<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Smoke, mirrors or an honest effort to fix the CPSIA?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rescuemarketing.com/blog/2009/01/19/cpsia-waxman-rush-letter/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rescuemarketing.com/blog/2009/01/19/cpsia-waxman-rush-letter/</link>
	<description>Strategic, common sense marketing, operations and tech advice that will strengthen your business - today!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:16:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://www.rescuemarketing.com/blog/2009/01/19/cpsia-waxman-rush-letter/comment-page-1/#comment-3549</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 06:50:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rescuemarketing.com/blog/?p=1635#comment-3549</guid>
		<description>@DH, 

Just a heads up, this is not and will never be a political blog. It&#039;s a business blog. As such, political discussions (and this comment is heading there in a hurry) are out of bounds here. Comments that do nothing but contribute political rhetoric and/or bluster will not be approved for public viewing.

That said, the law is politically agnostic - and this is the point I was trying to get across to you on Twitter: The CPSIA will just as easily destroy a Democrat&#039;s business as it will a Republican&#039;s and it will do so without a second thought to the politics of the owner.

As a result, it is up to all of us to fix it, regardless of our politics. Please...focus your energy on the phone discussing this law with your Senators and Reps, rather than wasting valuable time getting worked up about the politics of the law and its authors.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@DH, </p>
<p>Just a heads up, this is not and will never be a political blog. It&#8217;s a business blog. As such, political discussions (and this comment is heading there in a hurry) are out of bounds here. Comments that do nothing but contribute political rhetoric and/or bluster will not be approved for public viewing.</p>
<p>That said, the law is politically agnostic &#8211; and this is the point I was trying to get across to you on Twitter: The CPSIA will just as easily destroy a Democrat&#8217;s business as it will a Republican&#8217;s and it will do so without a second thought to the politics of the owner.</p>
<p>As a result, it is up to all of us to fix it, regardless of our politics. Please&#8230;focus your energy on the phone discussing this law with your Senators and Reps, rather than wasting valuable time getting worked up about the politics of the law and its authors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DeputyHeadmistress</title>
		<link>http://www.rescuemarketing.com/blog/2009/01/19/cpsia-waxman-rush-letter/comment-page-1/#comment-3548</link>
		<dc:creator>DeputyHeadmistress</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 06:06:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rescuemarketing.com/blog/?p=1635#comment-3548</guid>
		<description>Here&#039;s the problem with having the Democrats who wrote this bill order the current Commission to get off their duffs and make some firm policy decisions:
ALL their decisions have a short expiration date.
The Commission is supposed to have three members, not two.   In 2006, the third member resigned, and the Democrat Congress refused to approve his nominee, so he stopped trying to appoint the third member.
The Democrat Congress voted to extend the legitimacy of a  two person Commission   until August of 2009.  Then they voted that in 2009, it would become a five person Commission.
Therefore, President Obama will be appointing three new members, if not replacing the current two altogether, making an entirely new Commission (he has that right, of course).
The new Commission will have the authority to completely reverse whatever the current commission decides.  And Rick Wolenberg (sp?) posted on his blog that he&#039;s been told the current Commission has requested to meet with the Democrat authors of this bill to get some clarification, and they have refused, although they don&#039;t want that made public.

Here&#039;s why I think this matters: Rush is a primary sponsor of the bill.  Waxman, too.  These two know perfectly well what&#039;s wrong with it, Nancy Nord TOLD them back when they were passing it (that&#039;s in a New York Times Article at the time)- 

&lt;a href=&quot;http://learningresourcesinc.blogspot.com/2009/01/see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil.html&quot;&gt;Rick Woldenberg&lt;/a&gt; says:
&quot;My sources tell me that at the Congressional staff meeting on Friday Jan. 16 held to clear up &quot;misunderstandings&quot; and &quot;confusion&quot; 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 &quot;safety net&quot; for products. [That last remark is fascinating - I don&#039;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 &quot;unable&quot; 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 &quot;too busy&quot; to attend meetings with industry and the CPSC to discuss the details of the real life impact of the law.&quot;

It is the goal of the Congressional Democrats who wrote and passed this bill to make everybody blame the current Commission, and blind voters eyes to 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 mentioned, they&#039;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&#039;s ability to act. It&#039;s discouraging to see how easily they are able to do this.

The bill&#039;s sponsor was Bobby Rush, Democrat now pretending to be upset that the Commission won&#039;t fix his mess, even while secretly refusing to meet with the Commission to clarify.
If he wanted this mess fixed, he has the power to fix it.

Seeing people  to Waxman and Rush to &#039;save&#039; small crafters is like watching a flock of sheep run to the wolves for protection while complaining about the (admittedly poodle-like) watchdog.
The watchdog didn&#039;t do his job. He signed the Democrat bill presented him by the fili-buster proof (thanks to spineless Republicans) Democrat majority.
That doesn&#039;t make the wolves your friends.

&lt;abbr&gt;&lt;em&gt;DeputyHeadmistresss last blog post..&lt;a href=&quot;http://heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.com/2009/01/different-strokes-for-different-folks.html&quot;&gt;Different Strokes for Different Folks&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/abbr&gt;&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s the problem with having the Democrats who wrote this bill order the current Commission to get off their duffs and make some firm policy decisions:<br />
ALL their decisions have a short expiration date.<br />
The Commission is supposed to have three members, not two.   In 2006, the third member resigned, and the Democrat Congress refused to approve his nominee, so he stopped trying to appoint the third member.<br />
The Democrat Congress voted to extend the legitimacy of a  two person Commission   until August of 2009.  Then they voted that in 2009, it would become a five person Commission.<br />
Therefore, President Obama will be appointing three new members, if not replacing the current two altogether, making an entirely new Commission (he has that right, of course).<br />
The new Commission will have the authority to completely reverse whatever the current commission decides.  And Rick Wolenberg (sp?) posted on his blog that he&#8217;s been told the current Commission has requested to meet with the Democrat authors of this bill to get some clarification, and they have refused, although they don&#8217;t want that made public.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s why I think this matters: Rush is a primary sponsor of the bill.  Waxman, too.  These two know perfectly well what&#8217;s wrong with it, Nancy Nord TOLD them back when they were passing it (that&#8217;s in a New York Times Article at the time)- </p>
<p><a href="http://learningresourcesinc.blogspot.com/2009/01/see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil.html">Rick Woldenberg</a> says:<br />
&#8220;My sources tell me that at the Congressional staff meeting on Friday Jan. 16 held to clear up &#8220;misunderstandings&#8221; and &#8220;confusion&#8221; 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 &#8220;safety net&#8221; 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.]</p>
<p>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 &#8220;unable&#8221; 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 &#8211; 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 &#8220;too busy&#8221; to attend meetings with industry and the CPSC to discuss the details of the real life impact of the law.&#8221;</p>
<p>It is the goal of the Congressional Democrats who wrote and passed this bill to make everybody blame the current Commission, and blind voters eyes to 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 mentioned, they&#8217;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&#8217;s ability to act. It&#8217;s discouraging to see how easily they are able to do this.</p>
<p>The bill&#8217;s sponsor was Bobby Rush, Democrat now pretending to be upset that the Commission won&#8217;t fix his mess, even while secretly refusing to meet with the Commission to clarify.<br />
If he wanted this mess fixed, he has the power to fix it.</p>
<p>Seeing people  to Waxman and Rush to &#8216;save&#8217; small crafters is like watching a flock of sheep run to the wolves for protection while complaining about the (admittedly poodle-like) watchdog.<br />
The watchdog didn&#8217;t do his job. He signed the Democrat bill presented him by the fili-buster proof (thanks to spineless Republicans) Democrat majority.<br />
That doesn&#8217;t make the wolves your friends.</p>
<p><abbr><em>DeputyHeadmistresss last blog post..<a href="http://heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.com/2009/01/different-strokes-for-different-folks.html">Different Strokes for Different Folks</a></em></abbr></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

