Author Archive

CPSIA chronicles, September 12

  • On Thursday Henry Waxman’s House Commerce Committee finally held its long-promised hearing on the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, the first such hearing by a committee with legislative jurisdiction since the calamitous law went into effect in February. TomTomPipersSon2(The Small Business Committee, a panel with no legislative authority over the law, had gone first.) As noted last week, Thursday’s virtually dissent-free event hardly counted as much of a hearing, since Waxman turned down all pleas to allow testimony from actual affected businesses or other critics or victims of the law. Instead he called as his single witness recently appointed CPSC chair Inez Tenenbaum, who hewed closely to the line he (Waxman) wished to hear. A Washington Times editorial is appropriately scathing, and Rick Woldenberg has much more about the committee majority’s finger-in-ears response to the broad outcry over the law. Ranking Republican Joe Barton (R-Texas), who supported the law’s passage, did say that “we have all been inundated” with constituent messages about its ill consequences. The Handmade Toy Alliance has published the statement that Jill Chuckas of Crafty Baby would have made if invited to testify (more).
  • In an August 26 WSJ letter to the editor, Eric Havill of Branchport, N.Y. observes that Congress’s refusal to fix the law “is, if possible, even more irresponsible than the original legislation.”
  • By a unanimous vote, the CPSC recently confirmed that Mattel, the giant toymaker whose many recalls helped touch off the lead-in-toys panic in the first place, has qualified for an exemption from third-party (outside lab) testing of its products under CPSIA, and can instead test in its own in-house labs. Of course, most of Mattel’s competitors are less fortunate and do not operate on a scale that will make such an exemption feasible. The exemption for “firewalled” in-house labs, deemed by one critic a “hall pass,” was something Mattel obtained through intense lobbying back when the law was under consideration. Like the other giant in the business, Hasbro, Mattel actively lobbied for CPSIA’s passage, and even as the law has brought undreamt-of woe to thousands of smaller producers of kids’ products, the two big companies seem to be doing rather well under it. More: Timothy Carney, Washington Examiner; Brad Warbiany, Liberty Papers; Christopher Taylor, Word Around the Net. Other reactions to the exemption: Holly Jahangiri, Rick Woldenberg, Ed Morrissey/Hot Air (“one of the companies that created the problem in the first place has gotten a waiver”), Katherine Mangu-Ward/Reason (“Mattel now has a cost advantage on mandatory testing, and a handy new government-sponsored barrier to entry for its competitors”), Handmade Toy Alliance.
  • AlphabetRSTTurkeys

  • What’s going to replace forbidden phthalates in kids’ products now that CPSIA has banned them? Probably alternative plasticizing chemicals about which we know less, notes Andrew Langer in Roll Call.
  • It’s old news, of course, that the CPSC asserts the power to go after eBay and Craigslist sellers, church bazaars, homeowners who hold yard sales and other sellers of used items that do not comply with CPSIA and other safety standards (although evidence is very sparse that most members of Congress actually realized the law would reach sales of those kinds.) Last month the CPSC saw fit to announce “Resale Roundup”, a new crackdown on secondhand sales. It also revised its book of guidance for resellers, in ways Rick Woldenberg finds less than enlightening. Discussion: Adler/Volokh, Ed Morrissey/Hot Air (“What did we ever do before the CPSIA protected the US through its throngs of federal nannies? How did we ever survive garage sales in the past 233 years?”), Washington Times (“from yard sales to jail cells”), Katherine Mangu-Ward/Reason, John Stossel, Deputy Headmistress/Common Room (“Remember when Congress assured us that the little guys had NOTHING to worry about with the CPSIA because they weren’t going to come after us? They. Lied.”) On the brighter side, McClatchy’s James Rosen quotes spokesperson Scott Wolfson as saying the commission isn’t planning to seek admittance to inspect private homes and garages to enforce the law. So be thankful for small favors.

PUBLIC DOMAIN IMAGES from Ethel Everett, illustrator, Nursery Rhymes (1900), and (illustrator not known) Farm Yard ABC (c. 1880), both courtesy ChildrensLibrary.org.

Senate confirms Cass Sunstein

Tim Mak at NewMajority.com quotes me to the effect that while I’ve disagreed with some of the eminent lawprof’s ideas in the past, and don’t expect to agree with everything he does in his new post as regulatory review manager, he’s likely to give free-market views a fairer and more thoughtful hearing than they’d have gotten from almost anyone else likely to fill the position. Related from NewMajority.com founder David Frum, David Weigel, and Carter Wood; earlier.

National Journal blogger’s poll on med-mal

Some interestingly cross-cutting results, summarized by National Journal as “Would Tort Reform Make Pill Easier To Swallow? Right-Leaning Bloggers Say They’d Support A Health Care Bill That Included It; Some Left-Leaners Would Hold Their Nose For It.” The results, though, may have been influenced by wording that was susceptible to multiple interpretations. I added this comment, raising a sub-issue that I think might make a good topic for bipartisan discussions:

My pet proposal? Work on out-of-court dispute resolution methods for the sizable share of medical care the federal government already provides. Alas, Congress is headed in the other direction, as with its interest in opening up med-mal suits by active-duty personnel against military doctors.

More: David Kopel, Volokh.

September 11 roundup

  • House Ways & Means — yep, Charlie Rangel’s own — passes bill slamming taxpayers for innocent errors [James Peaslee, WSJ, via Alkon]
  • Must protect the children! “Parents banned from British school sports event” [Common Room] After-school pickup procedures can get a little crazy too [Free-Range Kids, Florida]
  • Once again, America’s Most Irresponsible Public Figure® (that’d be RFK Jr.) sounds off on an environmental dispute to which he turns out to have personal financial ties [Greenwire via Eco-Pragmatism]
  • Allegations in ugly Florida law firm breakup include misallocation of Hillary Clinton campaign money [DBR]
  • When in court, try to avoid following the example of “Girls Gone Wild” impresario Joe Francis [Lowering the Bar and more, earlier]
  • “Judge Allowed to Sue N.Y. Daily News, But Not a Lawyer Thought to Be a Source” [ABA Journal, NYLJ]
  • New Hampshire judge rules for divorced father who disapproves of homeschooling [Volokh]
  • ABA Journal is taking nominations for its annual best-of “Blawg 100” list [hint, nudge]

A reminder on comments moderation

Comments on this site are often automatically held for moderation, and appear after they are approved. Unfortunately, in a relatively small number of cases they get caught in the spam-comments filter. For reasons I’ve never been able to figure out, the software seems to take a dislike to certain commenters and throws most or all of their comments into the spam file, even though I never see anything visibly wrong with the content of the comments and even though the software is supposed to assign positive weight to being a previously approved commenter.

When it runs heavy, comment spam can amount to many hundreds of spams a day, which defeats the hope of sifting through them individually in search of legitimate comments, and means I just wind up deleting them in bulk. When the flow is light, as at the moment, I do try to make this effort, and sure enough two legitimate comments just showed up that had been wrongly marked as spam over the past day or two.

If your comment never posts, even though it’s innocuous or constructive, there’s a good chance this is why.

“Obama’s medical malpractice opportunity”

“In his speech tonight, the president shouldn’t forget tort reform.” (John Avlon of the Manhattan Institute, City Journal).

P.S. Maybe he was listening. In his speech tonight, Obama made a non-trivial gesture toward critics’ views on the subject, acknowledging that defensive medicine drives up costs and “prompting an eruption of applause from Republicans at Wednesday’s joint session of Congress.” [UPI]. From the same article:

“I know that the (George W.) Bush administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues,” Obama said. “It’s a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services (Kathleen Sebelius) to move forward on this initiative.”

On the politics of the gesture, see Jake Tapper/ABC, news-side WSJ (cross-posted from Point of Law).

Some reactions: Dr. Wes notices language recycled from the med-mal plan championed earlier by then-Sen. Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) My reaction? I think trying a bunch of demonstration projects to see how they work is actually one of the better reform ideas at the federal level, but obviously a great deal depends on how the demonstration projects are picked and designed. Projects might be selected from a list of ideas pre-vetted for acceptability to the litigation lobby, or at worst might even be designed to fail. I agree with Ron Miller: when it comes to actual policy, “Let’s just say President Obama is keeping his options open.” (bumped Thurs. a.m.)

And more: okay, maybe I gave the President too much credit above on having acknowledged the costs of defensive medicine: his exact wording was “defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs” (emphasis added). Ramesh Ponnuru: “A demonstration project for med-mal reform — don’t we already have one, called Texas?” Carter Wood notes that demonstration projects on med-mal reform have been shot down by Congressional Democrats in recent years. Dan Pero calls the gesture an “olive twig“. And from commenter Jack Wilson: “How come tort reform is the only part of this plan that needs to go through a demonstration project?”