Obama and Top Ten issues ?

[#1]

What ever happened with the CPSIA being in the Top Ten Issues presented to Obama??

I thought he'd save us. At least have the congress look at the stupidness of the law and effects again.

I thought he'd care about saving the jobs - businesses in jeopardy.

Did I miss it?

[Former_Member]

Yeah, this thread makes a lot of sense.
Somehow President Obama is personally responsible for poor people's children going naked because we've all been stripped of our right to manufacture and sell products made from substances that cause cancer and brain damage.

Why wait until the next election- IMPEACH HIM NOW!

[Former_Member]

I'd like to point out that it was a lack of regulation that led to this problem in the first place.

Here in the US we sold our interests to the lowest bidder in the name of profits for a few at the top. Made in the USA used to have a well respected meaning. Suddenly sold-cheep-at-Wall-Mart was more important.

So we saw out manufacturing jobs sent over seas with little to no oversight. Enter the lead and other dangerous products finding their way into our children's products again.

Small government is not the answer either. We just need BOTH sides to sit down and provide real long-term solutions rather than things that are reactionary, and look good on paper and serve only to bolster re-election goals.

[Former_Member]

amy- lol. or not since it's so not funny anymore.

and ditto to purplemoonfibers.

[MysticSilks]

Be more worried about HB2454----that promises to tax the people of the USA, and cause the costs on everything to rise unbelievably, if that bill is passed by the Senate, we are all in serious trouble--
It is also cvalled the CAPS &Trade Bill.

[Former_Member]

MysticSilks
MysticSilks says:
Be more worried about HB2454----that promises to tax the people of the USA, and cause the costs on everything to rise unbelievably, if that bill is passed by the Senate, we are all in serious trouble--
It is also cvalled the CAPS &Trade Bill.
*********************************
Political Discussion are down in etc.

I don't see how any of these posts are acutally helpful to those of us that make children's items.

In fact it's doing a disservice to those that do because all the HELPFUL USEFUL information is being buried by the fluffy "i hate the government" crap.

[belovedbows]

I agree with purplemoonfibers: BOTH sides need to put their political views aside and figure out what is best for our children and our country! Just because someone on whatever side wrote the law doesn't make it a great law and they shouldn't vote for it just because they are part of that political party. I need to know that the items I am buying here is the USA are safe from the start. There are people every where who make items for their children and when they buy something manufactured for the purpose of making something they assume it is safe. That is where it should start. I purchase everything I use from a supplier who has certification that the items she sells are safe, that should be enough.

[theferriswheels]

The problem is that the majority in BOTH parties have let us down horribly. They are more interested in re-election and special interests than any of us 'little guys'.

But I have to strongly disagree that is was a lack of regulation that caused the lead in toys problem (and I have a child with lead poisoning - so believe me - I'm SENSITIVE to this stuff!) The problem was the the laws already on the books were not enforced. We didn't need a new law, we just need rule of law! Stronger laws (ridiculous small business killing laws at that) will not solve this problem. Enforcing existing lead laws would solve this problem.

This is seen over and over - from the economic meltdown, Bernie Madoff, the border, etc... Congress likes to look like it's doing something by passing more laws, meanwhile if the law enforcement, regulators, etc... were doing their job in the first place, these would all be non-issues.

Just my 2 cents, fwiw...

[Former_Member]

Well... it WAS courteous...

ferriswheel, you are correct. It is NOT lack of regulation that got us this legislation; we already had them on the books (for 30 yrs?). In general, regulation ONLY helps the big guys, not small business.

It is B-O-T-H parties' who are culpable for where we're. And it doesn't help when we get so invested in who we vote for that our feelings get hurt just because someone says something we don't like about *our* party/Rep/President, etc. I've seen it time and again in these forums and others; once someone says "the Democrats/Republicans/Obama/Bush did XYZ,..." some people (myself included) seem to view it as an extension of ourselves and we get defensive. We need to stop it. It doesn't help anything! We all have to get past the party designations in order to have healthy, honest discussions to find the best path. It cannot be dictated from above or right or left. I know it sounds corny, but we need to see ourselves as Americans first (repeat: FIRST), party designation a distant second.

In my opinion, though, these political discussions actually DO relate in a way to the CPSIA, as far as control by the government goes. These things are all related along the thread of how much government control should this nation have, and there are certain players with this Act who are now in charge of other, much more dangerous legislation. These discussions play a role in our personal vetting of the politicians and their effect on our lives and businesses. There are certainly others who can word it more eloquently than I, though.

*off soapbox, slinking out of room*

[Former_Member]

littlethingsboutique says:


In my opinion, though, these political discussions actually DO relate in a way to the CPSIA, as far as control by the government goes. These things are all related along the thread of how much government control should this nation have, and there are certain players with this Act who are now in charge of other, much more dangerous legislation. These discussions play a role in our personal vetting of the politicians and their effect on our lives and businesses. There are certainly others who can word it more eloquently than I, though.

**********************************

I may not be that eloquent either, but I agree with you on this point. As long as we, as a society, expect the government to "fix" everything, we better get used to the over reaching control of the government. Say good bye to personal freedoms in the name of "equality, and fairness."

I could go on, but I'll leave it at that.


But I will say one more thing...I do find it funny that people are actually thinking the government will save us from the government! LOL As IF they will ever give up their money or power!! Too funny!

[pattispolkadots]

littlethingsboutique says:

In my opinion, though, these political discussions actually DO relate in a way to the CPSIA, as far as control by the government goes. These things are all related along the thread of how much government control should this nation have, and there are certain players with this Act who are now in charge of other, much more dangerous legislation. These discussions play a role in our personal vetting of the politicians and their effect on our lives and businesses.

Very well said! I don't make children's items, but I have kept up a bit with this issue and signed a petition against small "businesses" being saddled with these regs. My children are all grown now, but I have looked at some of Etsy's seller's items and they are so precious...talented people here! I would much rather buy items from one of Ety's sellers than a large corporation....much cooler products!

I really feel for the talented folks here who are being pressured and some pushed out of business (and the customers!) because of this legislation and the lack of politicians to listen and act.

I truly wish you all the best.

[Former_Member]

I'm starting to feel that if Congress couldn't be bothered to read it before passing it, then I'm going to be equally worried about the whys and wherefores. I've got tie-dyeing to do, and I was completely burned out on the CPSIA issue.

I'm still more conscious about what I choose to list and sell and give as gifts, to be sure, but I've also decided to take some (more) time to regroup. I was horribly sick for over a month this past Spring and I'm just about up to speed again. THEN I'll be hammering on my MOC's (Members of Congress) doors yet again!

But I'm not going to blame one party or the other. ATM I'm not about to vote again for my senator (the "honorable" guy from MD) who didn't just blow me off but repeatedly sent me the same form letter when I asked specific questions - I'm planning on going public (at the local level) with WHY I won't be voting for him, even tho he and I are both (supposedly) Democrats. The voting public here has a right to know who's failing to represent them. :-(

[Former_Member]

Hi, Generations! Sorry to hear you were sick; I hope you're better now.

You make a very good point about your MOC. Despite being of the same party, he's not representing you. Does he represent his other constituents (of all parties) to the same level? Do his votes and actions accurately reflect his district's makeup and the desires of his constituency, or is he playing more to the federal level?

These are the kinds of questions we should ALL be asking ourselves, regardless of party affiliation. Despite its devastating effects, I actually have the CPSIA to thank for reawakening a latent interest in these questions.

[GoodEyeLLC]

I heard someone on the news last night suggest that we actually go in person to our representatives offices to voice grievances. I've sent letters, signed petitions, blah blah, & I always get the canned letter in reply. Maybe I will take this advice & see what happens? I feel a little intimidated waltzing into a government office to complain about stuff, but I'm fresh out of other ideas.

[Former_Member]

Twodoves says:
What ever happened with the CPSIA being in the Top Ten Issues presented to Obama??
I thought he'd save us.
........

for real? Was it really in his top ten at one point?
He IS Superman, ...or maybe Batman... but even they can only focus on one crisis at a time. I'm sure he would love to solve every citizen's problems personally, but I think he's kinda busy with other stuff right now. Like keeping two different unfriendly nuclear powers from blowing us to kingdom come, for starters.

sorry if it sounds like I'm making fun of you, I just cant seem to help it. NOT trying to be mean. It's just -wow- the things everybody expects from the guy seem a little unrealistic to me.

belovedbows says:
... I need to know that the items I am buying here is the USA are safe from the start. There are people every where who make items for their children and when they buy something manufactured for the purpose of making something they assume it is safe. That is where it should start. I purchase everything I use from a supplier who has certification that the items she sells are safe, that should be enough.
.......

The way it is now, that's enough for you to MAKE a safe item, but not to SELL it. According to the law- whatever you make from different components is classified as a new item, and needs to be tested/certified, even if all the components already have been. That's one of the things about the CPSIA that will hopefully be fixed- it's redundant, it wastes money, and if everyone actually did it- there aren't enough testing facilities to accommodate all the products that are being made.



pattispolkadots says:
... I have kept up a bit with this issue and signed a petition against small "businesses" being saddled with these regs.
.....

If you're talking about second-hand shops (thrift stores, etc.) then I agree with you. It makes no sense to have to certify to REsell products that have already been deemed safe. The certificates that CPSIA requires are supposed to be provided to retailers by manufacturers. It's not like every individual item has a certificate attached that stays with it for it's lifetime. crazy.

Otherwise, I'm not sure I would sign that petition. I think the laws SHOULD apply to small businesses, but the laws need to make sense! I would rather see this law adjusted/amended than see some manufacturers be exempt from it.

Why shouldn't small businesses have to follow safety regulations? ...Because they only have enough market-share to harm dozens of people instead of millions?
As much as I want to have sympathy for the sellers here, people lose me when they start saying that the rules that everyone else is subject to shouldn't apply to them. (That's my general reaction to ALL the CSPIA threads, not to anyone's particular comment.)

[Former_Member]

amyblandford, you make some good points. The issue of revising the CPSIA was in the top ten issues on change.org, which had pledged to present those issues to the President on inauguration day. Frankly, I think that we lost credibility being lower on the list than legalizing marijuana, but that's just my opinion. Of course, it was not long after that that I read that the President is for "lead free toys" (one of his many campaign promises), so I'm very skeptical of his desire to "fix" this.

I do agree that small businesses should have to follow safety regulations. HOWEVER, those regulations NEED to be as minimal and unintrusive as possible. The larger issue is that regulations generally hurt smaller concerns more than larger ones. And when those regulations are overly intrusive, ineffective and don't actually make anyone any safer... There's a lot of discussion (and has been for many years) about regulations in all industries; those on the left tend to want more, those on the right tend to want fewer, and believe in caveat emptor and individual responsibility, etc. (I know it's not a hard-and-fast rule, which is why I say *tend*). For instance, we could have had less expensive, more fuel efficient cars 20 years ago, but safety regulations have made it impossible (if I remember what I read correctly). Should it be the government's job to protect me and my family from everything? Am I not the arbiter of risk for my family? Can I not make a judgement call for myself about buying a handmade item (or anything, really)?

I'm not saying this as a "no regulations whatsoever" kind of gal, because I understand and even agree that there are many instances in which you need them to protect the greater good. But in the case of the CPSIA (and probably most currently on the books), it was unwarranted and unnecessary.

[Former_Member]

amyblandford says:


sorry if it sounds like I'm making fun of you, I just cant seem to help it. NOT trying to be mean. It's just -wow- the things everybody expects from the guy seem a little unrealistic to me.


******************************

Ummm...Its his JOB. He actually asked to be President. I don't think its too much to aks him to follow through with his promises. Or were they empty promises?

Of coarse, I never believed him in the first place, so I'm not surprised at his lack of inaction. His history of action/inaction was more telling than any of his campaign speaches.



***********************************************
littlethingsboutique says:
amyblandford, you make some good points. The issue of revising the CPSIA was in the top ten issues on change.org, which had pledged to present those issues to the President on inauguration day. Frankly, I think that we lost credibility being lower on the list than legalizing marijuana, but that's just my opinion. Of course, it was not long after that that I read that the President is for "lead free toys" (one of his many campaign promises), so I'm very skeptical of his desire to "fix" this.

I do agree that small businesses should have to follow safety regulations. HOWEVER, those regulations NEED to be as minimal and unintrusive as possible. The larger issue is that regulations generally hurt smaller concerns more than larger ones. And when those regulations are overly intrusive, ineffective and don't actually make anyone any safer... There's a lot of discussion (and has been for many years) about regulations in all industries; those on the left tend to want more, those on the right tend to want fewer, and believe in caveat emptor and individual responsibility, etc. (I know it's not a hard-and-fast rule, which is why I say *tend*). For instance, we could have had less expensive, more fuel efficient cars 20 years ago, but safety regulations have made it impossible (if I remember what I read correctly). Should it be the government's job to protect me and my family from everything? Am I not the arbiter of risk for my family? Can I not make a judgement call for myself about buying a handmade item (or anything, really)?

******************************************

Littlethingsboutique....

You are on a roll!! I love it!

We always need to be wary of political action. They tend to create legislation with re-election in mind rather than the long term effects of a bill and the true worth of sucha bill. Did we really need this new CPSIA law? Or would have enforcement of current laws been enough?

[artaltered]

Original vote tallies:

House
Dec 19, 2007
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-1185

Yea: 407 total (94%) 215(d) 192(r) 0(i)
Not Voting: 25 total (6%) 16(d) 9(r) 0(i)


Senate
Mar 6, 2008
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2008-41

Yea: 79 total (79%) 45(d) 32(r) 2(i)
Nay: 13 total (13%) 0(d) 13(r) 0(i)
Not Voting: 8 total (8%) 5(d) 3(r) 0(i)

How strangely bipartisan. How is this Obama's fault?

[Former_Member]

artaltered, NO ONE is saying it's the President's fault.

We all have heard the tallies; only one voted against in the House (Rep. Paul, bless his crazy l'il heart), a handful in the Senate (Both Sen. McCain and then-Sen. Obama weren't present, being on the campaign trail). Coming into an election year and hoping to be reelected, who in his or her right mind was going to vote against it? It was "to protect children" for goodness' sake! And President Bush signed it (despite being against it) because it was veto-proof. In my opinion, that's not true bipartisanship; it's political expediency for self-preservation. (see my comments on pp. 2 and 4 of this thread.) But that's not the point.

The point I've been making in this whole thread is that we need to DIVORCE ourselves from the political party tit-for-tat. If someone says that the Democrats introduced the bill, pushed it through, etc., it is more as a statement of fact than an attack on a party. For anyone to get defensive about it does absolutely NO good. It is divisive and we need to stay united in our efforts to fight this.

Going to sew now.

[Former_Member]

... before I go...

Hi, MyMotherMary! My l'il ol' fingers are on a roll today. Don't know where that came from. I was in a HUGE funk yesterday (even threw myself a pity party). Apparently, it helped a little.

[Former_Member]

Yep...still on a roll! lol

Its not about who signed it when. Its about what are they going to do about it NOW!

All this talk of past politics does nothing about our future. I'll talk to my rep if you talk to yours. Mine has bad breath by the way...so its not always easy :)

[ilovevintagestuff]

I just think we need to send a strong message at the next election and vote against the incumbent no matter what party he/she is in. The message is: You creeps forgot who you where suppose to be working for so take a hike. Let's clean house (and Senate) and try out some new people.

I can't think on one person in Washington right now who is worth a hill of beans - starting with the President and right on down to the most junior of representatives. They all suck and all are self-serving.

How anyone can look the people in the eye without a total sense of shame knowing that they are voting on bills they never read and have no intentions of ever reading--and we keep voting for these fools---shame on us!

[Former_Member]

ilovevintagestuff: Hear! Hear!

It's not about partisanship, or pushing an agenda. It's about appropriately representing their constituents, not special interests (no matter which side of the aisle they're on).

[Former_Member]

God help us all! Keep writing letters to your representatives, we do.

[Former_Member]

IMHO Everything the government has their hands in is usually a disaster.Somehow I HOPE we can make a CHANGE :)

[Former_Member]

I’m not going to make any political statements here.

Lets move on to HR2454 (climate bill) – Call your representatives in the house and tell them NO!



SEC. 274. PRODUCT CARBON DISCLOSURE PROGRAM.
(a) EPA Study- The Administrator shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of establishing a national program for measuring, reporting, publicly disclosing, and labeling products or materials sold in the United States for their carbon content, and shall, not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, transmit a report to Congress which shall include the following:
(1) A determination of whether a national product carbon disclosure program and labeling program would be effective in achieving the intended goals of achieving greenhouse gas reductions and an examination of existing programs globally and their strengths and weaknesses.
(2) Criteria for identifying and prioritizing sectors and products and processes that should be covered in such program or programs.
(3) An identification of products, processes, or sectors whose inclusion could have a substantial carbon impact (prioritizing industrial products such as iron and steel, aluminum, cement, chemicals, and paper products, and also including food, beverage, hygiene, cleaning, household cleaners, construction, metals, clothing, semiconductor, and consumer electronics).
(4) Suggested methodology and protocols for measuring the carbon content of the products across the entire carbon lifecycle of such products for use in a carbon disclosure program and labeling program.
(5) A review of existing greenhouse gas product accounting standards, methodologies, and practices including the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, ISO 14040/44, ISO 14067, and Publically Available Specification 2050, and including a review of the strengths and weaknesses of each.
(6) A survey of secondary databases including the Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey and evaluate the quality of data for use in a product carbon disclosure program and product carbon labeling program and an identification of gaps in the data relative to the potential purposes of a national product carbon disclosure program and product carbon labeling program and development of recommendations for addressing these data gaps.
(7) An assessment of the utility of comparing products and the appropriateness of product carbon standards.
(8) An evaluation of the information needed on a label for clear and accurate communication, including what pieces of quantitative and qualitative information needs to be disclosed.
(9) An evaluation of the appropriate boundaries of the carbon lifecycle analysis for different sectors and products.
(10) An analysis of whether default values should be developed for products whose producer does not participate in the program or does not have data to support a disclosure or label and determine best ways to develop such default values.
(11) A recommendation of certification and verification options necessary to assure the quality of the information and avoid greenwashing or the use of insubstantial or meaningless environmental claims to promote a product.
(12) An assessment of options for educating consumers about product carbon content and the product carbon disclosure program and product carbon labeling program.
(13) An analysis of the costs and timelines associated with establishing a national product carbon disclosure program and product carbon labeling program, including options for a phased approach. Costs should include those for businesses associated with the measurement of carbon footprints and those associated with creating a product carbon label and managing and operating a product carbon labeling program, and options for minimizing these costs.
(14) An evaluation of incentives (such as financial incentives, brand reputation, and brand loyalty) to determine whether reductions in emissions can be accelerated through encouraging more efficient manufacturing or by encouraging preferences for lower-emissions products to substitute for higher-emissions products whose level of performance is no better.

(d) Definitions- As used in this section--
(1) the term `carbon content' means the amount of greenhouse gas emissions and their warming impact on the atmosphere expressed in carbon dioxide equivalent associated with a product's value chain;
(2) the term `carbon footprint' means the level of greenhouse gas emissions produced by a particular activity, service, or entity; and
(3) the term `carbon lifecycle' means the greenhouse gas emissions that are released as part of the processes of creating, producing, processing or manufacturing, modifying, transporting, distributing, storing, using, recycling, or disposing of goods and services.