The campaign to keep old-school, inefficient, incandescent lightbulbs is near and dear to the hearts of
House Republicans, including
Michele Bachmann. But despite that, the bulbs are to be phased out.
How crazed do Republicans get on this subject? Michigan state Rep. Tom McMillin has introduced a bill that would let Michigan firms manufacture incandescent bulbs. The bill's (PDF) logic is that:
An incandescent lightbulb that is manufactured in this state without the inclusion of parts, other than generic or insignificant parts, imported from outside of this state and that remains within this state has not entered into interstate commerce and is not subject to congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce.
That's the logic of how the bill is legally valid, anyway. On other fronts, logic remains scarce. Since transporting Michigan-manufactured bulbs to other states would be interstate commerce, what McMillin is proposing here is an incandescent lightbulb industry for Michigan only. If Ohio wanted incandescent bulbs, they'd have to pass a law and manufacture their own. Or people could probably drive to Michigan and get some for personal use—which would be consistent, at least, using a whole lot of gas to go get an inefficient bulb. Then there are the logical questions of why a certain breed of Republican is so deeply invested in continuing to use the same kind of lightbulb despite advancing technology. And why lightbulbs have become some kind of symbol of freedom. The freedom to be wasteful, specifically.
What's most mind-boggling to me, though, is that this is what it takes to get a Republican politician to try to promote American manufacturing. Most of the time, they're dead set against any law that would encourage companies to manufacture things in this country and create good manufacturing jobs here. But when it comes to preserving their supply of incandescent lightbulbs, well, then, it's time to come up with elaborate evasions of federal law creating state-specific lightbulb manufacturing policy.