OIRA

I had always thought that the benefit-cost ratio from flame-retardant pajamas was high. The fact that Susan Dudley sees this as an example of government overreach.... As someone who believes in getting the benefit-cost analysis right, I find this... disturbing.

Joshua Micah Marshall writes:

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: July 30, 2006 - August 05, 2006 Archives: White House nominates Susan Dudley to be OMB regulation czar. Last year she came out against fire-retardant kids pajamas. Bemoaning the dire burden of regulations last year on Jim Glassman's astroturf site TCSDaily.com, she wrote...

We also pay the price as consumers. From the moment we wake up in the morning -- flushing the toilet twice, courtesy of the Department of Energy's appliance standards -- to the time we put our children in their Consumer Product Safety Commission-approved pajamas, regulations not only increase the cost of goods and services we buy, but also the choices we can make.

The heavy hand of government stomping down on kid frying. Enough to make you a Hayek disciple after all.

As an expectant father I certainly hope that the government will stay out of our decisions about whether to put our child to bed in flammable pajamas.

And Vineyard Views reports:

Vineyard Views: The Fox and the Chicken Coop: This week Bush... nominated Susan Dudley to be the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.... [S]he... feels that fatigue in truck drivers who do not rest has not been systematically proven to contribute to highway deaths.... She does not feel that we are entitled to information about the effect of some chemicals, "Even if we determine that information on the release of certain chemicals has a net social value, we cannot assume that more frequently reported information, or information on a broader range of chemicals would be more valuable"...

This kind of stuff--in a manner analogous to the b.s. perpetrated by Dan Quayle's "Council on Competitiveness" in the Bush I administration--degrades the power of the analytical tools we have to make government be the right size and do the right things. It makes it harder for people like me to argue that OIRA has an important role to play.

Comments

[anne]

Forgive me, but somehow I am reaaly really grateful for having grown up wearing pajamas that prevented me from going up in flames. I know there are those who think differently, parents have all sorts of strnge ideas, I know, but really flame proofing kids about the house only involves a small small small loss of personal freedom :)

[anne]

Look, my parents were strange enough in giving me a chemistry set when I wanted dolls, but at least I was always wearing flame proof pajamas. Poof :)

[anne]

The point here however is more than having kept me from burning, the point is that department to department, appointment to appointment, this Administration is bent on subversion of a general public interest.

NASA is turning from interest in the home planet, to avoid an interest in global warming. The FDA is turning to protecting us against birth control. The EPA is turning to making he home planet safe for toxic chemicals. Oh well :)

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/washington/02pest.html?ex=1312171200&en=19f9e169d7845866&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

August 2, 2006

Unions Say E.P.A. Bends to Political Pressure
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY

WASHINGTON — Unions representing thousands of staff scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency say the agency is bending to political pressure and ignoring sound science in allowing a group of toxic chemicals to be used in agricultural pesticides.

Leaders of several federal employee unions say the chemicals pose serious risks for fetuses, pregnant women, young children and the elderly through food and exposure and should not be approved by Thursday, the Congressional deadline for completing an agency review of thousands of substances in pesticides.

"We are concerned that the agency has not, consistent with its principles of scientific integrity and sound science, adequately summarized or drawn conclusions" about the chemicals, union leaders told the agency administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, in a newly disclosed letter sent May 25.

The leaders also wrote that they believed that under priorities of E.P.A. management, "the concerns of agriculture and the pesticide industry come before our responsibility to protect the health of our nation's citizens." ...

[anne]

Having failed to make my days playing chemistry a mass of flaming memories, the Administration is hard pressed to make each of my meals an adventure in chemistry. "Better Living" through DuPont. I wonder if this was the reason for the chemistry set, and my parents knew all along they would lull me to thinking at least I'll never burn in my pajamas while all the while....

[A. Zarkov]

v yt t s kd wh spntnsl brst nt flms n hs crb. Nn-smkng prnts dnt nd flm-rtrdnt pjms fr thr nfnts. W htd ths rgltns nd wnt t f r w t gt rnd thm. W mngd t fnd mprtd cttn pjms. Lt m tll w wr scnd t nn n cncrn fr r chlds sft. W wld lg r cr st ll vr th cntr s w hd t fr cr rntl lng bfr t bcm cmmn prctc. r hs ws bt s chldprf s y cld gt. nvr vn swllwd pll n frnt f th lttl kd (fw ppl thnk f tht n). m ll fr rgltns f ll knds, bt nt ths n. Nw thr s n rgmnt tht t prtcts thr ppls chldrn nd y jst hv t sffr fr th smkrs. ndrstnd tht ln f rsnng, bt n m pnn rqrng vryn t flm-rtrdnt pjms s gng t fr.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/opinion/28fri2.html?ex=1311739200&en=6ce3de26941e914f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

July 28, 2006

What About Us?

At a time when global warming has become an overriding issue, NASA has been delaying or canceling programs that could shed light on how the climate changes. The shortsighted cutbacks appear to result from sharply limiting NASA's budget while giving it hugely expensive tasks like repairing the stricken shuttle fleet, finishing construction of the space station, and preparing to explore the Moon and Mars. Something had to give, and NASA's choices included research into how the planet's climate is responding to greenhouse gas emissions.

The agency's shifting priorities may have been signaled by subtle changes in its mission statement this year, as described by Andrew Revkin in The Times. Although the agency had previously led off its goals with "to understand and protect our home planet," a new mission statement reads simply, "To pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research."

Agency officials note that sub-goal 3A still proposes to "study earth from space to advance scientific understanding and meet societal needs." But earth studies seem to be in trouble.

The agency has canceled a deep space observatory to monitor solar radiation, water vapor, clouds, aerosols and other things important to climate change. It has delayed a mission with Japan to measure global precipitation, decided not to pay for a mission to measure soil moisture around the world, and reduced the money available to analyze data. Under Congressional pressure, the agency has reinstated a mission to study aerosols and solar radiation from orbit. But it has little money to do much else in coming years. A National Academy of Sciences panel warned that the nation's system of environmental satellites was "at risk of collapse." ...

[anne]

"I’ve yet to see a kid who spontaneously burst into flames in his crib. Non-smoking parents don’t need flame-retardant pajamas for their infants. We hated those regulations and went out of our way to get around them."

Huh??? Let me rush right away and search the stores for imported highly flammable pajamas. Here these horrid safety-mongers have been forcing me to be flame resistant all these years and me wanting spice and danger in my life. Do they sell flaming pajamas in Paris? Dior? I am nothing if not fashionable in bed.

[anne]

...in which, immediately, the case for flaming pajamas is taken from bizarre fancy to nightmarish reality...

[anne]

...in which "burn, baby, burn" suddenly has a complete different nuance...

[A. Zarkov]

What no bird chirps?

[anne]

http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=6729&u=97|4|...

Clapper Rail (juvenile)
Oceanside Marine Nature Study Area--Long Island.

Remember, the fall migration is already taking place.

[anne]

http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=6743&u=97|7|...

Clapper Rail Chick
Oceanside Marine Nature Study Area--Long Island.

Funny birds :)

[anne]

The problem, beyond playing at being cute or even annoyed, is why there is such a continually mean-spirited quality, such attacks on administrative or scientific competence on the part of conservatives. Why should a NASA administrator begin to question whether the "big bang" was or was not, and similarly question whether global warming is or is not to the extent of trying to stop the very mention of either the big bang or glabal warming? We have an Administration that is bent on undermining administration.

[anne]

The undermining of science of competence in government is frightening and demoralizing, and needless except that conservatives evidently feel it is needed.

[Bernard Yomtov]

"Now there is an argument that it protects other people’s children and you just have to suffer for the smokers. I understand that line of reasoning, but in my opinion requiring everyone to flame-retardant pajamas is going to far."

What is this "suffering" of which you speak?

[anne]

Please have you no imagination? I always wanted to be a fashion babe, and imagine having to tromp around home in flame snuffing duck pajamas when I could have been wearing Dior. French fashion is worth the worry over a few, so few, flaming kids.

[anne]

...in which "honey, will you light my fire?" has a differing nuance...

[A. Zarkov]

When my child was an infant the flame-retardant pajamas were uncomfortable, the material didn’t “breath” the way cotton does. I certainly didn’t want to wear clothes made of that material. Perhaps the current fabrics are fine, I don’t know. However in the 1980s the flame-retardant pajamas themselves came under attack as being toxic to small children because the chemical transferred into the skin.

I repeat I am not against safety regulations. Try me on childproof medicine containers. Try me on infant car seats. I don’t think the airlines should allow parents to hold their children on their laps during the flight. If it’s dangerous not to wear a seatbelt how can we expect a parent to hold onto the baby in an emergency? It’s fair to say that I’m virtually obsessive about safety. But the benefit to non-smoking parents from flame-retardant pajamas is about zero. Tell me the danger and I’ll change my mind.

[anne]

Forgive me :)

"Come on baby, light my fire
Come on baby, light my fire
Try to set the night on fire"

[This is a family blog.]

[anne]

Really, you are dear to induge me, I would never question your safety concern or the ease with which well intended administration can become troublesome. I am so tired though of not liking mine safety, and turning away from enforcement. Tired of not liking the estate tax, and turning away from enforcement. Not liking evolution and letting children be biological dopes. The big bang, please....

[anne]

http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=6731&exhibition=7&u=96|2|...

Yellow-crowned Night-heron in Flight
Oceanside Marine Nature Study Area--Long Island.

There is fashion, wonderful evolutionary, oops, fashion :)

[Gene O'Grady]

My kids (born 1978 and 1982) managed to find comfortable material in their flame proofed pajamas. The problem, if not really exaggerated, is older than that.

And smoking is hardly the only way kids can catch on fire. There's cooking, storage of papers, heating systems, and especially older no-longer-up-to-code electric wiring. In the condominium complex I where I once served on the board we discovered that contractors (mid-70's) had economized by using aluminum crimping inside the walls that actually did start a few little fires, and was a devil to replace.

[anne]

Notice, by the way how persistent this Administration is. When it becomes too tough and shameful to silence a scientist on glabal warming, all you have to do a few months later is quietly announce that NASA is going to focus everywhere in the heavens but on earth, which, by the way, is where we live. Mars, I would argue, is already globally cool, but who knows for sure :)

[anne]

Yes; but your flame proofed kids no doubt have felt forever fashion deprived, and are only waiting a turn to turn on "Safety-Dad."

[andres]

"[This is a family blog.]"

Yes, but you don't seem to appreciate family values. Given that electric shock collars are still unaffordable to most, the most efficient way to discipline those little barbarians is the liberal use of lighted cigarettes on bare flesh. Cigarettes are thus a highly cost-efficient method of parental discipline, _provided_ that they don't turn the little tykes into well-done marshmallows due to an unfortunate choice of apparel. In certain famine-prone countries, however, this may not be a bad idea.

btw, Jonathan Swift is my hero ;-)

[David]

I think the original flame retardants used were carcinogenic. And didn't the Clinton administration relax the flame-retardant standard? I don't remember the vitriol over this point back then.

Of course, we all thought the stock market was headed for 36,000

[modus potus]

People used to burn more candles. Back in the 60's they used to burn a lot more candles. And make fires in their fireplaces. Not to mention use various heating appliances of dubious safety (even toasters). And so on. Pre-regulation, some fabrics were hideously flammable and due to partial synthetic content, stuck to the skin like napalm as they burned. Death and extreme disfigurement resulted.

People didn't just sit around back then and think "now, what silly thing should we regulate next."

[quartz]

As I child, I would park myself as close to any available heat source as possible, and was always singeing my nightwear, and once got nasty burns on my legs when a synthetic night gown alternately flamed and melted, before someone ripped it off me, avoiding a much worse incident.

[wkwillis]

Did we get flame proof regulations on polyester pajamas so the cheaper polyester didn't keep cutting into Big Cotton's market share? Don't blame the liberals for everything.