To many groups, the [Consumer Product Safety] Commission’s actions, to date, appear to project an anti-business bias. The Commission too frequently seems to forget that government does not have a monopoly on concern for product safety.
Senator Ervin calls the CPA [Consumer Protection Agency] bill ‘the most dangerous piece of legislation ever presented to the Congress.’ He warns that the head of CPA would have ‘the most tremendous powers ever granted to any many in the history of the United States.’… And he reminds everyone that ‘government is a parasite.’
Are you aware than the Consumer Product Safety Commission is capable of ruining a business through a mere editorial oversight—and it has.
It is our belief that consumers will not be effectively served by establishing an expensive new bureaucracy to assume the Congressional function of overseeing the existing agencies.
‘Consumer interest’ is an amorphous concept, made up of many competing elements, and the CPA [Consumer Protection Agency], time and again, will be called upon to make paternalistic judgments as to what is best for 200 million American consumers.
It is unreasonable to assume that existing bureaucratic lassitude will be corrected by establishing another layer of bureaucracy.
This approach assumes that all consumers want the same thing. As others have pointed out, the ‘consumer interest’ is not a monolithic interest which is easily identified. While some consumers may want safe, high quality products, other consumers may wish to sacrifice these qualities for a lower price tag.
There are bureaucrats in Washington who believe their judgment is superior to yours, as a consumer. So they want to “protect” you by insuring that the only choices open to you are those meeting with their approval. They are really a warmhearted bunch. Just a little conceited, that’s all.
[The Consumer Product Safety Act] provides no meaningful protection for trade secrets or confidential company information… this empty standard is patently dangerous to our competitive system.
[The legislation to permit consumer class actions] “is only nominally an act ‘to extend protection against fraudulent or deceptive practices.’ It is more accurately an act to line the pockets of ingenious attorneys. If this bill passes, the lawyers will be in high cotton; their client consumers will be still hoeing the short row.
