CPSC Head To Washington Post: My Trips Paid For By Manufacturers Were Okay!

A letter to the editor by CPSC chairperson Nancy was published in the Washington Post today. She feels that the Washington Post misrepresented the nature of several trips she took, trips which were paid for in full or in part by companies under her agency’s domain. Particularly, she got peeved about people saying how the CPSC has only one toy inspector.

The characterization comes about from a NYT article in early September which reported the CPSC has only one full-time toy inspector, pictured, performing his impact tests in the swing area behind the door to his cramped office. See how we slice the hairs on that one?

Committed to Consumer Safety [Washington Post]
PREVIOUSLY:CPSC Head’s Travel Paid For By Industry Groups
CPSC Chair Rebuffs Calls For Resignation
Washington Has Had Enough Of CPSC Chair Nancy Nord
CPSC Chair Thinks Senate Bill Would Overwhelm The Agency


Edit Your Comment

  1. nemesiscw says:

    Hah! Props for using Clarrisa Explains it All.

  2. Myron says:

    That’s a surprisingly weak rebuttal.

    “This travel was exclusively to further the important work of the agency, namely to carry our enforcement message to the toy industry and other industries.”

    Ok. So tell me again why the trip was paid for by industry. Why wouldn’t the agency she heads pay for the trip? It makes no sense.

    “Finally, the assertion that the agency has only one toy inspector is just flat-out wrong”

    Ok. How many toy inspectors are there?

    Weak. Very, weak. I am not reassured. How long until adults are in charge of government again?

  3. Buran says:

    How is this idiot not fired? Anyone with any competency would be jumping all over the chance to get more funding to fix all the problems. Yet this idiot keeps trying to turn down the money… WTF?

  4. l951b951 says:

    @Buran: Ummm, look at the president. That’s why she’s not fired.

  5. protest says:

    it is very strange. from what i’ve heard so far she doesn’t want the money because then her agency would have to take on a greater scope of issues, they would have to expand. either she fighting to stay lazy (less work) or she’s fighting to keep something under wraps.
    if millions of dollars and more jurisdiction gets thrown her way, that will mean more people looking over her shoulder.

  6. Bay State Darren says:

    Oh c’mon, it’s not like toys could ever be dangerous or ever…oh yeah: that whole lead thing. We should pay more attention to toys. Who’s up for a game of Lawn Darts?

  7. Buran says:

    @l951b951: Ummmmm, look at her shitty performance and explain how this is excusable. To anyone.

  8. Buran says:

    @Bay State Darren: I miss that game. I was careful and no one ever got hurt when I played.

  9. Cogito Ergo Bibo says:

    @Buran: You must like your siblings a lot more than mine all liked each other.

    Although, to be fair, you are open to just as much damage being chased around the house by a 10-year old brother, armed with regular darts. I don’t see those being pulled from the market. Anyone up for lawn darts, with real darts?

  10. MENDOZA!!!!! says:

    this chick is freakin’ baked.

  11. darkened says:

    @PROTEST no she’s fighting the creation of beaucracy that will make the agency completely pointless. They want to spend 100 million to create a hotline for every person to call in and bitch about consumer products. How will do you think it will take to sort through claims and prank calls to finally find the one valid my crib killed my child?

  12. boreddusty says:

    Not interested in arguing about the issue, but I love the ‘shop job.

  13. protest says:

    damn, it costs 100 million dollars to set up a hotline?? that thing better serve me tea and give me a manicure every time i call in!

  14. Buran says:

    @Cogito Ergo Bibo: I don’t have any siblings, but even if I did, I think you’d have to be a moron to manage to hurt anyone with a lawn dart. Just don’t throw it in the direction of people.

  15. Buran says:

    @darkened: And their current “system” is better than a hotline how?

  16. fileunder says:

    the lab coast makes him look official, though.

  17. goller321 says:

    “You’ve done a heck of a job Brownie…. errr I mean Nancy…”
    She should be out on her ass. This and so many other reasons are why I gave the repukes the finger years ago. They’re nothing but corporate shills.

  18. mconfoy says:

    @darkened: Didn’t you say this before? “Am I the only person that thinks if your kid is so stupid and you’re such a bad parent that they choke on one of their toys, it’s a funny thing called natural selection making the gene pool better for the rest of us?” By asking that question you prove that being stupid does not get you killed by natural selection. Now go away.

  19. mconfoy says:

    @protest: We are spending $190 billion in Iraq this year. We have average $180 billion over 4 years now, which is $720 billion. $100 million is .014% of that. Think about it. Does Iraq give you tea and a manicure even once? Or just dead bodies?

  20. protest says:

    do you have a point or are you just running your mouth? the two are not related at all. how can you parallel money for a war and money for a stupid hotline that probably won’t do anything to help the intended target? i was cracking a joke about the outlandish cost for something that seems reletively simple. my opinion on the war is completely seperate, and your comment is in poor taste.

  21. RvLeshrac says:


    Either you’re for government waste, or you’re against government waste. You can’t pick them individually based on what the waste is for.

    That said, $100 million to aid an ailing consumer (supposedly) safety agency that can’t afford testers is certainly much better than $100bn/year thrown at something which is accomplishing nothing.

    Waste is waste, and funding is funding. Calling one the other doesn’t make it so.

    Of course, it might be a better idea to throw this money at the FDA first…

  22. Rachacha says:

    The Washington Post did a follow up story today that looks further back in history on gift travel going back almost 10 years and explains what was done during the trips. From the article when talking about justifying the acceptance of gift travel, the formaer Director of Compliance said “I would indicate that there could be the appearance of a conflict of interest, but that the interests of the government outweighed the appearance of a conflict.”

  23. mconfoy says:

    @protest: Poor taste? Tasted pretty good to me. Did I add too much salt?

  24. pkrieger says:

    @RvLeshrac: It also mentions the spuriously named “Restoring Truth in Regulatory Travel Act.” How is this restoring the truth in travel? They aren’t doing this secretly.
    This act would prohibit entities under an agency’s regulation to pay for trips. This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not every agency and department has the budget to pay for trips for their reviewers or inspectors to travel to educate the people who will have to follow their sometimes cryptic regulations. Before you say that those people should travel to go see them, it is a bit difficult to fit an entire industry in someone’s office. Will this prohibit an organization paying for a charter bus for 15 gov’t people to come to a meeting in a conference center?

    Perhaps a better idea would be for an agency to be able to “bill” someone for their employee’s travel.

  25. protest says:


    this topic has nothing to do with the war, nor did i ever once say how i felt about government spending on it. if you are one of those people that has to inject the war into every single conversation, regardless of topic, well then i feel sorry for you. there is a time and place for stuff, and berating someone on their opinion of the war when the topic is completely different makes you look like an ass. of course government spending is out of control, thus my sarcasm, but i don’t need you ramming one example of it down my throat, telling me i have to pick a side.

  26. RvLeshrac says:


    I’m against all gifts and contributions from *all* lobbying groups. I want groups that display *FACTS*, not cash, not coats, not airplane tickets and hotel rooms. I don’t care if the lobbying party is “Bankers for Bending Consumers Over a Table” or “People for the Distribution of Free Candy and Hookers.”


    You do have to pick a side. Waste, again, is waste.

    If you think the war is just or unjust, that’s fine, I don’t really care. Just remember that we’re spending billions of dollars, and very little of it seems to actually make it to our troops – that’s waste. “Defense Spending” is very rarely earmarked for defense, and even more rarely earmarked for troop outfitting – just take a look at the budget.