It's a simple choice, especially for a party that claims it has "compassionate conservatives."
What's more important: protecting corporate friends in the energy sector, or providing assistance for poor and elderly Americans facing sharply higher heating bills this year?
Apparently, Congressional Republicans — with vocal support from the Bush Administration — would rather protect their corporate friends. They've rejected attempts by Democrats to boost funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program to $5 billion, compared with the $2.2 billion outlayed in the most recent fiscal year.
Energy Secretary Sam Bodman explained why.
"That is not something I would be in favor of. That would be the equivalent of some kind of windfall profits tax," Bodman told the Senate Energy Committee on Oct. 27, just a couple of weeks after the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration revealed projections for dramatic heating cost hikes this winter.
Of course, Congressional Republicans would have more than enough money to increase funding for the program if they would roll back the billions of pork from the recent federal highway bill. Or they could roll back the billions in corporate welfare in the recently passed energy bill.
But why would "compassionate conservatives" do that?
Bodman, ironically, told the committee that the Bush Administration is looking into ways to increase funding for the program. But if they aren't willing to get the money from the energy sector, and they aren't pushing to cut corporate welfare or other pork, exactly where do they plan to get the money?
They could increase the deficit. What's another $3 billion for an administration that has increased the deficit by more than $2 trillion in less than five years? But party leaders want the GOP to be the party of fiscal conservatives, so adding to the deficit may not be an easy sell.
What does that leave? Hmmm. Maybe Congressional Republicans could find the money from the $50 billion it wants to cut from services that aid the poor, such as curbing federal support of state child-support enforcement, reversing a court-mandated expansion of foster-care programs, and making significant changes to Medicaid, such as allowing states to add co-payments and premiums for families just above the poverty line.
Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul.
***
This item first appeared at Journalists Against Bush's B.S.
Article comments
1 - Nancy
And this surprises anybody?
2 - RedTard
Dave & Nancy,
Are you really that oblivious to reality? No amount of handouts will satisfy the poor, they will always want more.
This same tired old argument can be used to get the government to pay for anything: health care, food, clothing, shelter, electricity, gas, retirement, education, water, etc.
Socialism is a creeping fungus on western society. If it is allowed to grow unchecked it will bring us down. France has an extensive welfare state, please witness how the poor show their gratitude.
3 - David R. Mark
Right, with a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican President, what we really have to fear is socialism.
If any poor or elderly freeze to death this winter, I'm sure that will comfort their relatives.
4 - RedTard
"If any poor or elderly freeze to death this winter, I'm sure that will comfort their relatives."
Those things never happen in socialist societies, right?
Your solution of giving away electricity is not a solution at all it just shifts the burden to someone else. When the middle class, who now have to pay for extra electricity, are unable to afford health insurance then you'll be there with another great government program to help them. The price of "free" health care and electricity will make it difficult to feed a family so there you'll be there again handing out bread in lines and so on.
In the end socialism promises everything and delivers nothing, capitalism promises nothing but creates an abundance of everything.
5 - Dave Nalle
As seems to happen quite often there's a logical disconnect in your basic reasoning here, David.
Why would Republicans reject a bill which rather than taking money out of the pockets of their oil industry pals actually GUARANTEES $5 billion of government payment to those oil moguls?
If what you suggest about the administration being hand in hand with big oil were correct, then they'd be bending over backwards to raise this subsidy through the roof.
So, back to the drawing board. You got this one dead wrong.
Dave
6 - David R. Mark
Dave, I didn't get anything wrong.
Go read the transcripts. Go check out stories about the debate at hand. The Democrats want to raise the program to $5B, and the Republicans have said no -- in the name of deficit reduction.
The Energy Secretary said no to getting the additional money from the energy sector. He said, vaguely, that the Bush Administration will try to get the money from somewhere else.
And I'm not proposing anything -- other than the idea of cutting pork or corporate welfare to pay for the program.
All the Democrats are doing is saying that costs have skyrocketed -- by up to 61%, according to the Energy Department -- and as a result, the program should increase accordingly. I don't think anyone is suggesting increasing the number of people eligible, or changing the terms of the program -- simply increasing the dollars to match the increased costs.
You'd think "compassionate conservatives" would understand that.
7 - Dave Nalle
I didn't say you had the facts wrong. That's rarely my complaint with you. I said you interpreted them incorrectly. As always your spin is selfserving and not necessarily logical.
Yes, the Republicans opposed the bill, but your argument that they did it to help out the oil companies makes no sense, since the oil would still be paid for at a market rate, but it would be paid for in nice guaranteed funds from uncle sugar. If the welfare of the oil companies was the primary concern then Republicans should have backed the increase, not opposed it.
So OMG, they might have opposed it because they were actually trying to cut the budget - and yes, compassionate conservatism is crap. Dispassionate conservatism serves everyone a whole lot better.
Dave
8 - David R. Mark
I didn't say the Republicans were being logical.
I think what Bodman was specifically talking about was setting up some sort of fund involving donations from the industry, one of several proposals that Democrats had offered.
But officially, the Republican line has been don't raise the size of the program, because it would increase the size of the deficit. Compassionate? No. Spin? Yep.