The Wall Street Journal has found a new regulation it dislikes: the Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) push to “eliminate” the risk of strangulation that window blind cords pose to children.

As we have pointed out again, and again, and again, The Wall Street Journal really doesn't like regulations. The Journal's most recent attack on the government's regulatory power comes in the form of a November 10 editorial, titled “A Rule of Blind Injustice: The new regulatory standard for household products is zero risk.” In the editorial, the Journal criticizes the CPSC's push to -- as Inez Tenenbaum, the chairwoman of the CPSC puts it -- “eliminate the hazard” posed to children by window blind cords. As the Journal itself notes, the CPSC “estimates that about 12 children a year die in accidents with window blinds.”

The Journal thinks the elimination of all hazards posed by blinds to children is a “fairly high bar, and one the CPSC would be unlikely to clear in this instance.”

Additionally, The Journal suggests that because this standard has yet to be applied to all items that kill children, blinds should not be subject to this “zero risk” standard:

The CPSC estimates that about 12 children a year die in accidents with window blinds. Every death or injury of a child is tragic, but the risk posed by blinds is dwarfed by other common dangers. According to Consumer Reports, more than 5,000 children a year are injured or killed falling out of open windows and through window screens. Electrical outlets also pose a risk, but no one has suggested removing those through regulation.

The Journal concludes by suggesting that CPSC's initiative is another example “unnecessary regulations” and calls it a “costly nonsensical standard”:

President Obama asked all independent federal agencies this summer to examine their books and get rid of unnecessary regulations, but the CPSC keeps adding new rules. More than two billion window coverings are already installed in homes, so the CPSC's time could better be spent educating consumers about how to protect their children from those risks instead of pushing another costly nonsensical standard.

The Journal's attack on this CPSC initiative is yet another example of the right-wing media's War on Regulations - even on those that are popular with Americans and designed to prevent deaths.