Congress Throws Out Baby (Clothes) with the Bathwater

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

I already blogged this on MN C4L (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=7321), so I'll just paste in here. If you want to do your own research, you may google"Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008."

Congress Throws Out Baby (Clothes) with the Bathwater

Congress, in its impeccable wisdom, effectively voted last year to shut down the children's resale clothing business via the "Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008." Not a soul in the House dared to vote against "children's safety," proving many in the Congressional cesspool of counter-productivity neglect to read legislation before voting. (I'll cut a break for the 25 who abstained, as they potentially didn't vote because they hadn't an opportunity to read the bill.)

The act requires lead testing of all products sold for children aged twelve and under, including but not limited to clothing and toys, regardless of the date of manufacturing and the high improbability of lead in the clothing, particularly that manufactured domestically. Goodwill, other thrift stores, and one-person shops reselling new and used children's clothing, making a couple dollars per item, would have to forgo a year's worth of profit to fund third-party testing services, essentially putting most out of business. Further, as I understand it, the testing requires the destruction of an individual unit out of a batch, and would therefore not work for unique items.

Taking effect February 10, 2009, this ex post facto regulatory taking comes precisely at a time when lower-income and newly unemployed parents most need inexpensive children's clothing and the dollars they receive from selling or consigning their children's briefly used items.

While clothing is one of the few areas in which the market demands recycling, stores with existing, untested merchandise will have to opt for sending truckloads of perfectly good clothes to the landfill. And parents who purchased that expensive special occasion dress with plans to resell it after one wear are simply out the money. Not even Goodwill can take it now.

After planning my own recession-proof business, a children's resale shop, where one was lacking in my neighborhood, I'm lucky to have found this news story (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-thrift2-2009jan02,0,2083247.story) yesterday, and not after signing a lease. Although I am out some minor capital expenses and inventory costs, the regulatory taking could have had a worse toll, such as the $100,000 fines or five-year's imprisonment.

[Kludge]

Good job, government. World ain't right these days. Gotta protect from them terr'ists tryin' ta kill children by applying poison ta their second-hand clothes and whatnot. Terrirists is ever'where. Can't be too careful.

[danberkeley]

So people working from home who knit baby sweaters for sale are going to have to get their merchandise tested? The government seriously wants to kill the poor.

[lynnf]

these artificial persons called corporations - yes corporate law constructs an artificial person - are kicking our tails -- the tails of the real people. this is just the beginning. before, they set up credit card regulations to allow jacking up interest rates and penalties and limiting bankruptcy. now these clothing regulations. in the future they will eliminate vitamins without a prescription and force us to eat genetically modified food and other foods that poison us. they will eliminate anything that has any chance to reduce their maximum profit. and we'll either fight it and vanquish their power or we'll sink into total slavery. nearly already there.


lynn

[danberkeley]

EDIT: wrong thread

[paulitics]

Curious time to kill the clothing resell business. When is enough, enough?

[RevolutionSD]

I already blogged this on MN C4L (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=7321), so I'll just paste in here. If you want to do your own research, you may google"Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008."

Congress Throws Out Baby (Clothes) with the Bathwater

Congress, in its impeccable wisdom, effectively voted last year to shut down the children's resale clothing business via the "Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008." Not a soul in the House dared to vote against "children's safety," proving many in the Congressional cesspool of counter-productivity neglect to read legislation before voting. (I'll cut a break for the 25 who abstained, as they potentially didn't vote because they hadn't an opportunity to read the bill.)

The act requires lead testing of all products sold for children aged twelve and under, including but not limited to clothing and toys, regardless of the date of manufacturing and the high improbability of lead in the clothing, particularly that manufactured domestically. Goodwill, other thrift stores, and one-person shops reselling new and used children's clothing, making a couple dollars per item, would have to forgo a year's worth of profit to fund third-party testing services, essentially putting most out of business. Further, as I understand it, the testing requires the destruction of an individual unit out of a batch, and would therefore not work for unique items.

Taking effect February 10, 2009, this ex post facto regulatory taking comes precisely at a time when lower-income and newly unemployed parents most need inexpensive children's clothing and the dollars they receive from selling or consigning their children's briefly used items.

While clothing is one of the few areas in which the market demands recycling, stores with existing, untested merchandise will have to opt for sending truckloads of perfectly good clothes to the landfill. And parents who purchased that expensive special occasion dress with plans to resell it after one wear are simply out the money. Not even Goodwill can take it now.

After planning my own recession-proof business, a children's resale shop, where one was lacking in my neighborhood, I'm lucky to have found this news story (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-thrift2-2009jan02,0,2083247.story) yesterday, and not after signing a lease. Although I am out some minor capital expenses and inventory costs, the regulatory taking could have had a worse toll, such as the $100,000 fines or five-year's imprisonment.

Congress sucks, which is why we don't need it whatsoever.

[phill4paul]

Congress sucks, which is why we don't need it whatsoever.

Hell ,at this point, I'm questioning which branch is needed.:p

[smileylovesfreedom]

The Consumer Protection bill from 2008 (HR 4040) was built on hysteria and lack of scientific understanding of lead poisoning in the first place. Even the "poison toys" that apparently the media and congress were freaking out about were not actual "poisons". The toys coming from "China" were rarely harmful - even if they were above recommended levels because the levels that were already set as the standards were extremely high.

In other words, even if you had a few "poison" toys, the child would need to eat a few dozen of those to push their blood levels above the current CDC standards for "level of concern". Kids were not getting "lead poisoning" from chewing or playing with toys.

The media and Congress - both of whom have very little understanding of any of this - went mad and started crying about how children were threatened by the toys from China as if Barbie was now a WMD and parents should throw away all the toys. Most kids have played with toys above the "alert" levels for many years but no one seemed to care much until about 3-4 years ago before a tragic death.

One kid in Minnesota died about 3-4 years ago after swallowing a charm (from a Reebok shoe - not a toy) that was 1000X above any acceptable levels - bascially pure lead. It was an odd case and a pure lead charm ALREADY VIOLATED EXISTING US LAWS! In other words, Reebok was already fined by the government for their lead charm and they may be sued in civil court. It's not like there wasn't any legal recourse for the family. There was absolutely no reason to create new laws based on this death.

Besides the one death, there is only a handful of other case studies and very little (no?) scientific evidence that links recent toy lead exposure to lead poisoning levels in children. Study after study again shows that high lead levels are linked to things like gasoline, paint or pollution site exposure - e.g. living near a lead smelter or eating lead paint chips are what results in lead poisoning.

Finally, if there was an actual large-scale threat of lead poisoning from consumer products - we would notice either an increase or no change in the average blood levels of children as kids have not stopped playing with toys or wearing clothes. According the the CDC itself, lead poisoning has dropped significantly (and not increased) after the removal of lead in gasoline and paints about 30 years ago. Today, very few kids are "lead poisoned" - its pretty much a non-issue for real threats to children's health.

In fact, most people born before 1978 were exposed to much, much higher levels of lead because of it's widespread use in paint and gasoline before the 1970s - and since many in Congress are over 30 - we should conclude they have all been lead-poisoned and suffer from permanent brain-damage. This may be why they pass all sorts of insane laws that create more problems than they solve :D

But seriously - there was no reason to pass any of that bill at all. They declared a "War on Toys" and ignored the facts.

BTW - I did a report on this awhile back for a college course so if anyone wants actual sources, just PM me - I don't have it readily available on this computer but its available and out there even on the govt's own sites (CDC etc..)

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Melissa, I'd like to see that paper. Need to get that info to our Reps to get an emergency revision of this bill before Feb 10. Whenever you get a chance and can find it, email me. Thanks!

[dannno]

That's pretty sickening.

[ibahogge]

Yeah!!!!!! I am clapping and laughing hysterically at the same time!!! Thank you so much for making my day Smiley!!
Hey, can I use the Garrison quote for my defense when they try to put me in jail?

[lynnf]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski220.html


...
"Our legislation is stacked against small business, small farms, and budding entrepreneurs. Most have read about the farmers jailed and fined because they sold raw milk to forewarned, eager consumers. Some have followed the saga of the USDA’s program to identify all agricultural holdings with "premises registration" and to ensure all cattle, hog, and sheep owners adhere to computer scannable tagging systems, matched to government inspectable databases, so that the federal government can keep track of what it calls "the national herd." The expanding nature of government-backed guild restrictions – impacting hairdressers, flower arrangers, horse massage therapists, computer repairmen and interior decorators, to name a few of the thousand of career fields affected – is another politically acceptable onslaught on the lower classes cloaked in the language of the common good. This week many Americans and hundreds of thrift store owners and charitable operators discovered post hoc a new federal law, effective February 10th, 2009, that will prohibit the sale of used children’s clothing – all in the name of keeping children "safe."

The easy salability of the idea that government will keep the faceless masses "safe" – from milk, meat, a bad haircut, an improper equine massage or a depressing living room – belies our love of and our loud talk of freedom. We buy this line time and time again, even as we are reminded that in big things and small, it is the government from which we ought to be protected, and from which we should be liberated."
...

lynn

[almantimes2]

Hey guys, I have never posted here but I have lurking here for about a year and a half just reading posts. I am 15 years old and I work at my aunt's store who happens to resell childrens clothing that people bring in for store credit. Right now my aunt and her family are just hardly making it by to begin with. Now because of this law she might just have to file for bankruptcy. I fail to see the logic or the reasoning to pass something like this IN A RECESSION. Or not in recession but still when you do it in a time like this its 1000 times worse.

[devil21]

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/264507

Pertinent points:

Apparently this "law" isn't just clothes. It also covers toys, jewelry, blankets, sheets, books, bibs, strollers, carriers, and anything else that a child younger than 12 might come in contact with.

The required certifications will cost up to $4000 per item with $500 being the average cost.


This reeks of failing big business retailers using legislation to boost sales by wiping out the hand-me-down market. Strangely, why isn't this focusing on CHINESE products that caused the lead and melamine scares in the first place?!?!

[devil21]

The CPSC today issued a statement that this law would not affect consignment shops and thrift stores. Here's a pdf of their statement:

http://www.wcnc.com/pdf/CPSCstatement.pdf

[dannno]

Hey guys, I have never posted here but I have lurking here for about a year and a half just reading posts. I am 15 years old and I work at my aunt's store who happens to resell childrens clothing that people bring in for store credit. Right now my aunt and her family are just hardly making it by to begin with. Now because of this law she might just have to file for bankruptcy. I fail to see the logic or the reasoning to pass something like this IN A RECESSION. Or not in recession but still when you do it in a time like this its 1000 times worse.

It's almost like they are doing it on purpose, isn't it? :(

[dannno]

The CPSC today issued a statement that this law would not affect consignment shops and thrift stores. Here's a pdf of their statement:

http://www.wcnc.com/pdf/CPSCstatement.pdf

Are they changing the law? Can they decide to change their stance later?

[lynnf]

exemptions reported by worldnetdaily.com



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=85638




thrift and consignment shops

"Other tentative exemptions

While the Consumer Product Safety Commission administers the law, it may only be changed by Congress. Some exemptions approved Tuesday by the commission's two members, but not formally adopted, include the following:

Items with lead parts that a child cannot access;
Clothing, toys and other goods made of natural materials such as cotton and wood; and
Electronics that are impossible to make without lead.


But the tentative exemptions do little to reassure most businesses and families who will be affected by the law. Final rules are not scheduled for approval until after Feb. 10, when the rules take effect. "



lynn

[angelatc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvKFFvw2Nds

Watch as a business-owning liberal finds a long-missing clue in her pocketbook!

[Dorfsmith]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvKFFvw2Nds

Watch as a business-owning liberal finds a long-missing clue in her pocketbook!

Ha ha! WOW.