CFLs, LEDs etc certainly have their advantages –
but the “switch all your lights and save lots of money” campaigns are like
saying “Eat only bananas and save lots of money!”
Regular cheap incandescents have their advantages too.

It is a light bulb “ban” that’s coming:
Any light bulb not meeting the energy usage standard is banned.
Yes, energy efficient halogen incandescent replacements are allowed, but
still have some constructional and appearance differences, a whiter light output etc compared with regular bulbs, apart from
costing much more for the small savings, which is why neither
consumers or governments really like them, since they have been around for a while now without being sold much.

No light bulbs should be banned:
There is no present or future shortage of energy sources for electricity justifying telling what paying consumers can use,
especially since the overall USA energy savings from light bulb regulations are less than 1% anyway,
based on the US Dept of Energy’s own statistics ( http://ceolas.net/#li171x )
-remember that politicians keep including non-incandescent street and industrial lighting in the usual high US usage percentages quoted.

Much greater, and much more relevant, energy waste savings arise from effectively organized electricity generation and grid distribution, and from reducing the unnecessary use of appliances:
rather than from stopping people in their choice of what appliance to buy and use.

Also, I think back-tracking on the incandescent phase-out is pointless. Most companies are already focusing on efficient lighting and all the big players have to meet the standards in europe/asia anyways. I think companies also realize as soon as the tea party is ousted the phase-out would go right back into effect.