As bad as the news is that President Obama wants to slash federal home-energy assistance — and it is bad news, indeed — the decision sets up a crucial test for Republican lawmakers bent on taking the budget ax to this, and other critical domestic programs.
Obama reportedly would cut billions from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, in the budget plan he submitted to Congress on Monday for the 2012 federal fiscal year that begins in October of this year.
That Obama and the congressional GOP are in a bitter budget showdown is clear in the face of political pressure to bring down the mounting federal budget deficit and national debt.
But, unlike many of the cuts Republicans have proposed — such as those to such programs as the National Endowment of the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities, which may seem fluffy, and expendable in the name of fiscal discipline — it's hard to argue that reductions to LIHEAP will hurt average Americans.
Obama's proposed cuts, for instance, would throw 3.1 million households off energy assistance, according to the National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association (NEADA). This isn't some kind of optional money. These are dollars that millions of Americans count on to keep the heat on when it gets deadly cold. Without this program, many simply couldn't pay their utility bills, and would watch helplessly as their home thermostats plummet.
Nor is LIHEAP just some program for the very poor or other population distantly removed from the average American. The number of households requesting help to offset the increasing cost of home energy is expected to reach record levels in FY 2011 for the third year in a row. The number of households served by LIHEAP has increased from about 5.8 million in FY 2008, to 7.7 million in FY 2009, to 8.3 million in FY 2010. The number of households served in FY 2011 is projected to increase to 8.9 million. The increase is being driven primarily by the weak economy and continued higher energy prices, NEADA says. This means at least one of your neighbors likely is relying on LIHEAP — if you are lucky enough not to need it yourself. The people who rely on LIHEAP vote, and even Republicans realize this. That's why several GOP senators, including conservative Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, signed on to a letter last year looking not to cut funding — but increase it.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Lynn DifferentView
Off topic - apologies.
Isn't that interesting! Apparently I've been banned from commenting on BC - no notification, no e-mail, no warning. I've given absolutely zero insults in the years I've posted here, and I've used no cusswords that we don't already hear on prime-time television...
...but I guess I have to bear in mind that those in charge of the Politics section of this site are not eager to have the dirty laundry of conservatives hung out for all to see.
Very interesting indeed. It puts in a whole new light the applause Ann Coulter received at CPAC when she said that more reporters should be jailed.
2 - Clavos
Not to worry, Lynn, you haven't been banned; we've had problems with comments not posting pretty much all day. The tech folks are aware of the problem and are feverishly working on it -- stand by.
3 - roger nowosielski
Interesting idea, Christopher Rose shutting the site down because of Alan's satire.
4 - El Bicho
wow, Lynn, self-absorbed much? the site has a major technical issue and no one has the ability to comment yet somehow it's all about you. That's the most interesting aspect
5 - Baronius
EL B - Go easy on her. The first time you encounter the blocked message page with its "we don't like this message or we don't like you" can be pretty jarring.
6 - Baronius
Now that the site's working, let me point out my problem with this article. According to the recently released 2010 ACU ratings, Murkowski was the 36th most conservative senator out of 42 Republicans. The Maine twins were tied at #39. It's unfair to depict them as even being in the center of their party, much less as being typical conservatives.
7 - Christopher Rose
Lynn, if you were banned from commenting here, how would you have been able to make the comment you did?
In terms of what is published here, nobody is in control of the politics section, so your second point is, actually I've run out of words, so I'll settle for incorrect.
8 - Glenn Contrarian
Chris -
Perhaps El B was right - maybe I was being self-absorbed and jumping to conclusions...but Baronius is also right in that when one sees the "we don't like this message or we don't like you" message even when the word "text" is the entirety of the message, well, yeah - certain thoughts do come to mind.
9 - roger nowosielski
Perhaps you ought to try to be less concerned with what others think, "Lynn Different View," and those thought won't come to mind.
10 - Baronius
Glenn - I spent about fifteen minutes trying to figure out why the word "Murkowski" was setting off alarms.
11 - El Bicho
wait so Lynn is Glenn? That makes his reasoning even more bizarre:
"I guess I have to bear in mind that those in charge of the Politics section of this site are not eager to have the dirty laundry of conservatives hung out for all to see."
With all Glenn and others have written about conservatives on this site, I am baffled that this is the scenario he came up with.
12 - roger nowosielski
Glenn has a knack for throwing curveballs, even when he's doing his own catching.
13 - El Bicho
that's so far off course, it's more like a wild pitch into the stands
14 - roger nowosielski
He's a wild knucklerballer then, and far from beneath throwing a spitball.
15 - Lynn DifferentView
Y'know, with all the off-the-wall bovine excrement that I've seen over the past three or four years on here, I don't feel bad about having having the occasional eccentricity of my own. Unlike IBM's Watson, I'm quite human, so if I make a frankly stupid assumption every now and then, again, I don't feel too bad.
And again, Baronius' statement applies: The first time you encounter the blocked message page with its "we don't like this message or we don't like you" can be pretty jarring.
16 - roger nowosielski
Your best post ever, Lynn. But since you're not a novice, I can't understand the surprise let alone shock.
17 - Glenn Contrarian
Rog -
It was me using a different name since it seemed that I couldn't post using my normal name.
18 - Clavos
No one is in control of Politics -- It's outta control...
19 - Christopher Rose
Baronius and Glenn/Lynn could have remained calm and contacted somebody rather than leaping to assumptions...
20 - Zozobra
WE'RE ALL DOOMED
21 - Clavos
Chris @#19,
Sometimes (not often) you can be really unrealistic and naive...:-)
22 - Christopher Rose
True enough, Sir Clavos, but better that than cynical...
23 - Clavos
I, of course, disagree, Señor.
24 - Christopher Rose
Oh, Clavvy, that is so 1980s!
Haven't you heard, optimism is the new cynicism!
25 - Dan(Miller)
re #19 -- Might the time of those who comment here have been saved if a notice had appeared in a conspicuous place on the site that comments had been disabled temporarily and that the problem would soon be solved?
Why not avoid unnecessary frustration and wasted time?
Dan(Miller)