Right On

Right On
Notice how expensive light’s going to be getting, I point out in Thursday morning’s Journal Sentinel: Bulb makers say they’re close to perfecting the LED bulb for household use that can replace the 100-watt incandescent bulb, which is more or less illegal as of next year. The LED bulb would cost, at least at the outset, about $50.

In what world does a $50 light bulb for household use make sense? One where the government makes the cheaper alternatives scarce. Congress knocked out 50-cent incandescent bulbs as part of a 311-page law passed in Nancy Pelosi’s first bloom of power and signed – gee, thanks, pal – by President George W. Bush. The ban* approaches unhindered under President Barack Obama and, as I point out, fits right into his plans to nudge us into a “green jobs” utopia. It’s of a piece with Obama’s cap-and-trade-and-Chevy-Volt dreams.

I write:

“In selling all these things, the president speaks of villains who at last will be made to pay: Coal-burning utilities will squirm, oil companies will be discomfited. In place of these baddies, virtuous new industries will be spawned.

“But he makes an elementary error: He sees the $50-per-bulb of revenue to a new lighting industry while never noticing the $49.50 of other things that people would have bought had their government not ginned up a light-bulb crisis. The $50 isn't new money: It's just diverted against customers' will from, say, mustard or dentistry or shoes or motel stays or any of a million things that people would rather spend their money on if the government had let well enough alone.

“Underlying all this is, apparently, a belief that you and I have to get used to less of nearly everything, energy included, and that it's up to policy-makers to nudge us. Take another part of (Rep. Paul) Ryan's plans, health care for future retirees. He proposes a reliable, tested mechanism to bring prices down - market economics. Obama instead proceeds from the belief that we're using too much health care. He proposes an expert panel that will restrict how much care people get, especially of expensive, new treatments.

“On taxes, Obama talks endlessly of more accurately finding out who has too much money - again with the villains! - and taxing away more of it. Ryan audaciously suggests we see how we can all get richer, meaning more money for every purpose - including government, and without the punitive rates.”

Read about a more optimistic alternative here.

*By the way, I know that formally speaking, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 does not ban incandescent bulbs. No, it just insists that any bulb you are permitted to buy should be many times as efficient as incandescent bulbs can be. Clever.

Also, yes, I know compact fluorescents are somewhat cheaper than LEDs. Yes, I know they save money long-term, presuming the kids don’t break them. That’s why I use several around my house, in places where I don’t care that their light is weak and ugly. That doesn’t make it right for the government to boss around your light bulb selection.