The NY Times reported yesterday that Michael Baroody, Bush nominee to head the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), not only worked as a senior lobbyist for the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) but also received a severance payment of $150,000. This “extraordinary payment” was not part of his standard compensation package and highly unusual for an employee leaving voluntarily.
Next Thursday, the Senate Commerce, Science, & Transportation Committee, chaired by Sen. Inouye, has scheduled a hearing to consider Baroody’s nomination, but his confirmation is likely to be a battle. Committee member Sen. Nelson and Senate Majority Whip Durbin have already placed a hold on Baroody’s confirmation and have called on Bush to select a new candidate. Nevertheless, there’s a chance that the President will wait until Congress goes into recess next month and then appoint Baroody without Senate approval.
Regardless of Baroody’s severance package from NAM, the mere fact that he lobbied for the largest trade association under CPSC’s purview should be enough to automatically disqualify him as a candidate to lead CPSC. When called upon to make a decision that favors the public yet negatively affects his former employers, one must question whether he would side with the public good.
Furthermore, as 8 consumer groups have pointed out in a recent white paper (pdf) opposing Baroody’s confirmation, the CPSC is already facing problems in its mission to protect consumer safety:
CPSC’s job today is more challenging than ever. There are more than 27,000 deaths and more than 33 million injuries each year associated with consumer products under CPSC’s jurisdiction. However, since the 1980s, the Commission has been slowly starved of staff and resources. While there has been an exponential increase in consumer products since its creation more than 30 years ago, CPSC’s staff is projected to be cut to 401 full time employees (FTEs) this year – which would be an all-time low and less than half the number of people employed by the agency in the 1970s. Additionally, in real dollars, its budget has plummeted.
With someone like Baroody at the helm of this struggling agency, it’s safe to say that he would do little to strengthen it. The consumer groups list three reasons (pdf) why this would be the case:
He has not demonstrated a commitment to protecting the public from risks to safety;
He oversaw efforts to weaken the CPSC and to undermine safety proposals pending before the Commission as one of the top two executives at the National Association of Manufacturers,
Faced with product safety and public health issues, Mr. Baroody has consistently favored reducing business costs at the expense of consumer protection.
-- John Pruett
Comments