who created this mess WANT you to forget that they did it and blame the Commission, even while they are undermining the Commission's ability to act. It's discouraging to see how easily they are able to do this.
I think it's counterproductive and actually harmful to keep blaming the only people who ever actually spoke up against the bill- the Bush administration, his appointee Nancy Nord, and a little over a dozen Republicans. Ron Paul voted against it once in the House (he was the only one who did), and 13 Republican senators voted against it, only three of them with consistency. Those three heroes are Thomas Coburn, Jim DeMint, and Jon Kyl.
It would be very helpful if people would look at the facts instead of letting their pet politics create dangerous illusions about just who your friends and allies are in Congress.
Here Pirg documents their involvement in lobbying for the passing of this bill- and they are the ones fighting hard against small business exemptions. So as long as people keep blaming Bush and the bogeyman of Corporate Lobbysits, they are ignoring the real spider in the wood pile, and Pirg's efforts go unrebutted.
This site- gives the history of this bill, who sponsored, who signed, who voted.
and this article spells out pretty much all that is wrong with the bill as written.
-----------------------
More from that consumer's group, because it's important to....
Know Your Enemies:
February 29, 2008
CPSC Bill To Senate Floor Monday; We "Call Foul" on false attack
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) filed a cloture petition preparatory to bringing the CPSC Reform Act (now numbered S. 2663) to the Senate floor next week. A procedural vote known as a cloture vote or motion to proceed (60 yeas required) is scheduled for 5:30 pm Monday.
Meanwhile, we've joined other leading consumer groups in a release rebutting a 10-point memo (more of a screed actually) attacking the bill that was issued by the office of Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), a member of the Senate Commerce Committee. Since his committee held a number of hearings, we'd expect a better understanding of the bill's intent and scope. Conversely, the ranking Republican and co-chair of the Committee, Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) is a co-sponsor of the bill.
We're supporting all strengthening amendments, and of course opposing efforts to gut or delay this important product safety reform bill. From our release today:
Consumer, Safety Groups Call Foul on False Attacks on Product Safety Reform Bill-- Groups rebut charges; bill will be considered in the Senate beginning on Monday
(Washington, DC) -- Consumer, public interest, safety, and scientific groups today condemned false charges from the office of Sen. Jim DeMint, released through the Republican Steering Committee, against a Senate bill that would overhaul the ailing Consumer Product Safety Commission, and urged Senators to approve the measure -- without weakening amendments -- when it is slated to come up for a vote next week.
--------------------------------------------------
Note this:
It's not that they didn't know this would be harmful to small businesses. They didn't care.
That's the website of one of the liberal (I know people don't like that pointed out, but you need to know your enemies for who they are) self appointed consumer protectionist groups.
In February a year ago, they wrote:
"The office of Senator DeMint, through the Senate Republican Steering Committee, is circulating a document entitled "The Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the CPSC ‘Reform’ Act (S. 2663)." Our coalition of public interest, safety, and scientific organizations offer the following rebuttal to this document filled with falsehoods and fictions regarding a common-sense, balanced legislative proposal designed to improve consumer safety reported by the Senate Commerce Committee and finalized in negotiations between Senators Mark Pryor, Daniel Inouye, and Ted Stevens."
Ted Stevens, of course, is the former Republican Senator of Alaska who is facing all sorts of criminal charges.
Senator Demint warned that the CPSIA:
"Massively increases fines, threatening small businesses for no good reason: The substitute increases maximum civil penalties more than 10-fold and the individual violation penalty more than 50-fold subjecting each product that wrongfully enters the stream of commerce to a $250,000 fine. . ."
The Consumer Group totally blew that off:
"The massive number of toy recalls in recent years suggests that manufacturers have been unsuccessful in making sure their products are safe. .... Small, reputable businesses will not be driven into bankruptcy from this change. But the threat of higher fines for violations of consumer product safety laws will and should deter all companies from shortchanging safety concerns. "
DeMint warned that the CPSIA:
""Threatens to send the owners of small companies to prison for unknowingly selling a dangerous product. . .This may make the bill proponents feel good, but it does nothing to improve product safety.""
The Consumer group disagreed, but admit that previously, the agency had to issue a warning, and would pursue criminal charges if you persisted. Now, they think it's a good idea if you get prosecuted first, and spend thousands of dollars in legal fees proving that you did not know your product had some flaw in order to stay out of jail.
DeMint warned:
"The Bill has been endorsed by the Consumer Federation of America and the Consumers Union."
They agree, and they're very proud of it. Please note- THESE are the people behind the bill, along with the Democrat author, and the 106 co-sponsors (101 of whom were Democrats) not the boogie man of 'big business:'
"The authors of the DeMint document are correct! CFA and CU do support this common sense, bi-partisan measure as do other not-for-profit organizations, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, Kids in Danger, U.S. PIRG, National Research Center for Women & Families, and Public Citizen. And thousands of concerned individuals across the country have also contacted Senators urging its passage. This legislation is urgently needed to restore consumers’ faith in the products they buy every day.
Contact:
Jennifer Fuson, CU (202) 462-6262
Rachel Weintraub, CFA (202) 387-6121
Ed Mierzwinski, U.S. PIRG (202) 546-9707
David Arkush, PC (202) 550-0107
Celia Wexler, UCS (202) 331-6952"
So contact them, as they ask, and explain why this bill was, in fact, deeply harmful and did nothing to restore your faith, as a consumer, in anything except the power of special interests.
-------------------------------------------
I've posted it before, but here again are the special interest groups behind the phthalates ban- Feinstein and Boxer introduced it based on California's already in place ban, and these groups supported it:
The undersigned organizations strongly urge the CPSC Conference Committee to include the Feinstein Amendment prohibiting the use of phthalates in children's toys and childcare articles in the reconciled version of the House/Senate Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act .
Sincerely,
AAIDD (American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities).
Alaska Community Action on Toxics.
Association of Reproductive Health Professionals.
AWHONN (Association of Women's Health, Obstetric & Neonatal Nurses).
Breast Cancer Action.
Breast Cancer Fund.
Center for Environmental Health.
Center for Health, Environment and Justice.
Citizens for a Healthy Bay
Clean New York.
Clean Water Action Alliance of Massachusetts.
Coalition for Clean Air.
Commonweal.
Consumer Federation of America.
Consumers Union.
CREHM (Chicago Consortium for Reproductive Environmental Health in Minority Communities).
EarthJustice.
Endometriosis Association.
Environment California.
Environmental Health Fund.
Environmental Working Group.
Greenpeace.
Health Education and Resources.
Healthy Building Network.
Healthy Child Healthy World.
Healthy Children Organizing Project.
Illinois Maternal and Child Health Coalition.
Illinois PIRG.
INCIID (InterNational Council on Infertility Information Dissemination, Inc.).
INND (Institute of Neurotoxicology & Neurological Disorders).
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.
Institute for Children's Environmental Health.
Kids in Danger.
Learning Disabilities Association of America.
Maternal and Child Health Access.
Minnesota PIRG.
MOMS (Making Our Milk Safe).
MomsRising.
Natural Resources Defense Council.
Olympic Environmental Council.
Oregon Center for Environmental Health.
Oregon Environmental Council.
Physicians for Social Responsibility- San Francisco Bay Area Chapter.
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.
Planned Parenthood Golden Gate.
Planned Parenthood of Mar Monte.
Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.
PODER (People Organized in Defense of Earth & her Resources).
Project IRENE.
Public Citizen's Congress Watch.
RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association.
Safe Food and Fertilizer.
SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective.
Sources for Sustainable Communities.
The American Fertility Association.
The Annie Appleseed Project.
US PIRG.
[Page: S7876] GPO's PDF
Washington Toxics Coalition.
WashPIRG.
WHEN (Women's Health & Environmental Network).
Also:
National Research Center for Women & Families
Public Citizen
Union of Concerned Scientists
US Public Interest Research Group
You can google these groups. I'd like to know where their political contributions go. I ran out of time for googling, but I haven't found a conservative among them yet. They were 'progressive,' or leftwing, every one I checked.
US Perg is quite button poppingly proud of their involvement (see top left, look for toy safety), and quote vehemently left wing. They want 'progressive change' through changing the laws.
Presumably because they know they can't get it through votes.
