WaC Files: Light Bulbs Re-Charged

(WaC means "What a Crock" which more quickly summarizes the object of these critiques.)

Well I’m glad to see I haven’t scared off my former coworker Rich Peasel when I decided to start reviewing and replying to letters he had published by the Flint Journal, which seemed to occur roughly once a month. This time it took six months, so he caught me a bit off guard.

When I recently posted a piece on PolitiFact’s doing too many statements about light bulbs, recommending that they “turn off that light”, I assumed I’d be doing it too. Unfortunately, Rich has bought into the light bulb myths and decided to expound on them this time, along with his usual petty grievances about Democrats who waste pennies while he ignores pounds wasted by Republicans.

Anyway, let’s get started with his latest ode to outlandishness:

I just read in the Flint Journal Sunday paper of July 10 that Sen. Stabenow is planning another pie-in-the-sky investment of taxpayer dollars. Yep, the good senator is going to spend $2 billion to develop a car battery that will run 500 miles on one single charge, like the Volt. Wow! Just think, this electric car will last forever.

If it takes eight hours to charge the Chevy Volt at home for 30 miles of driving time, why, it would only take a mere three weeks to charge your car for 500 miles. This 500-mile-per-charge vehicle should last between 30 and 50 years. How could such a vehicle ever wear out sitting your garage and eating electricity for three weeks a month in order to have enough energy to carry you out on the open road for 10 hours driving time?

Okay, where does it say that it would take three weeks to charge a car and where does it say it will last between 30 and 50 years? I’ve carefully read the Journal article and found more details at Stabenow’s senate website, and I can’t find anything or anyone who makes these claims. So unless Peasel can prove this by citing sources, I’m thinking there is no proof, and this is merely hyperbole: “A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect” although most readers, especially those afflicted with right-wing insanity like him, would take it literally. I’m sure that’s his intent.

Sen. Stabenow’s $2 billion investment equates to just over $100,000 per job creation, but this is better than the quarter of million dollars per job the president has spent just to save jobs. In fact, Sen. Stabenow should be complimented since she is spending slightly less than what a typical banana republic spends to create jobs (when Americans gives a banana republic foreign aid to spend).

Well he may not have to go far if his Tea Party extortionist buddies have their way, as we will be a banana republic. Yes, the stimulus wasn’t sufficient because Obama foolishly appeased the Republicans by making a large part of it a tax cut, which did absolutely no good as stimulus. Just like it did absolutely no good under Bush.

You have to appreciate the generosity of Sen. Stabenow spending hundreds of thousands to create a job with our money. When the greedy, stingy automobile industry uses their own money, they only spend a few thousand for every job they create. Or for example, Apple’s introduction of the I-pad created more jobs in China than President Obama created during his Summer of Recovery at less than a fraction of a fraction of a trillion dollars.

Yep, in China….any idea why they don’t make them here, Rich? Is that the Democrats’ fault too? The problem with Rich’s statement about companies only spending “a few thousand for every job they create” is that the research and development often does cost billions, so often that they rely on government research. And this $2 billion is exactly for that, grants for research and development. Or something developed by the government is then transferred to use by industry.  Good example is the Arpa-net, a government communication system that eventually became the internet. You know, Al Gore’s invention (ha ha, I'm just kidding!).



Click to enlarge.

And again, I must present a chart I’ve presented before and need to present every time some right-winger says the Democrats caused the increase in the deficits: we would not have the majority of the  deficits we face right now if not for the two trillion-dollar wars, the tax cuts and the unfunded Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit that Bush promoted and passed with the Republicans. He was the one who had the blank check…and I didn’t see Peasel writing bizarre letters to the Flint Journal griping about what Bush was doing with “his money” then. Only about amounts which are miniscule in comparison, like this, when it’s by Democrats.  He's complained before about some petty pork barrel projects of Michigan Senior Senator Carl Levin.  While I'm not really for pork, I think Michigan's economic future is quite bleak and it needs all the help it can get.

Sen. Stabenow stated that our $2 billion investment will save us from foreign dependency on lithium. I’d rather the fair Senator start small and get rid of our dependency on foreign light bulbs. The senator’s vote killed thousands of jobs in the incandescent light bulb factories and now Americans pay as much for a light bulb as we pay for a gallon of gas to foreign countries. In the worst case scenario, if China reduces our light bulb allocation, all of Sen. Stabenow’s billion dollar battery factories would become inoperable, in the dark.

Oh yea, that bill President Bush signed back in 2007….done with the help of the Republicans. First off, the reason they’re made in China is because if they were made here they would cost 50 cents to $1.00 more per bulb, and since most businesses, like GM, are “stingy” and “greedy” –using one of your favorite expressions--they’d be “stupid not to” offshore production of CFLs. It’s not a government decision, it’s a business decision. It would be a better idea for Peasel to write GE, Phillips and other manufacturers and ask them why they’ve made our country so dependent on CFL light bulbs made in China.

Secondly, the last major factory that made incandescents to close, in 2010, had 200 employees, not “thousands.” In other words, jobs were being killed long before Obama became president. Thirdly, they could have stayed open until 2014, because the bulbs are being phased out starting with the high wattage, only 100-watt will be taken off the market starting next year. So why didn’t they? Or why didn’t this plant make the more efficient incandescents? It wasn’t because of the government. It was because bulbs could be manufactured more cheaply overseas.

Lastly, you actually aren’t being forced to use CFL’s, like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal have led you to believe:

Joseph Higbee, a spokesman for the electrical manufacturers association, offered his take on the situation: "Unfortunately people do not yet understand this lighting transition, and mistakenly think they won't be able to buy incandescent light bulbs. This misinformation has been promoted by a number of media outlets. Incandescent light bulbs are not being banned, and the new federal energy-efficiency standards for light bulbs do not mandate the use of CFLs. My hope is that the media can help the American people understand the energy-efficient lighting options available, as opposed to furthering misconceptions." [New York Times, 5/25/11]

By the way, Rich, did you know that the incandescent bulb industry has made more innovations in the last three years than they have in the last thirty? Gee, wonder why. Ever heard the expression “necessity is the mother of invention”? Maybe these government efficiency standards spurred it, ya think? No, I don’t think you can get that through your head.  But I have an idea: looking at some of the stuff you make up, I bet you'd be a perfect fit working for Michele Bachmann's presidential campaign!