“Lawmakers passed on a voice vote an amendment to energy-spending legislation for fiscal year 2012 barring the Energy Department from implementing or enforcing lighting-efficiency standards set by 2007 legislation. The law would effectively push the traditional bulbs off store shelves, starting with the 100-watt version next year.”

Oh and they saved the traditional light bulb for another year. THIS IS BAD?

“The legislation provides $30.6 billion in funding for energy- and water-related programs, about $5.9 billion less than the amount requested by President Barack Obama, and about $1 billion less than the programs received for fiscal 2011.”

OK. So they cut the spending by 3% from last year and almost 20% below what Obama wants and this is a ‘sellout’?

Oh wait, there’s more:

“The bill adds $45 million to pay for a waste-repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., which the administration is seeking to shut down.”

So you would want $0 for this? And shut down nuclear power?

“Efforts by Democrats to add millions of dollars to energy-efficiency and renewable-energy programs were rejected by Republicans during debate on the measure. The Appropriations Committee had cut $1.9 billion from the Administration’s $3.2 billion request.”

Oh, SO THEY CUT THE GREEN ENERGY BOONDOGGLES BY 50%! This is bad? Not enough?

Yes, the Congress could and should cut billions and billions more from the spending then whatever number they produce. But in a situation where Republicans control only one-half of one of three branches of Government, you cannot expect Progressive Rome to be repealed in a day. Or even a year.

This bill, cutting green boondoggles by half and spending at 20% under Obama’s proposal is clearly a step in the right direction. If you want the House to do better, be specific about what they can actually do better. Far more interesting if you have a specific better realistic proposal than going into a drama-queen fainting spell over this.