As a result of the stimulus, LIHEAP funding in 2009 was nearly triple the 2008 level.

[ProSense]

<...>

The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, would see funding drop by about $3 billion from an authorized 2009 total of $5.1 billion. The proposed cut will not touch the program's emergency reserve fund, about $590 million, which can be used during particularly harsh cold snaps or extended heat spells, three officials told National Journal.

In 2010, Obama signed into law an omnibus budget resolution that released a total of about $5 billion in LIHEAP grants for 2011. Pointing to the increasing number of Americans who made use of the grants last year, advocates say that LIHEAP is already underfunded. The American Gas Association predicts that 3 million Americans eligible for the program won't be able to receive it unless LIHEAP funding stays at its current level.

How many people, if any, might actually lose the assistance is difficult to determine. Officials were quick to point out that LIHEAP spending has grown significantly over the past several years as the government tried to keep up with rising gas prices. In 2008, the government spent $2.8 billion on LIHEAP. In 2009, thanks to the Recovery Act, better known as the stimulus bill, the figure jumped to $8.1 billion. So the cut from that high level restores LIHEAP to something close to where it was before Obama took office. Other circumstances, such as the weather and fuel prices, could affect the distribution of benefits.

link

The increased funding went completely unnoticed.

The reports about cuts for the 2012 budget are still not confirmed. The budget is due out on February 14. Still, the notion that the President is unconcerned about the poor is ludicrous.

[Hello_Kitty]

1. This sounds familiar

Reminds me of the excuses made for the increase in taxes of people making <$20K a year under the Bush tax compromise.

"Shut up, paupers, it could have been WORSE!"

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RandomThoughts]

3. That is a trap.

A threat of worse to get you to accept wrong.

Worse does not matter if the current situation is not just and compassionate correction for most people.

And I am due beer and travel money and many experiences.

[ProSense]

7. The funding should be increased.

It still remains to be seen what the President proposes, and even if there are no cuts, Congress can still increase it.

[davidinalameda]

6. amen to that

I'm writing my congress critters about this

we all need to

this can't be allowed to happen

[tekisui]

4. It's just an entitlement, everybody' tightening their belts.

Cut where you have to!

[bluestate10]

5. Thanks for the perspective.

From reading DU posts and not having any background information, it would have been plausible for a reader to view President Obama as an evil budget cutter, when in fact he is maintaining funding to the energy assistance program. I noticed the a national gas association was crying about the reduction from levels that were reached because of stimulus. Where are the corporatist bashers, an association of natural gas suppliers sound pretty corporatist, would one not think?

[Hello_Kitty]

8. And where are the corporatist defenders?

Cuts to LIHEAP mean more people defaulting on their energy bills. Meaning less revenue for utility cos.

[ProSense]

11. This reminds me of the

Making Work Pay credit that no one acknowledge was a good thing until it was about to expire.

At least this is part of a lengthy budget process.

The hyperbole that the President wants to harm the poor is uncalled for.

[Hello_Kitty]

12. Well they sure showed those bastards making under $20K how good it was, didn't they?

That'll learn those pauper ingrates! And now a lot of them will get a personal experience of how good they had it in 2009 vis a vis heating assistance!

[ProSense]

13. Yeah,

it would have been better not to negotiate and let all the tax cuts expire. The current Republicans Congress would have jumped right on it and saved everyone for devastation.

[Hello_Kitty]

14. OR, they could have listened to the people who were pointing out the problem to them

And amended the tax bill to restore the difference to people at that income level. By "they" I mean both the WH and Dems in Congress. Wouldn't have cost that much and the lowest income people would have seen no change in their paychecks.

[ProSense]

15. "And amended the tax bill to restore the difference to people

...at that income level. By "they" I mean both the WH and Dems in Congress."

It's Congress

<...>

Before they passed the plan, Senators considered an amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who spoke out against the bill for nine straight hours last week, that would have replaced the payroll tax credit with an extension of the Make Work Pay Credit, imposed an estate tax of 45 percent on estates worth more than $3.5 million and provided a cost-of-living-adjustment of $250 to seniors, veterans and the disabled dependent on government benefits. It failed 57 to 43.

<...>

Roll call

That's the reality that the WH and every Senator who pushes legislation has to deal with, sadly.

[Hello_Kitty]

18. Like I said, Dems in Congress too.

11 of them prioritized rich dead people over their poor constituents.

And the WH screwed up by letting the bill go forward with that mistake. Then Larry Summers(!) compounded it by being dismissive when it was brought to his attention.

[CreekDog]

22. I'm glad the wrong you seek to right is how the administration is viewed

rather than the people who were on the wrong end of a compromise.

and this, i don't get. :hi:

[ProSense]

27. Interesting.

So perpetual mistrust can lead to something positive?

It doesn't. It fuel cynicism and that is what's dominating the current debate.

[Forkboy]

31. I can't imagine where that cynicism is coming from.

[tekisui]

33. You're right! It's all rosy!

[CreekDog]

36. cuts to the program don't bother you --many posts on the subject not a one is concerned

several actually defend the idea of cuts as not being so bad.

yet, amidst all the things you could find wrong with this -YOU DID FIND ONE THING WRONG:

that the administration would be viewed unfavorably by fellow Democrats for doing this.

and that issue enraged you and caused you to post in vigorous defense, not of poor people, but of the poor administration.

it's kind of embarrassing and it's sad that you think doing so will help the administration.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CreekDog]

39. wait, do you mean a "positive" outcome is greater funding for this program?

so you think it's negative if the program gets cut in the Administration's budget proposal?

yes or no?

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spanone]

9. The reports about cuts for the 2012 budget are still not confirmed....amen

[drm604]

10. Thank you.

It seems lately that a lot of DUers look for the worst possible interpretation of everything and then stick to it no matter what. If you try to explain things they jump all over you.

[Kaleva]

19. It supports their world view. Anything that questions that view gets attacked.

Nobody here has seen the proposed budget and those in the article who say they have are not named. I'll wait till more info comes out.

[leftstreet]

16. Chicken feed. The DOD gets $700+ billion n/t

[ReggieVeggie]

17. Clearer to me now, thank you

It was a generous increase in funding for the program.

[CreekDog]

23. 2012 levels would be less than 2008

did you know that?

[CreekDog]

20. You had a choice here: 1) defend the administration's cut 2) help prevent the cut from happening

we all see what you chose and where your priorities lie.

at least it's instructive.
























(2.6 billion in funding is less than 2008 funding, 2.8 billion --meanwhile there are more in poverty now, higher unemployment, more people living in the USA, etc. etc.)

[Kaleva]

41. Nobody here knows for sure if there actually is a cut.

And as most everyone here knows, the President submits to Congress a proposed budget but it is Congress itself that produces the actual budget.

You may recall the Administration's effort to halt the production of the very expensive F-22 Raptor fighter jet (depending on how one does the accounting, each jet cost from 130-350 million) but many in Congress wanted production to continue. Funding for the Raptor passed the House but was narrowly defeated in the Senate after an intense effort by the Administration convinced enough Senators to drop their support of the Raptor program.

[CreekDog]

42. would it bother you if the administration proposed this particular cut?

or wouldn't it bother you?

[Kaleva]

45. Depends on the details.

If there actually was a reduction, I'll gather as much info on the subject as I can and then come to a conclusion. If I think it's a bad deal, I'll then write my Senators (Levin & Stabenow) and also my Rep, Dan Benishek, who unfortunately is a favorite of the teabaggers and was endorsed by Sarah Palin. He believes the Social Security system is a ponzi scheme and has vowed to work to repeal the health care plan passed into law last year. I wish Stupak hadn't retired. He wasn't loved here but he had a stellar reputation in fighting for the poor, the working class and the unions.

[CreekDog]

46. You mean that if you know there's a reduction, studying it might lead you to support it?

why?

[Kaleva]

47. Support and non-action are two different things.

Last year my wife and I got a home heating credit of $200.00 from the state of Michigan. I do not know if that is part of the program being discussed in this thread or not. It costs anywhere from $2500.00 to $3000.00 to heat the home during the cold season. $200.00, while nice, really doesn't mean much and if a couple of hundred dollars is the difference between freezing to death or not, we have much bigger financial problems then just trying to pay the heating costs.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skip Intro]

24. This isn't perspective, it's smoke and mirrors.

If there were increases, then the increases were needed, and used, yes? And cutting by a large percentage for next winter will leave many who needed help and got it with the "stimulus" increase again without, yes?

The report that these cuts will be proposed by the admin also gave motive, that being that, by throwing some poor under the bus, Obama could score some political points, clearly with an eye on election 2012. When you think about that for a few seconds, you might start to feel physically ill. I know I did.

Coming across a thread on DU that seeks to defend this despicable, repuke-type proposal has about the same effect on me.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

28. Did you miss

this point: The reports about cuts for the 2012 budget are still not confirmed.

Being outraged doesn't change that fact.

[tekisui]

29. Dismissing discussions on a discussion board as 'outrage'?

To a topic that you voluntarily posted? :crazy:

[Brickbat]

32. See, you're supposed to wait until after it's a done deal to get outraged.

[tekisui]

35. By that point shiney new talking points will be out to stifle criticisms.

You never support him, you want Palin, blah blah blah.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

43. You aren't outraged by the report?

Why not?

[CreekDog]

30. it just shows the priority is defending a bad cut over defending people who'd suffer from it

that's not Republican or Democratic,

it's shameless. :wtf:

[tekisui]

26. Well, it looks like a big cut is coming. Fucking pathetic.

[tekisui]

40. To at least 3 million Americans, "Quit your whining, we kept you warm last year.

Warm yourself up with your bootstraps this year!":mad: