How many congressmen does it take to change a light bulb? 400.
That’s how many members of Congress recently voted for a bill to force Americans to change the 50-cent incandescent light bulbs they’re currently using and replace them with expensive new, $3 “energy-efficient” light bulbs. As Shane Cory of the Libertarian Party sarcastically put it, “If you outlaw light bulbs, then only outlaws will have light bulbs.”
The ban, which takes effect in 2014, was included in the 2007 energy bill which 314 members of the United States House of Representatives and 86 members of the United States Senate voted for.
Nevada Sen. Harry Reid said he thought the light bulb ban was an appropriate exercise of federal power. Interesting company Reid’s keeping. Because when the bill was originally introduced by California Rep. Jane Harman last March, CNS News reported that two other countries had already taken similar steps to eradicate inexpensive incandescent light bulbs from the planet: Fidel Castro’s Cuba and Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela.
Unfortunately, this is nothing new for Congress. The light bulb ban is simply the latest example of an increasingly intrusive federal government butting into the day-to-day affairs of the average citizen.
Remember the 1992 energy bill, in which Congress banned the 3.5 gallon toilet? It mandated that that Americans no longer use more than 1.6 gallons per flush. Of course, per the immutable Law of Unintended Consequences, the new 1.6 gallon toilets turned out not to be enough to, er, get the job done. So folks found themselves flushing two and three times per visit, thus using the same amount of water, if not more, than they did before Congress stuck its nose into our bathrooms.
Excuse me, but would someone please show me where the federal Department of Toilets and Light Bulbs is authorized by the United States Constitution.
And make no mistake. Congress has no intention of stopping here. Still under active consideration is a new federal ban on top-loading washing machines, as well as a federal ban on disposable diapers. Seems some of our elected officials won’t be satisfied until we’re again washing out our cloth diapers on rocks by a steam in the pitch dark.
The late, great Sen. Barry Goldwater famously declared in the early 1960s that he would “not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible.” That sentiment has all but disappeared in the halls of Congress today. One notable exception is Arizona Rep. John Shadegg, a co-founder of the Goldwater Institute, whose proposed “Enumerated Powers Act” would require that “Each act of Congress…contain a concise and definite statement of the Constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that act.”
What a “revolutionary” notion.
Rep. Shadegg has introduced this bill in every Congress since 1995. And to give you an idea of how far Congress has drifted from the limited-government ideal of our Founders just over the last dozen years, the original bill had 103 co-sponsors. The same bill this year? Just 38. Goodnight, Constitution. I’ll leave a non-incandescent light bulb on for you.
Posted on January 3rd, 2008 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: National
Ah, if only Shadegg could get the law passed! Just think, no “Defense of Marriage” act; no more “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” thereby letting gays serve in the military; upholding a woman’s right to abort a fetus and the oveturning of Roe v Wade. All these issues that Goldwater thought was the right of every person to decide for themselves! Yeah!
BTW, If Americans had a diet that included items that made their bowels function as God intended, a low flow toilet is more than sufficient.
Agreed, turn out the lights (in the name of national security)…but we knew that was the case when Congress stopped being a third and seperate branch of our government.
click.
Chuck, I’ve subscribed to you through the Tucson Citizen.
I love your columns and use your material (with FULL attribution to you and links to you) often because you make perfect sense and do it with a sense of humor. I wish I were able to use a trackback for you.
Keep up the great work–it’s wonderful to have a conservative voice at the Citizen balancing out the liberal left. I hope to see more and more of your great writing.
Miss Beth
I’ve had an old type tubular flourescent light for years. The power required for starting the light takes more than that required for several hours of contiuous use. For that reason it gets used as a lamp to light up a desk area and also as a security and nightlight. It only goes out when there is a power outage. Because turning on and off will damage the expensive bulb and and cost more to light initially, I’m sure there will be alot of the new bulbs left on. By the way I have a little tabloid Newspaper in central Louisiana called The Conservative Voice. Like Miss Beth I also use you giving appropriate attribution and website address.
I have read news articles about people breaking their “new” bulbs and having to have a HAZARDOUS TEAM come in to clean it up. Check out the back of any of these bulbs! They contain mercury and must be disposed of as hazardous waste.
Now, have you ever broken a incandescent light bulb? Thank GOD the hazmat team didn’t have to clean it up. Soon…they will! Thanks Sen. Reid and “gang!”
No one ever mentions how the fluorescent bulb’s brightness fades down considerably during the first year of use. I learned long ago that if I have to replace a 75-watt incancdescent with a “100-watt” fluorescent just to have the same brightness. Our kitchen has 5 fluorescent bulbs under the cabinets. You can always tell when my wife has replaced one of the 5 bulbs. Yes, it’s because the newest one is very bright, but also because my wife forgets that F-bulbs come in different colors. We now have 5 different bulb colors in the kitchen. It’s a conversation starter if nothing else.
Thank goodness none of these nasty and scary fluorescent bulbs have been around and in use in schools, offices and stores for the past 70 years….that would have been bad for our health and how would we ever have gotten rid of them all?! Elect Republicans to save us against fluorescent bulbs! Damn that crazy Harry Reid and them Democrats!
This is the governments biggest hypocrisy yet…
They are by far the largest user of incandescent bulbs in the world.
Every street junction that has a traffic light uses a minimum of 12 bulbs
and if it is a complex intersection there may be many dozens in use.
The CF bulbs are slow to come up to full brilliance and would not
be suitable for that use. I guess all tower lights will have to
be changed to strobe lights.
As you know those clear traffic bulbs and tower light bulbs have
a very long life. I am using several that have been in use for 20+ years.
They don’t go off like a camera flash when you turn on a switch
like the bulbs you buy at a store. They were made to last not like
the commercial bulbs which were made to sell …
Those idiots in Washington are clueless …
Frank
New bulbs are okay.
Made in China is sickening.
As long as Washington is going to require expensive new light bulbs why not require they be made in the USA.
Isn’t the point of making crap in China to get it cheap.
If the crap is going to be expensive then who the fuck needs China.