by hilzoy
Honestly, you just can't make this up:
"The nation’s top official for consumer product safety has asked Congress in recent days to reject legislation intended to strengthen the agency, which polices thousands of consumer goods, from toys to tools.On the eve of an important Senate committee meeting to consider the legislation, Nancy A. Nord, the acting chairwoman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, has asked lawmakers in two letters not to approve the bulk of legislation that would increase the agency’s authority, double its budget and sharply increase its dwindling staff.
Ms. Nord opposes provisions that would increase the maximum penalties for safety violations and make it easier for the government to make public reports of faulty products, protect industry whistle-blowers and prosecute executives of companies that willfully violate laws.
The measure is an effort to buttress an agency that has been under siege because of a raft of tainted and dangerous products manufactured both domestically and abroad. In the last two months alone, more than 13 million toys have been recalled after tests indicated lead levels that sometimes reached almost 200 times the safety limit."
Let's be clear what we're talking about here. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is what it says: the government body "charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from more than 15,000 types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction." If your baby's crib has a malfunction that could kill your child, if your child's toys are covered in lead paint, or if their BB guns have a defect that "caused at least 15 deaths and 171 serious injuries, most of them involving children", this is the agency charged with investigating and mandating recalls.
Having an agency that does this, and that does it well, ought to be a no-brainer. Personally, I have no real desire to be protected against the possibility that I might try to use my toaster oven in the bathtub, or use my Cuisinart to trim my nails. On the other hand, I would very much prefer to be able to buy a toy for my nephews without having to personally test it for lead paint, or for other potentially lethal hazards that are hard for individual consumers to detect. In theory, the purpose of the Consumer Product Safety Commission is to give me that confidence.
Apparently, the Bush administration doesn't think this matters, and so they have gutted the agency. From an article on the history of the CPSC that's worth reading in its entirety:
"Mr. Moore, the commissioner appointed by Mr. Clinton, told Congress in March that it would take years to recover from the loss of employees with expertise in toys, fire-related hazards, drowning prevention and chemical risks, among others.A senior agency official was more blunt. “It is a complete disaster,” said the official, one of nearly a dozen who spoke anonymously because the agency had instructed employees not to talk to reporters. “There is just no other word for it.”
At the agency’s product testing lab, which operates out of a former missile defense radar station in Gaithersburg, Md., the impact of the tight budgets is apparent.
One lab worker used a magnifying glass and a mechanical stop watch to help conduct a fabric flammability experiment — the same equipment she has used for three decades. The toy laboratory, down the hall, is an office so cramped that the only space dedicated to a drop test to see if toys will break into small pieces and cause a choking hazard is the spare space behind the office door. “This is the toy lab for all of America — for all of the United States government!” said Robert L. Hundemer, the one agency employee who routinely tests toys, as he held up his arms in the air. “We do what we can.”"
Mr. Hundemer is right to be dismayed. Here, via litbrit, is a picture of the toy lab for all of America:
Heavens: looking at that spacious lab, with all that shiny new equipment, I can't imagine what the CPSC would do with a budget increase. Can you?
And here, from a new report (pdf) from the Center for America's Future, is a graph showing the CPSC's budget compared to imports:
Ladies and gentlemen: your Republican Party in action.
***
UPDATE: The CPSC got their budget increase anyways:
"Over the objections of the Bush administration, a Senate committee unanimously adopted sweeping legislation on Tuesday that would extend the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and sharply increase its budget and staff."
"One lab worker used a magnifying glass and a mechanical stop watch to help conduct a fabric flammability experiment — the same equipment she has used for three decades. The toy laboratory, down the hall, is an office so cramped [etc]"
This isn't an argument against the Bush admin so much as one against the last several admins.
"Personally, I have no real desire to be protected against the possibility that I might try to use my toaster oven in the bathtub"
Really you ought to have ground fault circuit interrupters, esp. in your bathroom. If it's not code then boo, hiss - and I can't see why it's not required by law, since they're cheap.
Posted by: rilkefan | October 31, 2007 at 12:43 AM
Ladies and gentlemen: your Republican Party in action.
just to get it out of the way:
it's worth noticing that the low point in the CPSC's budget did happen during Clinton's presidency...
Posted by: cleek | October 31, 2007 at 07:05 AM
Actually, it looks bipartisan, with the greatest decreases spread over Carter and Reagan. That's not a reason for the current Admin to accept the way things are, but the budget looks relatively flat for the past 25 yrs or so. It seems as though the reason for the problem is that the budget hasn't kept pace with the increase in imports from China. This can be laid on every Admin since Carter (and doesn't Congress get a say in the matter?).
Posted by: Crimso | October 31, 2007 at 08:54 AM
Oops. Make that increase in imports from the world. Guess I was thinking that most of our recent problems were due to China.
Posted by: Crimso | October 31, 2007 at 08:58 AM
They are attempting to quell the 'Nanny Government'. The market can fix these things.
Next stop: fluoridated water; Iodized salt; bleached flour; minimum wage/overtime pay; child labor restraints; speed limits; traffic lights; etc.
Dammit, we've got to be more self reliant. These people need to get and keep good crdit ratings.
Posted by: Porcupine_Pal | October 31, 2007 at 09:10 AM
You'll shoot your eye out!
Posted by: bago | October 31, 2007 at 09:12 AM
1.The funding chart shows random ups and downs in the $50 - 75B range under every possible political party composition of the White House and Congress for more than twenty years. I guess Bush had something to do with this when he was just drinking and doing cocaine all the time.
2. The CPSC apparently has enough money and time to warn everyone that the most dangerous thing in your house is magnets. I'm sure they're going to be a scientific powerhouse with this extra funding.
3. No epistemological connection between conservatism and e.coli has ever been demonstrated. It's such a dishonest slogan it rivals Rush Limbaugh.
Posted by: Jonas Cord | October 31, 2007 at 10:03 AM
The stated goal of the Republican Party has been to market bathtubs in which babies can accidentally-on-purpose drown, held under by the invisible hand.
Ms. Nord is merely trying to prevent one of the babies from investigating the bathtubs. Babies have no rights, that I know of.
Now, lead paint in the blood stream of a fetus? Republican fetuses grow up to escape regulation by moving their manufacturing operations abroad, where babies drown freely without interference from the gummint.
That's the great thing about free trade. You can have your lead paint and eat it, too. And, it's cheaper for consumer fetuses.
Yes, Carter and Clinton (and Gore) were cheapskates. Screw them, too.
I have an idea to further efficiency in the United States, since that seems to be the ultimate ideal for everyone (else). Let's limit staffing for all organizations to zero; that's right, no bothersome employees any longer.
Let the Chinese produce everything. Maximum efficiency for us, and they get to do all of the work.
(I'm not anti-free trade. I condemn the motivations for it).
This staffing shortfall, by the way, is endemic (purposely) throughout most of the Federal agencies.
Posted by: John Thullen | October 31, 2007 at 10:04 AM
Jonas:
"No epistemological connection between conservatism and e. coli has ever been demonstrated. It's such a dishonest slogan it rivals Rush Limbaugh."
I would still suggest washing your hands after handling Rush Limbaugh. That cramping, fever, and gut torsion may not be a figment of your imagination.
Posted by: John Thullen | October 31, 2007 at 10:17 AM
"I can't imagine what the CPSC would do with a budget increase. Can you?"
Yes, of course: Hire more PR people.
Posted by: theophylact | October 31, 2007 at 11:46 AM
This is a very clever and subtle message that Karl Rove has concocted for Bush to signal to his base that he hates children as much as they do.
What next? I'd guess something like a law against undocumented puppies.
"anyone who hates children and dogs can't be all bad."
Posted by: DaveC | October 31, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Tip for making Chocalate Covered Razor Blades:
Roll razor blade in a mixture of caramel and crused peanuts. Refrigerate.
After razor-roll is cooled to a solid consistency, bring milk chocolate to a simmer (in a double boiler to prevent scalding), and dip the peanut-razor-caramel ball.
Place on wax paper and cool for 3 hours.
Serve at your own risk.
Posted by: DaveC | October 31, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Psychotic breaks are definitely not work safe. Somebody should delete the previous comment.
Posted by: Tim | October 31, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Personally, I have no real desire to be protected against the possibility that I might try to [...] use my Cuisinart to trim my nails.
They do sell an attachement for that.
Posted by: Mike Schilling | October 31, 2007 at 01:06 PM
Coinkidinkily, I used to manufacture chocolate-covered razorblades as part of a small family business operated out of the warrens in our basement.
But I moved our operations to Shanghai to escape the ever-increasing burden of regulation, not to mention my brother-in-law nagging me about unionization and health insurance.
First, some wag at the CPSC tested the treat and found that 100% of the rats tested had their tongues sliced off in the first bite. Can I help it if the first rat didn't warn the other rats about this mildly unlikely risk? The rats could have used the market to transmit this information to the other rats and eventually, ipso fatso, su generis, and caveat emptor, the message would have been delivered to me in good time via the invisible hand, if the invisible hand wasn't too busy shaving with a razor blade concealed inside a chilidog.
I would have consulted my accountant, totaled my inventory costs, and eventually reached a point where including razor blades inside candy bars would have been uneconomical. My valued customers would have come to me, tongueless, and let me know by saying "Gnagh, nagah, knua, gngh, gagh".
The market would have spoken.
But no, the troublemaker bureaucrats told Congress about the severed tongues, and THOSE busybodies mandated that I include warning labels on the packaging, at great cost to Larry Kudlow.
I did manage to successfully lobby for VERY VERY small print and then I sold sticks of dynamite made to look like magnifying glasses for the reading public, my valued customers.
But I can see a Hillary Presidency coming and the inevitable demands that NO razorblades be allowed inside candy bars, the socialist boogymenandwomen.
So, off to Shanghai I go where they let me use lead-coated razorblades, the commie bastids.
Posted by: John Thullen | October 31, 2007 at 01:17 PM
Yes, the last few administrations, including the Clinton administrations have let the budget decline. Has any other president appointed someone who wanted to refuse a budget increase? I don't know, I'm asking seriously.
Posted by: Gus | October 31, 2007 at 05:35 PM
Happy Halloween!
It was just announced on CNBC that the CPSC has ordered a recall of "ugly teeth", you know, those fake plastic or rubber dental works you put in your mouth to scare the kids.
Lead contamination.
Seriously.
Posted by: John Thullen | October 31, 2007 at 05:47 PM
Thullen - do you really think the market would produce lead contaminated fake plastic dental teeth for children if there wasn't a demand for them? What about all the kids who are being denied their right to suck on lead-lined fangs by the Nanny-State™? The resulting distortion in the market will likely cost billions of dollars and millions of jobs. Wouldn't it be better to just have thousands of developmentally disable children who, of course, wanted the lead infused dentures in the first instance?
Commie.
Posted by: Ugh | October 31, 2007 at 05:58 PM
It's hard to tell from the graph, but it LOOKS like there was a significant upwards spike in the budget during the very brief period where Clinton held the White House and Democrats held Congress.
Then it seems to have spiked back down, right around the time of the Gingrich Revolution.
Posted by: Morat20 | October 31, 2007 at 06:18 PM
Hey, is there a problem with dental lead? Don't forget that your dental fillings are mainly mercury, so what harm can a bit of sweet lead* do beyond that? ;-)
Razor blades made from lead have the clear advantage that you are unlikely to cut yourself too badly.
Lead is good for your health as sound scientists from the Saturn Institute for Plumbic Studies have stated for years.
*Hooray for leaded wine!
Posted by: Hartmut | November 01, 2007 at 06:21 AM
"*Hooray for leaded wine!
Some years back I was talking to a researcher who's done work re: lead and mercury contamination, and she mentioned that at one point she was involved in testing ancient Roman wine in a sealed amphora recovered from a shipwreck for lead (which was present, albeit in reasonably small quantities, iirc). So she opened it up and tested it, with museum staff looking on - but then of course, they had a open bottle of Roman wine that was only going to start going bad, and there was only one thing to do . . .
Posted by: Dan S. | November 01, 2007 at 11:26 PM
"...but then of course, they had a open bottle of Roman wine that was only going to start going bad, and there was only one thing to do . . ."
That's a great story, but I'm reasonably sure that wine, no matter how sealed, will go bad after a couple of hundred years, let alone longer. Even Falernian.
I'll certainly willing to be told I'm wrong by someone more expert, but Pliny famously said that "nothing experienced a greater increase in value than wine that had been cellered up to twenty years or a greater decrease in value afterwards."
Posted by: Gary Farber | November 02, 2007 at 01:04 AM
Call me when they excavate some Sumerian beer ;-)
Posted by: Hartmut | November 02, 2007 at 05:45 AM
They've excavated a Sumerian beer recipe.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 02, 2007 at 05:53 AM
I know. And the Egyptians also had several different sorts, though few would pass modern regulations, I presume.
I bet some paleos even then complained about too strict regulations of their ox-gall enterprises.
Posted by: Hartmut | November 03, 2007 at 01:23 PM
No epistemological connection between conservatism and e.coli has ever been demonstrated. It's such a dishonest slogan it rivals Rush Limbaugh.
OK, for "conservatism" let's substitute "drown-it-in-a-bathtub small-government, anti-regulation public policy".
Any resemblance between that and "conservatism" is purely coincidental.
Thanks -
Posted by: russell | November 03, 2007 at 04:06 PM
It is the corporate entity's God Given Right to poison my children with lead paint! Indeed, if they are not poisoning my children, then they are at an economic disadvantage to those companies that are poisoning my children.
You damned Liberals don't understand the basics of Free Market Capitalism Hallelujah!
If a CEO gets his jollies by putting anti-freeze in mouthwash, or lead paint on fake teeth, no one should have the ability to stop him. And it certainly should never be illegal to knowingly kill people! Damned Nanny-state Liberals!
See, regulations are laws for corporate entities. There should be NO LAWS for corporate entities. Companies should have the right to slaughter as many of their workers and consumers as they can! And they should also have the right to NOT pay their workers a cent for their labor. How dare those damned workers want to get paid for thier work! That's COMMUNISM!!!1!
You Liberals are so stupid!!1!!1!!1!!!!!!!!11!!1!
Posted by: Comrade Rutherford | November 06, 2007 at 03:11 PM