Deregulation + Free Trade = Danger

This New York Times' story [1] could not be more fitting, really. It details how the Bush administration is aggressively fighting a proposal by Arkansas Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor to strengthen the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC).

The story comes on the very day that the Campaign for America's Future is releasing a new report [2] showing the frightening results of our government's decision to underfund the CPSC at precisely the same time both parties have helped pass more and more NAFTA-style trade deals that have encouraged a glut of imports. We are, in short, reducing our ability to protect ourselves right when we need to protect ourselves more.

Pryor's bill is in response to a spate of headlines about the danger toxic imports now pose to American families. His legislation is expected to be voted on this week, is similar to a bill [3] being pushed by Reps. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and Diana DeGette, D-Colo., in the House. And it is pretty gutsy when you consider that Pryor represents the state housing the headquarters of Wal-Mart — the company that has most benefited [4] from simultaneously deregulating the CPSC and passing lobbyist-written trade deals.

But regulations and inspections are only half of this issue and only one kind of upcoming vote that affects these issues. Congress will soon be considering a package of NAFTA-style trade deals [5] with countries that have far less stringent product safety laws on their books. The trade deals themselves have no product safety standards in them either, raising two questions:

1. Why is Congress even considering such deals, especially after an election when Democrats promised [6] to seriously reform — rather than abet — America's current standards-free trade policy?

2. Why is Congress considering such pacts without first strengthening the CPSC to make sure we can effectively deal with the deals' consumer safety ramifications?

We know why the Bush administration wants to keep simultaneously deregulating and passing free trade deals. They have corporate campaign contributors to keep happy and a conservative movement to appease. But why the Democrats?

Read CAF's new report here [2] to see the extent of what's going on and why we should be asking these questions ASAP.