Consumer Safety Chief Leaves a Small Agency With Bigger Powers

By the end of her four-year term, which came to a close on Friday, she can say that she has presided over a significant increase of the agency’s powers. And Ms. Tenenbaum, 62, has not been shy about using them. The agency recently leveled its highest fine ever — $3.9 million — against Ross, the discount retailer, because it continued to sell what the commission said was defective children’s clothing, even after warnings from the agency.

She and the safety commission also waded into one of the most contentious topics in the sports world: protecting football players from head injuries. The result was the Youth Football Brain Safety initiative, which called for the replacement of youth league helmets with safer models paid for by the National Football League, the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the N.F.L. Players Association.

“I just felt like it was something that needed to be done,” she said.

But before she could make much headway on issues, Ms. Tenenbaum had to persuade consumer advocates that she would work for them while reassuring manufacturers that the agency would not be unfair in carrying out its new powers. It was a difficult juggling act that some industry officials say Ms. Tenenbaum has managed to pull off.

“What I was most glad about is that she treated us and others in the industry as a resource, rather than the enemy,” said Carter Keithly, president of the Toy Industry Association. “We didn’t agree on everything, but she was always fair.”

For the Youth Football Brain Safety initiative, the N.C.A.A., the N.F.L. and the players association kicked in a total of $1 million to pay for the helmet replacements. “The support of Chairman Tenenbaum and the C.P.S.C. played an important role in making our helmet replacement initiative a reality,” Roger Goodell, the N.F.L. commissioner, said in a statement. “We really appreciated her personal involvement and the agency’s in the work to make our game better and safer.”

Yet the commission under Ms. Tenenbaum’s leadership has not been exempt from criticism. Some of the biggest complaints followed the decision by agency lawyers to hold Craig Zucker, the chief executive of the company that made Buckyballs, liable for the recall of the magnetic children’s toy, even after the company was dissolved. Manufacturers have argued that holding an individual responsible for a widespread, and expensive, recall sets a disturbing example, and would discourage companies from being open in their dealings with regulatory bodies.

Ms. Tenenbaum said she could not comment on the case because it was continuing.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission, one of the smallest agencies in government, was created in 1972. With a budget of about $120 million and 530 employees, the agency annually monitors more than 15,000 imported and domestically made products. Before Ms. Tenenbaum took the reins, it had been increasingly criticized in the light of deaths and injuries that critics said were the result of the agency being too close to the industries it regulated.

Ms. Tenenbaum, a lawyer, had no product safety experience when she was nominated for the job by President Obama. She had come up through the Democratic ranks in South Carolina, a state dominated by Republicans, serving as a legislative staff member as well as the state’s superintendent of education. In 1994, she ran an unsuccessful primary campaign for lieutenant governor, and 10 years later lost to Jim DeMint, a Republican, in the race to replace Ernest Hollings, a Democrat who was retiring, in the Senate.

Before her arrival at the safety commission, the Bush administration had sought to ease what it considered costly rules that placed unnecessary burdens on businesses, and the agency’s budget was largely gutted. Staff was cut and safety initiatives were stalled or dropped.

In 2007, a Washington Post investigation found that Nancy Nord, who was then the agency’s acting chairwoman, and her predecessor, Hal Stratton, had taken dozens of industry-sponsored trips that were paid for in full or in part by trade associations or manufacturers of products that were regulated by the agency. Ms. Nord said the trips were legal.

‘Game of Thrones,’ Not ‘Mad Men,’ Had the Bigger Sunday Night

Let’s install webcams in slaughterhouses so we can see how we get our meat.

A look back at Margaret Thatcher’s mutual admiration society with Mikhail Gorbachev in the final years of the Cold War.

A Bigger Tax Bite for Most Households Under Senate Plan

The legislation, which still must overcome resistance exhibited on Tuesday by House Republicans, would grant most Americans an instant reversal of the income tax increases that took effect with the arrival of the new year. Only about 0.7 percent of households would be subject to an income tax increase this year, according to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group in Washington. The increases would apply almost exclusively to households making at least half a million dollars, the center estimated in an analysis published Tuesday.

But the Senate’s decision not to reverse a scheduled increase in the payroll tax that finances Social Security, while widely expected, still means that about 77 percent of households would pay a larger share of income to the federal government this year, according to the center’s analysis.

The tax this year would increase by two percentage points, to 6.2 percent from 4.2 percent, on all earned income up to $113,700.

Indeed, for most lower- and middle-income households, the payroll tax increase most likely would equal or exceed the value of the income tax savings. A household earning $50,000 in 2013, roughly the national median, would avoid paying about $1,000 more in income taxes — but still pay about $1,000 more in payroll taxes.

The timing and outcome of a House vote was unclear on Tuesday evening.

Sabrina Garcia, a 35-year-old accounting assistant from Quincy, Mass., who together with her husband made about $102,000 last year, said the payroll tax increase equated to “about $200 a month for my family. That’s a lot of money for us. It means we will have to cut back.” She said in an e-mail exchange that she most likely would postpone buying a new computer. “And forget about being able to save money,” she added.

The deal would impose larger tax increases on those who make the most. It would raise taxes in two different ways, by restoring limits on the amounts of income affluent Americans can shelter from federal taxation, and by restoring a top marginal tax rate of 39.6 percent. The current rate is 35 percent.

For married couples filing jointly, the deduction limits apply to income above $300,000, while the top tax rate kicks in above $450,000. But both numbers are somewhat misleading, because “income” in this context is a technical term, referring only to the portion of income subject to taxation after exemptions and deductions.

Few households with actual incomes of less than half a million dollars would face a tax increase. The Tax Policy Center calculated that less than 5 percent of families earning $200,000 to $500,000 would actually pay more.

The size of those increases would be much smaller than President Obama originally proposed. The net effect, according to the center’s estimates, is that the top 1 percent of households would see an average income tax increase this year of $62,000 rather than $94,000.“The high-income people really are doing very well in this compared to what the president wanted to do,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

The Senate deal would impose fewer limits on deductions than the White House plan. It also would tax income from dividends at a flat rate of 20 percent, rather than the same marginal rate as earned income. And there’s another important point, often misunderstood: Affluent households would pay the new 39.6 percent rate only on income above $450,000. They and everyone else would still pay lower rates on income below that threshold.

Households making $500,000 to $1 million would pay an additional $6,700 in taxes on average. Those making more than $1 million would pay an additional $123,000 on average.