Let me be clear on something: I am not in favor of lead poisoning. In fact, it’s safe to say that I am against all kinds of poisoning.
But I am in favor of creating jobs.
And causing companies to jump backwards through flaming hoops, at great expense, to get their products to consumers isn’t the way to fix the problems facing the US economy.
On Tuesday I got a visit from Anne Meagher Northup. You probably don’t know Anne because neither did I.
Truth is, I thought Northup only dropped in because she didn’t have the right footwear to truly enjoy New York City streets during that day’s wintry mix of weather.
(No, this isn’t going to be a Ricky Gervais monologue because I don’t have the British accent to pull it off.)
Northup is one of five commissioners at the US Consumer Product Safety Commission.
She is also a former Republican congresswoman from Kentucky. And right now she wants people to know about a crazy law that will soon — among other things — make it illegal for libraries to lend old books to children under 13 years old.
Yep, the kids might suck on them. Get lead poisoning. Become stupid.
The new law is called the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. And unless something changes, it’ll go into full effect in just a couple of weeks.
The Act doesn’t just affect books, Northup says.
“Every snap, every zipper, every coat of paint on a bicycle,” says Northup will have to be tested by outside labs before a manufacturer can sell a product. And it’s pointless, she says. “Even if the child sucks on these, they can’t get enough lead out of them to do any harm anyway.”
Furniture makers will be required to have each layer of varnish checked by outsiders.
One company said the process will cost it $13 million a year, which — guess what? — will either be passed on to consumers in higher prices or made up by not increasing expenses for things like new workers.
This whole adventure started publicly enough.
Remember when the Chinese were shipping toys to the US that contained a high lead content?
Instead of just telling Beijing “we don’t want your crappy, poisonous toys,” Washington decided to expand the rules for everyone.
Even companies that have had no problem with lead, or defects in their products, or consumer complaints, had to suffer because of the Chinese.
Northup raised six kids. She said none of them needed this much protection by the US government.
And, if I can share a little of my own personal history, none of my three now-grown children was ever damaged by licking a Dr. Seuss book or sucking on a bike’s handle bars.
President Obama wrote in The Wall Street Journal the other day that government should not be “placing unrealistic burdens on business.”
Maybe the president should give his speech over at the CPSC.
When I hear about laws like this I wonder if any of our elected officials have suffered brain damage by chewing on the head of a toy soldier when they were kids.
*
My 2002 Camaro convertible hit 200,000 miles on the odometer last week.
I mention this for just one reason: it proves American carmakers can make quality products that last.
I’ve also had Chryslers and Fords that have served me well, although the Camaro is the first of my vehicles to reach the double century mark while still in my possession.
A LeBaron convertible, circa 1992, that I once owned is also still on the road at more than 200,000 miles.
And you need to understand, I don’t baby the Camaro. Oil changes, yes. Nothing else gets fixed until it breaks. Sometimes I even get it washed.
We had a pizza party for the Camaro the other day in my house. We’ll do something even better at a quarter- million miles — a mile stone I’m sure it will at tain.
*
Bookmaker.com is giving odds on who will be on the list of Americans hiding money in Swiss bank accounts that was given to Wikileaks.
Actor Wesley Snipes, who was recently sentenced for tax fraud, is considered the most likely. No surprise there. But Bookmaker.com says Oprah Winfrey is second.
Come on! Isn’t anything sacred anymore?
*
A few months ago I wrote about a quirk in the stock market. If you had invested on just the first two days of each month over the past year you would have enjoyed much larger gains than if you had kept your money in the market for the whole month.
And you didn’t even need both days. Investing only on the first day of every month also gave you an excellent return.
Take the rest of the month off!
Howard Silverblatt of Standard & Poor’s has gone even further back when looking at this phenomenon.
A $10,000 investment on Dec. 31, 1999 would have turned into $13,973 if the money had been kept in the stock market on just the first day of every month.
If the $10,000 had been left in the market for the whole time it would now be worth around $8,657.
Less is more, more or less.