Yes, according to Sen. Paul, a “Tea Party” freshman Republican from Kentucky and a very vocal member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
At a hearing of the committee on Thursday that focused on programs to support energy efficiency from the Energy Department, Sen. Paul took the meeting as a perfect occasion to reveal terrible troubles with his home toilet; and to expound on the failings of legislation passed in 2007 that would ban the use of incandescent light bulbs, the real reason for the Senate hearing.
Senator Rand Paul’s toilets don’t work, and he blames the Department of Energy.
At a hearing of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Thursday, Mr. Paul lambasted Kathleen Hogan, deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency at the Energy Department, telling her that the department’s “hypocrisy” and “busybody nature” has “restricted choices” for consumers rather than made life better for them.
“You don’t care about the consumer really,” Mr. Paul said. “Frankly, my toilets don’t work in my house, and I blame you.”
The hearing was called not to examine toilet policy, but to consider two proposed bills, one that would update energy efficiency standards for appliances and a second that would repeal a measure passed in 2007 to phase in new efficiency standards for light bulbs beginning next year.
The new standards would make the current form of 100-watt incandescent bulbs obsolete. Those bulbs have long been known to be particularly inefficient, emitting far more heat than light.
……………………………….
While many Republicans have taken up the cause of the familiar 100-watt incandescent bulb, Mr. Paul said he took the law as a personal affront visited on Americans by “bureaucrats.”
“I’m not against conservation,” Mr. Paul said. “But why not do it in a voluntary way,” rather than force him to adopt the new bulbs with “fines and threats of jail?”
Sen. Paul, perhaps the highest profile member of the “Tea Party” movement that had such success in the November election, was not finished.
He also tied in the government infringement on his “right” to fix his toilet or purchase inefficient light bulbs with the “pro-choice” stance of the Obama administration concerning a “woman’s right to an abortion.”
“It’s not that I’m against conservation — I’m all for energy conservation,” Paul admitted. “But I wish you would come here to extol me [sic], to cajole, to encourage, to try to convince me that it would be a good idea to conserve energy. But you come instead with fines, threats of jail. … This is what your energy efficiency standards are.”
Paul went on, “I think there should be some self-examination from the administration on the idea that you favor a woman’s right to an abortion, but you don’t favor a woman or a man’s right to choose what kind of light bulb, what kind of dishwasher, what kind of washing machine.”
……………………………….
“We have to flush the toilet 10 times before it works,” Paul said. “I’ve been waiting for 20 years to talk about how bad these toilets are and this was a good excuse today.”
If Rand Paul’s toilet doesn’t work, it must be some communist plot. It couldn’t have anything to do with him making bad decisions about which toilets to have in his house, would it?
Here we thought libertarians were rugged individualists, who believe in personal responsibility and living with one’s choices …
Doesn’t it make you want to run for office? You know the guy has got to be wishing he was on the banking committee, but since he was put here, hell, he’s going to get an answer about those toilets!
My toilet doesn’t work so good either, but I can get a better one. I did change all my light bulbs and it did save 20% on my electric costs. But until they stop making gas guzzlers, to conserve energy, I’m not going for mandatory light bulb changes. Saving lots of money is reason enough for me.
So Paul wants to let a woman choose to waste water when flushing, but have no choice in her own reproductive matters? What kind of libertarian is this creep? .
obviously, you guy’s weren’t listening. The point that Paul was trying to make was a non elected body has taken upon itself to restrict our choices under the guise of “energy conservation”. forcing people, against their will, to follow strict standards is un-american and hurts industry. there is no safety concerns here. there is no reason other than these people that think they know how to run your life better than you do. Its hypocritical to say you stand for freedom and then turn around and restrict peoples freedom. he has a good point and i agree with him. no one is going to force me to do what i don’t want to do. this is about freedom.