But no. Rather, Timothy Carney, in his article for the DC Examiner, just asked what I have been asking since weeks: wouldn't you think that the CPSIA dilemma is actually a result of pro-industry lobbying? I'm glad someone put the finger on a few not unimportant points. Carney writes,
"Big toymakers, who helped write the bill, are ready for the regulations that will go into effect Feb. 10, while smaller toymakers look likely to suffer. It’s another example of how Washington, when it regulates an industry, often helps the biggest businesses in that industry while crushing the smaller guys.He then goes on and highlights some lobbying efforts of the big players in the toy market:
Large manufacturers who mass produce toys or children’s furniture will face some added costs from the bill, but these are costs they can bear—especially because the costs will be industry wide thus passed onto consumers."
"Mattel (...) beefed up its lobbying effort when the legislation appeared. The company’s lobbying budget, which had been steady at $120,000 per year from 2002 through 2006 ballooned to $540,000 in 2007 and $650,000 in 2008—a 442% increase from two years earlier.Don't be fooled. Corporate and congressional America aren't interested in small-scale businesses (and the same certainly holds bitterly true for many more countries besides the USA). Corporate toyland is ready for the testing craze, and for them, the costs will be peanuts. And they'll tell you, "Yes, we can." But shouldn't this be the motto on the flags of micro businesses and small-scale cottage industry? You bet.
Hasbro, the world’s No. 2 toymaker, had never had a Washington lobbyist, according to federal lobbying filings, before October 2007, when the company hired the Duberstein Group, headed by Ken Dubertstein, the former White House Chief of Staff under Ronald Reagan."