House GOP fails to turn off new standards for light bulbs that some see as issue of freedom

  • Article by: JIM ABRAMS , Associated Press
  • Updated: July 12, 2011 - 8:23 PM
  • 104
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
rthashmarkJul. 12, 11 7:59 AM

the money saved by using these new bulbs creates a new tax revenue stream for the democrats since the people will have more disposible income to get taxed for

31
102
ted2youJul. 12, 11 8:22 AM

Really, this is a conservative free rights issue. How much more in bed can they be with big business. Did you hear they banned leaded gasoline because it was bad for the environment. Oh yeah, DDT destroyed eggs of nesting birds and nearly pushed the bald eagle to extinction; shouldn't we have free choice as to whether we want to you use it. Things just get crazier and crazier. It is such a hardship using floscent bulbs; aferall they weren't used in the 50's and it seems that we can't trust anything that wasn't.

88
38
chevyedfJul. 12, 1110:29 AM

Yep, priorities. Gay marriage, abortion and light bulbs. Ladies and gentlemen - your Teapublican party...

124
42
imkirokJul. 12, 1110:47 AM

We're at war, the economy is sputtering, the debt ceiling is running out, and millions of people are unemployed, but this is the big priority for Republicans? What a joke.

111
40
Mister_EJul. 12, 1111:12 AM

Apologies for my paraphrase, imkirok, but you summed it up nicely, "Republicans? What a joke."

79
33
usafnodakJul. 12, 11 3:27 PM

[The standards have not been particularly contentious before now. They were crafted in 2007 with Republican participation and signed into law by President George W. Bush.]------->The standards were too contentious. I remember people arguing about this when it happened. As for those folks here lambasting the Republicans, look, it was a Republican President who signed the bill with Republican support. I agree this should not be a federal issue, except for, and unless, they want to try and educate the public on the savings over the life of the bulbs a consumer can realize by switching. There are definitely some issues with the CFL's. They don't work as well in cold climates. They are dim when first starting and they draw much more current as they are warming up. This means they don't last as long as they would in an indoor or warmer environment. If you drop and break one, you have a big mess on your hands. They even tell you to open all of your windows and evacuate the area for a certain amount of time. That will go over real well in the northern states from Dec-Mar or so. Why not leave it our choice as to which bulbs we want to use, so long as the older style don't kill any bald eagles. We banned leaded gasoline because it was bad for the environment. Well, what about the mercury vapor in the CFL's? How dangerous is that for the environment? I buy some CFL's and some incandescents, where the CFL's don't play especially well. But shouldn't that be my choice, and not the federal government's? I could even see a local government or state making standards. At least then I am closer to the decision makers and can at worst case vote with my feet if I decide I need to. Freedom is about choice, so long as that freedom doesn't cause harm to my neighbors and fellow citizens. If the CFL's are shown to save money and to be safer over old style bulbs, consumers will migrate to them. The prices will have to drop for the big light bulb companies however, and their profits will be lowered. That's why the big companies like GE like to stay close to the Feds. They paid no corporate taxes and CEO Immelt (sp?) keeps a close watch on Obama and GE's interests in Washington, D.C.

37
49
usafnodakJul. 12, 11 3:32 PM

[the money saved by using these new bulbs creates a new tax revenue stream for the democrats since the people will have more disposible income to get taxed for]------------->A incandescent bulb costs about $.70. Not much sales tax on that when charged as a percentage of price. But a CFL is about $6.00. You get almost 9 times the sales tax on a CFL. Thus, the states like them as well as the feds do. Imagine the tax revenue if they could replace every old bulb with a CFL and ban any further sales of old bulbs. As our X-Rassler Governor used to say, "Follow the money." He was right about that.

36
70
waverunner1Jul. 12, 11 4:52 PM

"Really, this is a conservative free rights issue. How much more in bed can they be with big business".

I could die laughing. Dude, you do know that GE is the big money corporation behind the push for CFL's do you not? You also know that GE has laid off about 25% of it's workers and the CFL's they brand are made in China, do you not? And do you not know that GE is one of Obama's largest corporate donors?

Now that we cleared that up... Bush is responsible for signing the bill. That is another reason I and many others disliked Bush. Free rights issue - are you serious? Absolutely. You really want the government telling you what kind of light bulb to use in your bedroom? Don't liberals want government OUT of our bedrooms. The next thing they will do is force people to buy something - like health insurance. Sorry, most of us want freedom - sorry you don't.

44
62
waverunner1Jul. 12, 11 4:55 PM

75% of the bulbs in my house are name brand CFLs. They do not last nearly as to what they are rated for. I have compared energy bills and see virtually no difference from before I installed them and after. I don't mind using them - I just don't think it is the governments role to tell us what kind of light bulbs to buy.

45
56
waverunner1Jul. 12, 11 4:56 PM

"but this is the big priority for Republicans?" No one but you says it is big. Hard to believe that our party can work on more than one issue at a time isn't it?

28
50

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT