During the August 11th, GOP Debate in Ames, Iowa , one of the strangest moments for any candidate was when Michele Bachmann made this statement:
People are looking for a champion. They want someone who has been fighting. When it came to health care, I brought tens of thousands of Americans to Washington to fight the unconstitutional individual mandates. I didn’t praise it. When it came to cap and trade, I fought it with everything that was in me, including I introduced the Lightbulb Freedom of Choice Act so people could all purchase the lightbulb of their choice.
The Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act? Seriously? With everything going on in the world, Michele Bachmann finally narrowed down the biggest priorities to include choosing whether your light bulb would look like a Dairy Queen soft serve cone or the incandescent light bulb that God created all those many years ago.
So what is the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice act? After reading the details of the bill ( found here ) it appears that this was a bill that Bachmann introduced to try to kill the phasing out of incandescent bulbs in favor of compact fluorescent lights, the low wattage twisty light bulbs that use far less electricity but have tended in the past to have issues with slow start times, dimming over time, and potential problems with disposal due to small amounts of mercury. Bachmann’s legislation wanted the incandescent ban repealed within six months of its signing unless the Comptroller General could provide a report that indicated:
consumers will obtain a net savings, in terms of dollars spent on the combination of monthly electric bills and expenses for new light fixtures to accommodate the use of the light bulbs required by the amendments described in section 2(a), compared to dollars spent before the enactment of those amendments; the phase-out required by those amendments will reduce overall carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent in the United States by the year 2025; and such phase-out will not pose any health risks, including risks associated with mercury containment in certain light bulbs, to consumers or the general public, including health risks with respect to hospitals, schools, day care centers, mental health facilities, and nursing homes.
Bachmann’s legislation ignores some key realities:
CFL bulbs are available in almost any replacement size you could want so that new fixtures are unnecessary and definitely save money over incandescent bulbs. Their power consumption is far less than incandescents, which saves money and energy and reduces emissions of carbon dioxide through less power consumption. Mercury can be found in most florescent bulbs, including those overhead tube lights that have been in use by hospitals, schools, day care centers, mental health facilities and nursing homes for years.
But is it possible that Bachmann’s legislation was less about some concern that the wool was being pulled over people’s eyes about the benefits of eliminating incandescent lights and more about something deeply personal to Michele Bachmann? Namely, her health.
Bachmann suffers from migraine headaches . As indicated in a 2010 New York Times article many migraine sufferers (my wife included) believe that the type of light emitted by fluorescent lights triggers their migraine headaches or makes them worse. Could it be that Bachmann merely was looking out for her own personal health and choice when introducing this bill?
Why does this matter? Because it would be a case in which Michele Bachmann is saying that an individual (or corporation, since Republicans believe they are the same thing) could have the right to make a personal choice of something that is in their own best interest, even if it goes against something that many feels contributes to a greater well-being for the whole. In this case, reducing our energy consumption and saving the environment.
With that in mind, it’s curious that Bachmann doesn’t extend that same logic to allowing a woman to choose what is best for her when it comes to reproductive freedoms or even choosing who they want to have a relationship with or marry. Bachmann is staunchly anti-abortion and against homosexuality and gay marriage because she believes it is morally wrong and responsible for any number of societal ills. But why shouldn’t an individual person be allowed to choose what is best for his or her own emotional, physical, and psychological well being, assuming it doesn’t cause undo personal harm to another person?
If this is the one example that Bachmann can point to of how she’s leading the fight for the American People, we have to wonder what a Bachmann presidency will bring. Bans on hybrid cars because they tend to turn people into people with superiority complexes who piss you off at the gas pump? Bringing back the freedom to choose paper or plastic with your groceries?
At any rate, the campaign should be interesting. I’ll be watching intently as I work on starting up my new group, “Operation Light Bulb Rescue”.