CPSC Chair Rebuffs Calls For Resignation

Despite Democrats clamoring for her resignation, CPSC chair Nancy Nord says she’s staying put. Nord is a shill-bag. She couldn’t answer direct questions from Congress. She couldn’t even say “yes” when they asked her if the CPSC needed more money. Toss all the bums out and get some new ones in quick. Perhaps someone with a track record of consumer advocacy? What a concept! Congress’ proposals might be over-reaching, but we need someone better than Nancy Nord to tell us. Her non-resignation letter follows…

This week, several members of Congress publicly called for my resignation as CPSC Acting Chairman, citing a letter I recently sent to the Senate Commerce Committee expressing my views on pending legislation before that committee. In the letter (pdf), I respectfully pointed out what I think are several unwise proposals in a bill to reauthorize and expand the mission of the CPSC. However, despite media reports to the contrary, nowhere in the letter (or anywhere else) did I assert that the CPSC does not need additional resources.

In fact, quite to the contrary, the main message of the letter is that if CPSC resources are diverted to new missions and mandates, we will need a dramatic upsurge in our personnel and funding, far beyond what either the House or Senate are proposing for our pending budget. Nor have I ever asserted that the agency does not need new legal authority. Again, the opposite is true. In July I submitted to Congress a legislative package seeking no fewer than 40 new statutory enforcement tools and other changes to enhance our ability to protect the public from unsafe products. To date, the Committee has only seen fit to adopt a few of those proposals.

I am very troubled by the prospect that any time a federal agency official is critical of legislation pending before Congress, congressional leaders may seek to have that official silenced or even dismissed. At the request of the committee, and as follow-up to a meeting I had with committee staff, I provided what I and the agency’s senior staff believed were honest, constructive and apolitical comments and suggestions on a bill that could have a dramatic effect on our agency and our ability to carry out our core mission.

I do not intend to resign because I care passionately about the mission of this agency. However, I am saddened and troubled by the tactics being used in an attempt to silence debate on important policy issues.

CPSC Acting Chairman Issues Statement on Letter to Congress [CPSC]
Nord’s letter to Congress

PREVIOUSLY: Washington Has Had Enough Of CPSC Chair Nancy Nord

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Uh oh... Cleveland says:

    “I do not intend to resign because I care passionately about the mission of this agency.”

    As long as the mission is:

    1. Suppress consumer safety complaints
    2.
    3. Profit!

  2. charmaniac says:

    Another Republican who is a complete disaster. What a surprise.

  3. ParkerTheDog says:

    With all the rigmarole in her answers, she’d make a great manager at a large company somewhere in corporate America. Say… maybe Comcast?

  4. middy says:

    She’s a Republican! Burn her at the stake!

  5. catnapped says:

    @Uh oh… Cleveland: I think your #2 is “Kiss Der President’s behind”

  6. burgundyyears says:

    @middy: Get the pitchforks and torches! Consumerist knows best!!!

  7. humphrmi says:

    Having not read her original letter, her complaints ring true. This Democrat-controlled congress (which, by the way, I helped elect – before you accuse me of political sour grapes) is more interested in embarking on a witch-hunt than affecting real change. Despite having lots of chances.

  8. CurbRunner says:

    @humphrmi:

    “This Democrat-controlled congress is more interested in embarking on a witch-hunt than affecting real change. Despite having lots of chances.”

    It wouldn’t matter anymore if real change starts in Congress, everybody knows it stops at the White House. Checks and balances are a dead horse in this country.
    That’s just another established prerequisite on the march to fascism.

  9. hubris says:

    @CurbRunner: Except that the president’s vetoes *can* be overturned. The whole lot of them just haven’t been able to pull their heads out of their asses to get a 2/3 vote on anything he’s vetoed. Hello ineffective politicians…who would have thought?

    I say we trash everything, remake election rules where everyone has a set maximum amount of money they can use on a campaign, mandatory debates, and everyone gets the same amount of airtime. No more buying elections.

  10. middy says:

    @CurbRunner: So… when Hillary is in the White House in 2009 are you still going to be muttering about “the march to fascism”, or do you think Bush is going to declare martial law and refuse to step down?
    Have you checked out WalMart’s low prices on psych-med prescriptions?

  11. Dibbler says:

    @middy: HAHAHAHAHA That was great!

    Not knowing what all this is about, and just reading CPSC chair Nancy Nord’s letter, I think she made a lot of sense, therefore I support her. If this is such a big deal to Congress then just “fire the b*tch”. Why does everyone in the government have to resign? Everyone in government and all the fanboy supporters of both parties spout their own side of the story so I never know who to believe. Anybody have any actual facts on this issue?

  12. magus_melchior says:

    “I do not intend to resign…”

    Isn’t that what Al Gonzales said?