A perceptive mind over at That’s My Congress identified one of the most mindbogglingly idiotic unofficial caucuses in the U.S. Congress: The Dim Bulb Caucus.

The Dim Bulb Caucus is named that because its members are so dim-witted that they are supporting H.R. 5616, the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act.

Are light bulbs going out and having babies now? No, nothing like that.

The so-called Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act would overturn parts of last year’s important environmental law, the Energy Independence and Security Act. Specifically, the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act would overturn the provisions that establish a gradual phase-out of energy-wasting incandescent bulbs along with a gradual phase-in of efficient, energy-saving compact fluorescent light bulbs.

The author of H.R. 5616, wacky Representative Michelle Bachmann, seems so worked-up about this issue that she’s ready to form the NLBA - the National Light Bulb Association, which will warn jack-booted government thugs: Sure, you can come take my incadescent light bulb… out of my cold, dead hands!

The excuses Michelle Bachmann has given for her effort to promote the use of inefficient technology are: 1) She thinks that global warming is a hoax; and 2) She is worried silly about mercury pollution that could result from use of compact fluorescent light bulbs.

As for excuse #1, I point you the mountain of scientific research right next to the coal-fired power plant. As for excuse #2, I point you to the coal-fired power plant.

The truth is that there is a very small amount of mercury in every compact fluorescent light bulb. However, the truth that Michelle Bachmann forgets to mention is that incandescent light bulbs actually produce more mercury pollution than compact fluorescent light bulbs, because they require a lot more electrical power to operate. As a good green blog points out, “Since a compact fluorescent bulb uses 75 percent less energy than an incandescent bulb, and lasts at least six times longer, it is responsible for far less mercury pollution in the long run. A coal-burning power plant will emit four times more mercury to produce the electricity for an incandescent bulb than for a compact fluorescent.” Also, compact fluorescent light bulbs are now recycled, and processed so that their mercury doesn’t enter the environment.

I didn’t hear this one from Michelle Bachmann, but the incandescent, pro-pollution lobby does have a third excuse for promoting the agenda of the Dim Bulb Caucus: They say that there are some workers out there who are medically unable to work in environments that are lit fluorescent bulbs.

Back over at the That’s My Congress blog, a Dim Bulb lobbyist showed up to make this point, with a piece of cut and paste comment spam, reading, “Until someone writes and passes a bill that gives me a medical exemption from forced fluorescence then I am supporting HR 5616 IH ‘Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act’.

Well, happy day! Someone has already written that law. It’s called the American Disabilities Act.

So, is that lobbyist for the incandescent light bulb industry now going to, as promised, oppose the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act?

Don’t leave the light on, waiting for her to call.