Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Don’t cut LIHEAP. Just, don’t.

By

*For the sticklers among you, yes, I am aware that the Hippocratic Oath does not contain those exact words.  But it’s close.  So lighten up.  đŸ˜‰

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. President Obama defended the cuts by saying that, because energy prices are lower than they were in 2008, the funding does not need to be nearly as high. He went on to say, “If it turns out that, once again, you see a huge energy spike, then we can revisit it, but let’s not just assume because it’s at a $5 billion level that each year we’re going to sustain it at a $5 billion level regardless of what’s happening on the energy front.”

    <

    p>I’m not well versed in the difference in cost between heating with oil vs Natural gas…..but I use gas and my heating bills are much lower now than they were a couple of years ago.

  2. And it was a good idea.  And it still is.
    I found this on Mother Jones site… it is an account of the Obama budget director introducing this idea to the press:

    Do seniors and low-income Americans have to freeze next winter so the administration can spend billions on a wireless initiative? [Obama’s budget director Jacob] Lew noted that this spending reduction was “a very hard cut.” He explained that the heating-assistance program (known by the acronym LIHEAP) doubled in size after energy prices spiked in 2008 and should not continue at that level. He added that he had helped create this program years ago, when he worked for House Speaker Tip O’Neill, and that it was designed to be a grant program, not an entitlement program, meaning the feds each year are supposed to figure out each year how much they can afford to hand to cash-strapped states… Lew did look pained to be rationalizing this particular cut.

    <

    p>http://motherjones.com/mojo/20…

  3. I haven’t yet heard any mention of how many people fall into the low income parameters and need assistance, which I suspect has changed since 2008, especially considering how many people have been unemployed or underemployed, and some who have stopped claiming unemployment.

  4. Brown stood up for the few people who own hedge funds, for the few people who make over $250,000, and made sure they got the biggest tax breaks.

    <

    p>Scott Brown blocked the Omnibus spending bill in December.
    And now, he’s got some nerve acting like he’s all in favor of helping the people who drew the short straw in this Long Recession.

  5. The Heritage Foundation article is penned by no less than

    Nicolas Loris is a Research Associate at The Heritage Foundation’s Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies. Loris studies energy, environment and regulation issues such as the economic impacts of climate change legislation, a free market approach to nuclear energy and the effects of environmental policy on energy prices and the economy.

    He assures us that we can stop this program because

    • Most states don’t allow utility companies to shut off customers. So let the utility companies pay!
    • There has been some fraud.

    The speciousness of the first argument is breath-taking particularly from a Research Associate at The Heritage Foundation’s Roe Institute for Economic Studies.

    <

    p>Isn’t the answer to fraud investigation and prosecution?

      1. Oil customers are not protected by utility-antishutoff laws.

      <

      p>2. Most states don’t allow utility companies to shut off customers in the winter.

      <

      p>Come spring, it’ll be fair game.

    • The guy from the Heritage foundation has a whole in his theory so big you can drive a truck through it. Oil companies are not public utilities, and many New England houses are heated with oil. Those people will freeze when they can’t pay $700 for a half-tank of oil.  

  6. There have been several hundred thousand homes weatherized (insulated and air-sealed) in the last decade. In the past two years that number has swelled, with several hundred thousand more completed (can’t put my finger on the stats right now.)

    <

    p>That, in addition to the current price drops will likely make a significant difference in the amount of funding needed (I don’t know enough to suggest how much of a difference.)

    <

    p>All that said, the sentiment of the original post is spot on – I don’t want to see anybody go cold next winter.

  7. Why not spend more money to weatherize homes, and less money leaking out the window year after year after year?

    <

    p>I have no idea what the criteria for LIHEAP is, what hoops are gone through, etc.  It seems to me that the default position ought to require those who receive the money to schedule a (free) energy audit, and then help folks finance improvements in insulation and air sealing.  Maybe this is already part of the program; I have no idear.

    <

    p>And, move folks to natural gas where feasible.

  9. This analysis of the Obama administration’s proposal to cut LIHEAP arrived in my inbox this AM. I learned a few things, so am passing it on.  

    <

    p>It picks up on some points already made by BMG’ers, including Smashrgrl’s:

    <

    p>

    As a result of the 2007-2009 recession and the sharp increase in poverty and unemployment, the number of low-income households eligible for and needing home energy assistance in 2012 will be much larger than it was in 2008.

Archives