The shutdown-averting budget bill will block federal light bulb efficiency standards, giving a win to House Republicans fighting the so-called ban on incandescent light bulbs.
GOP and Democratic sources tell POLITICO the final omnibus bill includes a rider defunding the Energy Department's standards for traditional incandescent light bulbs to be 30 percent more energy efficient.
One down, a zillion gazillion to go. Now, how about letting us have our rea
Comments
There was no proposed "ban on incandescent light bulbs," of course. There was simply a proposed efficiency standard, which would have been tough, but not impossible, for regular light bulbs to attain. I really don't know how this became such a cause celebre among conservatives, but I'm happy for your win. Enjoy it for now. As alternatives to the ridiculously inefficient, heat-generating bulbs become cheaper and more reliable, market forces will eliminate the old bulbs anyway.
ANOTHER LITTLEJOHN IRONY ALERT:
"As alternatives to the ridiculously inefficient, heat-generating bulbs become cheaper and more reliable, market forces will eliminate the old bulbs anyway"
That's what we've been saying all along, let the market do it not the fricking legislature.
Market forces haven't completely eliminated mogul-base bulbs - just the manufacture of lamps that require them. And that's all that conservatives were asking for.
Replacing a beautiful, infrequently-used antique lamp because it costs $1 a year for electricity instead of 7c is silly. Using CFLs that are a nightmare to dispose of doesn't make sense when disposing of incandescent bulbs is relatively friendly to the environment.
And trying to use a CFL that doesn't produce nearly enough light doesn't work when you're having trouble seeing to sew or to read. Those rating charts that say a X-watt CFL produces as much light as a Y-watt incandescent are full of baloney.
Tim, you will be pleased (or simply astounded) to hear I agree with you. I think it is a foolish decision to horde inefficient bulbs while they are available, although you have every right to do it. But I agree that the matter will eventually be settled by market forces. So few people in the country are buying incandescents that they will soon be unavailable, regardless of the law. I say good riddance. Your (and Leo's) arguments against fluorescents seem a bit contrived, since Leo is working as I write under a ceiling lined with hundreds of fluorescent tubes, each containing far more mercury than a houseful of CFL's. They are slow to turn on and tend to flicker as they get older. But they are there for a reason: It would be economically ridiculous to replace them with bulbs; the electric (and air-conditioning) bill would skyrocket.
Littlejohn, the light bulb mandate is a wonderful example of the stark difference (a metaphor if you will) between people that have to be told what to do and those that think for themselves. There is a certain percentage of the population that actually likes being led by the nose and told when to sh*t, walk, sit, eat, read, etc. They are perfectly content (read: lazy) to let the government make all their decisions for them.
This isn't an attack on you personally, it's an observation of how so many Americans now think, specifically that the government knows what is best for all of us and will ultimately take care of us. 50 + years of nanny-ing and meddling and "protecting" has been pretty darn successfull, I honestly think they may actually outnumber us (those that think and do for themselves) now, at least it's pretty darn close when almost half of the citizens recieve from the government while the rest of us pay.
Speaking of regulations:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204770404577082920364818792.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h
"...when almost half of the citizens recieve from the government while the rest of us pay."
What? Citation required for that statement.
Bulbs are so pass
Mmmmkay.......
"Nearly half, 48.5%, of the population lived in a household that received some type of government benefit in the first quarter of 2010, according to Census data."
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/05/nearly-half-of-households-receive-some-government-benefit/
Tim, that same article points out that most of those households pay taxes.
Furthermore, I think you'll find it's close to 99% of the population that receives something from the government. Do you eat foods, wear clothes, use a cellphone that was shipped over I-69? Do you pay attention when there's a tornado warning from NOAA? Do you have a mailbox? The National Defense Highway System, the Weather Bureau, and the Postal Service all come from the federal government.
You don't HAVE to thank the rest of us for the benefits you receive from the government, but your mother probably would have told you that it's the polite thing to do.
Harl, all of the cute and folksy anectodal examples you always provide, while humorous, simply don't wipe away the fact that about half of the people in this country are getting a free ride at the expense of the rest of us.
"...the fact that about half of the people in this country are getting a free ride at the expense of the rest of us."
The article you provided not only doesn't say that, but actively refutes it:
"Most of those households will still be hit by payroll taxes. Just 18.1% of households pay neither payroll nor federal income taxes and they are predominantly the nation
The term
"Free ride" is a loose enough term that Zank would be better off explaining exactly what he means by it, then.
And regardless of what level of free riding he's alluding to, it's still nowhere near the half he erroneously claims.
Chris,
Tim used the word correctly, you said (incorrectly) that he didn't. Then you went on to personally ridicule him for what was actually your mistake. And you say he's the one who owes an explanation?
It looks like Tim is "right" on this one. And I refer to the usage of that word that implies the opposite of "wrong", not of "left," so as not to confuse anyone.
Sorry Phil, I've been taking into account his previous attitudes and statements when he used a very open term - http://www.answers.com/topic/free-rider-problem
That has a lot more baggage with it than the simple dictionary you're relying on.
Either Zank is wrong in inferring that almost half the people in the country do not contribute and get things while others pay for all of it (everyone pays taxes of some sort if they exchange money at all) or he's wrong in limiting it to just half, as Harl pointed out with the benefits Zank receives - not to mention the corporations that benefit more than they pay in.
So no, he's still at the very least wrong.
Putting aside the semantic disagreements for a moment, suppose Tim
free ride
?
noun
1.
Informal . something obtained without effort or cost: The fact that you're the general's son doesn't mean you'll get a free ride in the army.
2.
Stud Poker . a round of betting in which each player checks and therefore receives another card without having to contribute any chips to the pot.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free+ride
Free ride from where to where? Federal types of taxes are numerous, but most are dedicated:
SS-OASI 10.6% tax can only be used to pay OASI expenses
SS DI tax 1.8% tax can only be used to pay DI expenses
HI Tax 2.9% can only be used to pay Medicare expenses (don;t ask me which aspect (A, B, etc)
Federal Income taxes, Corporate Taxes, Estate Taxes are used to pay general budget items.
The vast majority of workers pay far more in FICA taxes than Federal Income Taxes. About half of all workers pay no federal income taxes.
The top10% of income workers pay 75% of all Federal Income taxes.
In my opinion everyone paying FICA taxes are getting ripped off. 160 million workers nearly all old enough to vote allow 42 million seniors to take 10.6% and 2.9% from their weekly paychecks. A person born after 1985 can expect at most 29 cents in OASI benefits for each $1 paid plus interest at the US Treasury rate paid to OASI in benefits. This will not change by increasing the retirement age (pay longer/more receive less) for the same scheduled benefit; increasing the payroll tax (pay more) for the same scheduled benefit: cut benefits (pay the same tax) for lower scheduled benefits.
Seniors are the smallest group in the US, yet they huff and they puff and intimidate congress the most. Wake up those under 46; don't be slaves for the rest of our lives.