So the takeaway is, batteries will continue exploding because Trump won the election. The whole "Trump is responsible for everything bad" thing is getting ridiculous.
Not as ridiculous as your tortured interpretation of the story. Given the GOP's stated hostility to consumer regulation and the fact of significantly lower agency budgets during a previous period when the GOP held both White House and both Houses of Congress, observing that operating budgets may shrink at this agency is entirely rational. See, I was able to construct an argument without even mentioning the President-elect, based solely on past behavior of the soon-to-be majority party.
The article barely mentioned Trump at all, and basically just said that things "might change". That is self-evident with a new administration coming in.
Regardless of that, the article describing the organization's role and approach was interesting.
Oh come on, the spin in the story was much worse than that. The direct quote from the chairman of the CPSC was: "My hope is now with the election and potential leadership change here, that that work is not scuttled".
Using loaded words like "scuttled" makes it quite clear that he's throwing shade at Trump.
Does quoting a person relevant to the article who has an opinion spin the story? I'd think that's the journalist doing their job: reporting what those related to the topic said.
There can be bias in the choice of story, or the choice of quotes, but sometimes the story is that there are opinions that disagree, which seems relevant in this case.
There have been a lot of concerns with changes that Trump might make. He himself has been very clear that he's going to make changes. In particular, Trump has been vocal about reducing regulations, and as I understand it, the CPSC is a regulatory agency. Seems pretty straight up to me.
You're reading a lot into Kaye's comment. I'd imagine he would have made the same remark about pretty much any incoming conservative administration. And maybe even some liberal administrations, since weakening consumer protection laws can certainly cut across party lines when the money lines up.
The prez isn't in charge of budgets. They have been cut over the years anyway. So I don't see any great changes there. He could put a crony in charge, someone would apply the science selectively, but there are legal bulwarks against this. They couldn't, for example, place restrictions on only foreign goods. That wouldn't fly constitutionally. And if they just stopped testing anything, then companies that product dangerous products would be hit with lawsuits. Frankly, most would rather have the governments looking at the safety of products that they would jurors. A mandatory recall is always better than a mass class action.
> He could put a crony in charge, someone would apply the science selectively, but there are legal bulwarks against this
There are some, but past Presidents have had great influence over regulatory outcomes.
> most [companies] would rather have the governments looking at the safety of products that they would jurors.
That would seem rational, but that's not how many companies think. For example, Wall Street, despite recent experience with catastrophic consequences, still actively resists regulation.
That's also a good example of the influence of Presidents. Bush deregulated Wall Street; for example, the SEC is supposed to be the consumer advocate but Bush put Wall Street insiders in charge of it (IIRC). Obama restored at least some regulation.
Pulling into a turn lane, stopping alongside another car and honking incessantly is dangerous and against the law. The other driver was probably scared and trying to ignore you.
