July 15, 2011

The U.S. House Approved A Provision To Save Traditional Light Bulbs! Thank God! The New Eco Ones SUCK

Thank God! The New Eco Ones SUCK and cost more. They cause fires and if kept unopened in storage for a long period they get moldy and have to be thrown away. I know this from personal experience. I was disgusted to find the CFL twisty lightbulbs with the boxes still sealed in plastic, covered with black mold. That was money wasted. Aren't they filled with toxic mercury? and they are made in China who doesn't give a sh*t about producing quality or non-toxic anything? They focus on cheap labor, cheap ingredients and low manufacturing standards.

Besides, General Electric received a lot of taxpayer money from the Obama administration in the form of subsidies for environmental "green" programs. How did General Electric respond to our generous GIFT? They shut down the last remaining light bulb factory here in the United States, laid off American workers, then turned around and opened a new light bulb plant in China and expanded their light bulb operations in Mexico. Oh and Pres Obama hired Jeffrey Immelt, the former CEO of General Electric as his new jobs czar. This guy has been closing down GE factories for years now and creating jobs everywhere else but here. He's also been pushing for American "green" jobs that he knew was a bunch of hogwash! Look I'm all for capitalism, a corporation should be free to operate where ever it wants. It's CRONY CAPITALISM that I'm against. The relationship between General Electric and our federal government is a fine example of that crookedness. Don't take FEDERAL TAXPAYER MONEY on the false pretense that you're doing a good deed for Americans and the environment, when you know damn well you are not. Oh and I totally forgot to mention that General Electric PAYS NO TAXES. Yeah you read that right!!! Because they have good tax people who know all the loopholes, they PAY NO TAXES. What's worse? They actually get a TAX CREDIT! This is on top of the federal subsidies they get from our taxpayer dollars!
[10/04/10 Heartland Institute] General Electric has closed its last major factory making incandescent light bulbs in the United States, a victim of a 2007 law banning sale of the light bulbs by 2014. Environmental activist groups promised the restrictions would create green jobs, but workers at GE’s Winchester, Virginia plant are finding the law is merely creating red jobs overseas in China.
[09/23/10 ABC3 Winchester] Production will end for the final time Thursday evening at the General Electric Plant in Winchester. The plant will turn off its lights for good Friday. That's when around 200 employees will lose their jobs. Friday employees will gather their belongings and say goodbye to each other. Production of the light bulbs exempt from legislation will be consolidated in GE Lighting's existing plant in Mexico.
[03/25/11 ABC news]The top tax bracket for U.S. corporations stands at 35 percent, one of the highest rates in the world. So how is it possible that a giant of American business, General Electric, paid nothing in federal taxes last year, even as it made billions in profit?

For those unaccustomed to the loopholes and shelters of the corporate tax code, GE's success at avoiding taxes is nothing short of extraordinary. The company, led by Immelt, earned $14.2 billion in profits in 2010, but it paid not a penny in taxes because the bulk of those profits, some $9 billion, were offshore. In fact, GE got a $3.2 billion tax benefit.
***********************************************************

Bloomberg news
written by Jim Snyder
Friday July 15, 2011

The U.S. House approved a provision to save for a year the 100-watt incandescent light bulb, which has become a pear-shaped symbol of personal freedom to some Republicans.

Lawmakers passed on a voice vote an amendment to energy- spending legislation for fiscal year 2012 barring the Energy Department from implementing or enforcing lighting-efficiency standards set by 2007 legislation. The law would effectively push the traditional bulbs off store shelves, starting with the 100-watt version next year.

Republicans passed the amendment over objections from Democrats, environmental groups and lighting manufacturers such as Fairfield, Connecticut-based General Electric Co. (GE), which have retooled factories and products to meet the new standards. Critics said consumers should be able to buy the cheapest bulbs on the market.

“The federal government has no right to tell me or any other citizen what type of light bulb to use at home,” said Representative Michael Burgess, a Texas Republican who sponsored the amendment, during debate yesterday. “It is our right to choose.”

President Barack Obama’s administration has said the light- bulb standards will save consumers $6 billion in 2015.

Democrats rejected Republicans’ complaints that the bulb standards would restrict choice, saying companies already produce more than one type of lighting that would comply with the law, including a more efficient and more expensive incandescent.

Spending Measure

The House passed the spending bill that includes the light- bulb amendment by a 219-196 vote, with 10 Democrats joining the majority and 21 Republicans opposing the measure.

The legislation provides $30.6 billion in funding for energy- and water-related programs, about $5.9 billion less than the amount requested by President Barack Obama, and about $1 billion less than the programs received for fiscal 2011.

Efforts by Democrats to add millions of dollars to energy- efficiency and renewable-energy programs were rejected by Republicans during debate on the measure. The Appropriations Committee had cut $1.9 billion from the Administration’s $3.2 billion request.

The bill adds $45 million to pay for a waste-repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, which the administration is seeking to shut down.

Second Bulb Vote

Today’s vote on light bulbs was the second this week. The House on July 13 rejected by a 233-193 vote a bill that would have repealed the higher efficiency standards. The measure was brought up under a procedure that required two-thirds support to pass.

While the 2007 law passed with bipartisan support and was signed by President George W. Bush, Republicans have cited it this year as an example of an intrusive federal government. Critics also said the mercury contained in one type of replacement, the compact fluorescent lights, raise health and environmental concerns.

Recycling Bulbs

Environmental groups said the trace amount of the toxin in the bulbs isn’t a problem when they are recycled properly, and that the standards will eventually save the amount of energy that would otherwise be produced by more than 30 power plants.

Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, a Washington-based energy-efficiency advocacy group, said in a statement yesterday that preventing the Energy Department from enforcing the light-bulb law “may cost consumers little up front, but would put a strain on their wallets in the long term.”

The National Electrical Manufacturers Association, which includes Fairfield, Connecticut-based General Electric Co., said in a letter to Congress that the bill would “strand millions of dollars in investment,” create “regulatory uncertainty,” and increase energy use in the U.S.

The spending bill is H.R. 2354.

No comments: