Yes, if Washington has it's say. The fight is back on and many wonder why, and question if, they should be involved in deciding what bulbs we can and can't use.

Although a law was passed in 2007 that required incandescent lights be phased out as a way of conserving energy, it never happened due to the Better Use Of Light Bulb Act in 2010 and then failed again in 2011 with the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act and many of us continue to buy them today.

But that may change as Congress has again brought up the issue that incandescent lights should be phased out permanently, end of story.

Political pundit Michelle Bachman, summed it up the best,

The Government has no right making decisions on what light bulbs we use - Minnesota Republican Rep., Michele Bachmann

I have to agree.  And it should be my choice.  I'm not getting the power for free and pay for everything I use and there are a lot of sources producing this power, that I pay for, that is free to them like hydro, wind, solar etc.  My running incandescent lights isn't scarring the earth is my point although I guess there would probably be more glass etc in the landfills since they don't last as long but maybe twice as much glass is better than the mercury that is hitting the landfills.

Let's face it, may of us have already switched to the newer bulbs but they are more expensive and many contain mercury which we all know can be a very very bad thing and if my house was full of kids and a pregnant wife, I wouldn't want them (the bulbs; not the wife and kids, for clarification)  in my home and how many people actually "dispose of them properly" as the warning labels clearly state. (Should a light bulb come with a warning label?) As it stands now, half of mine are and half aren't, but it should still be my choice.

That's today's debate.  Sound off!  Perhaps I am missing something so I am totally open-minded as to how continuing incandescent light bulbs is a bad long term thing.