Today is the deadline for U.S. retailers to unload any unsold cribs that don’t meet the federal government’s new safety standards. An estimated 100,000 cribs could be headed to the trash — even though they’ve never been declared unsafe or a hazard to children.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) had the opportunity to spare businesses of the expense at a special meeting two weeks ago. But the Democrat-led commission voted against extending the deadline. As a result, retailers stand to lose at least $32 million, according to the commission’s own estimates.
Commissioner Anne Northup, who argued for an extension, condemned the left’s assault on private enterprise in a 10-page statement on the controversy.
“I am truly at a loss to understand the motivation behind these actions,” Northup said. “At a time when small businesses are struggling to survive, this commission has refused to throw even a short lifeline to retailers that will now suffer at least tens of millions of dollars of losses.”
Retailers have the option of retrofitting cribs with new equipment and have them tested. But that process is believed to be cost-prohibitive, prompting many to instead dispose of the cribs.
The CPSC followed a congressional mandate to update the safety standards, but it gave manufacturers and retailers only six months to move their inventory. The agency never conducted a cost–benefit analysis.
According to a CPSC staff survey of five retailers at the end of May, an estimated 117,800 cribs faced disposal. Despite this alarming number, the CPSC voted 3–2 on June 16 to stick with today’s deadline.
Retailers might be suffering in the short term, but they’ll get a boost over the next 18 months when child care centers, family child care homes and hotels are required to replace all cribs that don’t meet the new standard — even those that pose no safety threat. That deadline is Dec. 28, 2012.
The government-mandated crib replacement program comes at a time when President Obama’s handling of the economy hit 37 percent—an all-time low—in the new McClatchy Newspapers-Marist poll.
This was an Ant vs. Grasshopper situation.
One group representing small retailers — the National Independent Nursery Furniture Retailers Association (the grasshoppers) — wanted the extension because its members had failed to prepare for the new law by focusing on selling affected inventory before the deadline.
Another group representing small retailers — the Baby Furniture Plus Association (the ants) — was opposed to the extension because its members had focused on selling of affected inventory, and the extension would give a market advantage to those who had not prepared.
The ants prepared for winter, and the grasshoppers didn't.
Do we really want the government to show favoritism to the grasshoppers? That's what you're arguing for if you look at the facts.
What an adorable baby!
It's between the manufacturer, the retailer and the consumer. If there is a safety issue it can be handled and should, between consumer and manufacturer. It doesn't make sense the government call it safe until this such and such a date. Get the government out!! The government proves they are untrustworthy, disrespecting and a hindrance on the private sector, causing extensive harm than any good.