Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Note to Fox News: George W. Bush Banned Incandescent Light Bulbs
On Fox News’ Fox and Friends today Stuart Varney called Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn a hero for trying to get rid of the “ban on incandescent light bulbs.” There are two problems with this statement. The light bulbs aren’t banned, and the phase out was actually a Republican idea that was signed into law by George W. Bush in 2007.
Here is the video of Varney from Media Matters:
While promoting his own show Varney said, “We have Ambassador John Bolton on the Egypt situation. We’ve got Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn who is trying to get rid of that ban on incandescent light bulbs. She’s our hero.”
In those few seconds, Fox News managed to push the false talking point that incandescent light bulbs are banned, and also portrayed a Republican as a hero for trying to get rid of the “ban.” However, incandescent light bulbs are not banned. The use of the term band creates a false image of big government making the light bulbs illegal to own. The truth is that Energy independence and Security Act of 2007 increased the efficiency standards for light bulbs by 30% from 2012-2014. The new energy standards begin with 100 watt bulbs in 2012, and end with 45 watt bulbs in 2014. There is also a list of exempt bulb types that includes appliance lamps, rough service bulbs, 3-way, colored lamps, and plant lights. In 2020 a second set efficiency raising standards will take effect.
It is not going to be illegal to own incandescent bulbs. No one is going to come to your house and take them away, or put you in jail for owning them. There is no ban. America is simply moving to a more efficient light bulb. You will still be able incandescent bulbs for uses that are exempt from the new standards.
Here’s the real kicker. The Energy Independence and National Security Act was signed into law, not by the “nanny state loving socialist Obama,” but by Republican free market champion George W. Bush. When President Bush signed the bill into law on December 19, 2007, he praised the energy efficiency standards, “The bill also includes revisions to improve energy efficiency in lighting and appliances. It adopts elements of the executive order I signed requiring federal agencies to lead by example in efficiency and renewable energy use.”
This bill came into being as the legislative response to George W. Bush’s Twenty in Ten challenge during his 2007 State of the Union. In the address, Bush called on the United States to improve fuel economy, and increase alternative fuels. His goal was to cut gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years. All of the current right wing outrage over light bulbs is due to a proposal by their own Republican president. It was their idea. Instead of trying to pass this plan off as Democratic big government, they need to look in the mirror. If they don’t like the new bulbs, they should be blaming themselves, not Obama or the Democrats.
It is typical that Fox News would try to frame Republicans as fighting the heroic fight against big government, without telling their viewers that they themselves created the big government that they are now so outraged about, so the next time you come across a right winger who is moaning about the light bulb ban, let them know that could have all the incandescent bulbs that they wanted if they would not have voted for Republican George W. Bush, the energy efficient light bulb president.
Image courtesy of Moonbattery
Related Posts :
Michele Bachmann hates the government that she wanted to become a part of so bad when she ran for office ...
CBN is complaining about "light bulb socialism", asking whether the replacement of traditional incandescent ...
After Mitt Romney won another state that President Obama will carry in November, he converted his victor ...
While trying to defend Arizona’s new immigration law, Rush Limbaugh claimed that the Arizona bill is not ...
15 Responses to Note to Fox News: George W. Bush Banned Incandescent Light Bulbs
Public Service Advertisements
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jan. 31st, 2011 at 2:52 pm
You gotta love Republican stupidity; it ever surpasses my wildest expectations. Doesn’t FOX News have a research staff? I have run into this kind of ignorance time and again in talking to conservatives face to face, coming to me with talking points from Beck or Limbaugh or just FOX News generally, or those crazy emails the lunatic right likes to send around, and which can be disproved at a single click of a mouse by anyone wishing to investigate the claims being made.
Sarah Jones
Jan. 31st, 2011 at 2:58 pm
They know their audience doesn’t CARE if they lie to them, and won’t check or believe it if someone else does check. Let us remember that for them, history is not a done deal – it can always be revised. This alone qualifies them as willingly and knowingly misleading people. It’s absolutely mind-blowing!
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jan. 31st, 2011 at 3:12 pm
It truly is, and you’re right. For them, history can be endlessly re-written
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 31st, 2011 at 3:01 pm
When I read this I just about died laughing. But then I realized what they were doing. They didn’t care who signed the the enactment into affect as long as they could make it look like a bad democrat did it.
Just another day in the life of a fox news announcer doing his job to switch, bait and run.
Jason Easley
Jan. 31st, 2011 at 3:06 pm
@shiva
That’s exactly what they are doing, and that’s why I wrote the story.
cleo17
Jan. 31st, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Yeah but..he wasn’t black. It’s so scary when a black president calls out the same rule of law..over an incandescent litebulb! These people are really reaching at straws.
Cairns
Feb. 1st, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Mm. Maybe you should be a little more honest with your readers. It ain’t as Fox protrayed but you ain’t exactly telling the whole truth either. The bill had it’s genesis in Democratic politicians.
From Wikipedia:
As part of the Democratic Party’s 100-Hour Plan during the 110th Congress,[2] it was introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Representative Nick Rahall of West Virginia, along with 198 cosponsors. Despite Rahall becoming 1 of only 4 Democrats to oppose the final bill,[3] it passed in the House without amendment in January 2007. When the Act was introduced in the Senate in June 2007, it was combined with Senate Bill S. 1419: Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007.[4] This amended version passed the Senate on June 21, 2007.[5][6] After further amendments and negotiation between the House and Senate, a revised bill passed both houses on December 18, 2007[7] and President Bush, a Republican, signed it into law on December 19, 2007 in response to his “Twenty in Ten” challenge to reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years.[8]
AKRNC
Feb. 1st, 2011 at 6:18 pm
Bachmann’s reason for speaking about the alleged ban on incandescent light bulbs was to blame President Obama for taking away their freedom to use whatever lightbulbs they wish. It doesn’t matter to her or any of the RWNJ’s who proposed the bill. It’s all about attacking President Obama despite it being an outright lie. She has a habit of doing that, whether she’s talking about a Pelosi’s alleged liquor bill on flights based on figures that did not pertain to her, a trip to India costing $200 million per day, another lie which she refused to back down from, and now the nonsense about IRS agents which was debunked last year and the light bulb ban! She’s another nutjob who LOVES any type of publicity. She’s a fame whore just like Palin and will say or do anything to get her face in front of a camera. I’ll never forget her making a fool of herself hanging all over President Bush after the State of the Union in 2008. She looked like a groupie gushing over a rock star! What an embarrassment she is to women in politics who are actually doing their job.
Anonymous
Feb. 2nd, 2011 at 7:10 am
As far as i know, GLOBAL WARMING push them to find ways for bulb that use of 25% -30% less of energy, and cut consumers electricity usage by 60%. which is Good to all of us, the Economic invisibility of nature is the problem of this issue.
SRB
Feb. 12th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
scienceandpublicpolicy.or...
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 12th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
President: Robert Ferguson has 26 years of Capitol Hill experience, having worked in both the House and Senate. He served in the House Republican Study Committee, the Senate Republican Policy Committee; as Chief of Staff to Congressman Jack Fields (R-TX) from 1981-1997, Chief of Staff to Congressman John E. Peterson (R-PA) from 1997-2002 and Chief of Staff to Congressman Rick Renzi (R-AZ) in 2002. He has considerable policy experience in climate change science, mercury science, energy and mining, forests and resources, clean air and the environment. His undergraduate and advanced degrees were taken at Brigham Young University and George Washington University, respectively. Ferguson served active duty in the US Army from 1966-1970.
Ferguson was previously the initial Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSSP), a project of the corporate-funded Frontiers of Freedom Institute (FOF).[3] Exxon had provided $100,000 in 2002 specifically for the “Center for Sound Science and Public Policy” (sic) as well as a further $97,000 for “Global Climate Change Outreach Activities”, and a further $35,000 for “Global Climate Change Science Projects”;[4] In subsequent years Exxon continued it support for the project including $50,000 for “Project Support – Sound Science Center” in 2003[5], $70,000 for “Project Support- Science Center & Climate Change” in 2004;[6] $140,000 to the organization in 2005 but without a specific amount for CSPP identified, $90,000 for the “Science & Policy Center” in 2006[7] and $90,000 for “energy literacy” in 2007.[8]
FOF’s 2004 annual return submitted to the Internal Revenue Service states that for his work for CSSP Ferguson was paid $100,000 and also lists him as one of the Director’s of the think tank.[9] In FOF’s 2007 annual return, Ferguson is listed as working 40 hours a week on CCSP duties and as director of the organization, but without being paid.[10]
Yeah, I’m buying what he says alright.
PW
Feb. 3rd, 2011 at 2:14 pm
I don’t think semantics (ban or phase out) are going to matter much to people as they realize that it’s getting harder and harder to find incandescent bulbs on the shelves and all the other little gradual consequences that come with the “phase out”.