Government agencies still taking thinly veiled bribes from the industries they are tasked to regulate.
Are these people naïve or unethical? The Consumer Product Safety Commission chief and her predecessor, under the Bush administration, have taken dozens of trips at the expense of the toy, appliance and children’s furniture industries and others they regulate. Is there payoff involved? Absolutely. Want proof? The U.S. has become inundated with recalls of children’s products because of high levels of lead paint, under the Bush administration.
Our children are being put at risk by unethical industries that ignore safety requirements in their pursuit to make profit. They use substandard materials and our children are getting sick because of it. Parents are getting sick of it too.
These individuals are government employees and fall under the same ethical guidelines as every other government official concerning gifts. The industries who are regulated by the CPSC is guilty of bribery and the agency is guilty of accepting bribes. There is no other way to say it.
This practice of paying for travel is commonly called “gift travel”. This practice has become embedded as part of the benefits package of heads of regulatory agencies. When we can no longer count on regulatory agencies to protect us where does that leave us?
Once again our government has proven that it does not care about the safety of our children or of us as a whole. As long as they get pampered at the expense of someone else they will always be faced with returning the ‘favor’. And they do return the favor. Want proof of that too? The CPSC flew to China and Hong Kong in 2004 at the expense of the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory based in Bethesda, Maryland. Their laboratories are in Asia. The CPSC claims there were no regulatory requests pending at the time, hinting that there was no payoff involved, but rest assured the AFSL got a tax write-off for the travel and they expect the CSPC to reciprocate by looking favorably on safety standards that will favor the AFSL.
More egregious instances involve going soft on industries who have, this past summer, flooded the market with Chinese-made toys with hazardous levels of lead. The CPSC has gone soft on industries by opting for “voluntary” standards and repeatedly not taking legal action against businesses that refuse to recall dangerous products. Are we, the consumers being protected by the Consumer Product Safety Commission? NO! Are businesses being favored by the Consumer Product Safety Commission? YES!
Are we being shown that “voluntary” adherence to safety regulations is not working? YES! What is the Consumer Product Safety Commission going to do about it? NOTHING! Because they have been bought and paid for.
This government is more concerned with making revenue from taxes generated by these industries doing business in the U.S. than they are about our safety. That much has been made abundantly clear. Does this agency need to take these trips to the factories to see the process of product manufacture? No, they don’t. These products are tested here in the U.S. by the CPSC or its affiliates. The FDA tests products before they are released to the market. Why is the process different for the CPSC?
If the government is truly concerned with our safety, these products should be tested before they ever reach the American consumer.
CPSC officials defend the industry-paid trips as a way for the agency to be in contact with manufacturing officials and hear their concerns despite a limited travel budget. These manufacturing officials need to fly to the CPSC offices to voice their concerns, not give the impression of impropriety through “gift travel”.
Commission spokeswoman Julie Vallese said the agency's counsel and its ethics officers conducted "a full conflict-of-interest analysis" of the trips and stand behind their decisions. This is in the best interest of the agency to employ counsel and its ethics officers who will “stand up” for the agency. Their voracity and honesty are in question.
"The mission of the agency and the benefits to consumer safety are two factors that are taken into consideration in approving gift travel," she said. Reports of the trips are submitted to the Office of Government Ethics, she added. It is plain to see that the ‘benefits to consumer safety’ have taken a back seat in light of all of the recent recalls this country has seen.
This “gift travel” bribery scheme is in clear violation of ethics codes. Why does an ethics code even have to be in writing? Why can’t we find someone ethical enough to sit at the heads of government offices? Why does the consumer, the taxpayer, the very people who pay through the nose to support these governmental agencies have to continuously be on the loosing end of everything?
Ann Brown, who served as chairman, under the Clinton administration, from 1994 to 2001, traveled only at the expense of the agency or of media organizations that sponsored appearances where she announced product recalls. "We hated to have an industry pay for our staff for anything," said Pam Gilbert, a lawyer who was executive director of the agency under Brown. What does this say about the Republican party vs. the Democratic party? I think it is very telling. Ethics have gone to hell since Bush took office. Ethics scandals have reached unprecedented levels under the republican controlled congress. I know there is no shortage of ethics violations for democrats, after all they are all politicians.
If the agency got by under the Clinton administration without taking bribes it can do it under the Bush and future administrations. The atmosphere under Bush made it easy for the agency to throw ethics out the window and take these unnecessary trips.
Accepting gifts opens the door to more suspicion. Chances are this is just the tip of the iceberg. Chances are there are more shady dealings going on behind closed doors. Since the agency has shown it is willing to accept this sort of bribery, we, the taxpayer, can’t help but become suspicious of any action this agency takes.
No comments:
Post a Comment