Obama To Cut Energy Assistance For Poor; Kerry Urges Him To Reconsider

WASHINGTON -- Reports that President Barack Obama's upcoming budget will propose steep cuts in the government's energy assistance fund for low-income Americans ricocheted quickly on Capitol Hill Wednesday, spurring some intraparty squabbling.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) wrote a letter to Obama asking him not to drop funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) by about $3 billion.

"I understand that difficult cuts have to be made," the Massachusetts Democrat wrote. "But in the middle of a brutal, even historic, New England winter, home heating assistance is more critical than ever to the health and welfare of millions of Americans, especially senior citizens. I request that the administration preserve LIHEAP funding at least to the Fiscal Year 2010 funding at $5.1 billion when it submits its FY12 budget proposal to Congress."

The cuts, which were first reported by National Journal, appear to cut against the grain of previous administration policy. In 2010, Obama's omnibus budget resolution assigned roughly $5 billion in LIHEAP grants for 2011. The rationale was that at a time of acute economic crisis and rising commodity prices, a little federal assistance to those in need was politically defensible.

With that in mind, the proposed cuts offered the appearance of a president abandoning principle in hopes of winning fiscal conservative plaudits. A source familiar with the budget process, however, offered several clarifications to Wednesday's report. The cut, the source said, would be $2.5 billion in LIHEAP funding, not $3 billion. The proposed appropriation level will be $2.57 billion, which mirrors the Fiscal Year 2008 appropriation, not $2.8 billion.

And while it had been reported that the Recovery Act helped move LIHEAP funding from that FY08 level to more than $8 billion, the source said that was not the case. There was no LIHEAP funding in the stimulus, rather, there were funds for weatherization programs

Finally, the source said that "energy prices are now well below their levels in Spring 2008 when Congress decided to increase LIHEAP funding to $5.1 billion."

The latter point, designed to assuage critics who chastised LIHEAP cuts as draconian, is technically true. But the spring of 2008 is far from an ideal measuring point for energy prices, as it was the peak of a huge oil bubble that approached $150 per barrel. Currently, oil is hovering around $90 per barrel and expected to rise.

"We simply cannot afford to cut LIHEAP funding during one of the most brutal winters in history," Kerry wrote in his letter, which is reproduced below in full.

kerry obama

Comments

[OBroadhurst]

03:10 PM on 02/15/2011

People in poverty must suffer. Yes. And tiny poor children have to die.

That, after all, is what the Democratic Party clearly stands for.

[Reincarnation TPS]

04:22 PM on 02/14/2011

This proves once and for all that Liberalism is not populism...........

[Reincarnation TPS]

04:22 PM on 02/14/2011

Look at this..............,

I'm back online...........

:)

I h8te Verizon.........

How many fans did I lose while I was gone........???

[missouriwatcher]

03:33 PM on 02/13/2011

What a shame that bidness in the U.S. is so poor that it is necessary to cut aid to the poor in order for bidness to make it.  I am more disillusioned with my country every day; Marx obviously was correct in his assessment of capitalism--everything in society exists solely for the purpose of propping it up.

[Philclock]

05:22 PM on 02/12/2011

"Reports that President Barack Obama's upcoming budget will propose steep cuts in the government's energy assistance fund for low-income Americans ricocheted quickly on Capitol Hill Wednesday, spurring some intraparty squabbling."

NOWHERE IN THIS FECKLESS ARTICLE does it define ANY terms: "cuts", "the poor", "government's energy assistance funds"!!

Nothing but vague generalities, which is EXACTLY what politicians do to pass huge spending programs, on our national credit card in the first place.

TRASH THIS PROGRAM, AND ALL LIKE IT, UNTIL:

1. REAL MONEY IS FOUND TO COVER IT;
2. RECIPIENTS ARE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED, AND QUALIFIED;
3. FUNDS ARE DISTRIBUTED THROUGH PRIVATE, NOT GOVERNMENT, AGENCIES
4. THE SPECIFIC PROGRAM IS VOTED BY OUR SO-CALLED ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

[Nick Sarlo]

02:27 PM on 02/14/2011

Could we put defense spending through such scrutiny?

[Robert SF]

10:48 AM on 02/12/2011

There's not a whit of difference between any two in the whole lot of them. They're all wealthy, and none of them have a clue about ordinary Americans. For the past 30 years, the top 10% of America has steadily gotten richer and richer while the bottom 90% has seen a steady erosion of living standards. And this has been enabled by both parties, who have allowed corporate interests to run amok.

Capitalism is good, but this isn't capitalism anymore. Under capitalism, you shoulder the risk and you harvest the reward. What could be fairer? But under the system that now exists, corporate interests harvest the reward when they succeed, but when they fail, the government rescues them with our money.

And "too big to fail" was nonsense, even taking the claim at face value (that if allowed to fail, their collapse would bring down the rest of society, triggering the Mad Max scenario). If they were too big to fail, why were they allowed to get that big?

[JerryAguy]

10:46 AM on 02/12/2011

Maybe if people like Sen. Kerry would pony up the taxes they owe and not try to dodge them funding for these kind of programs would not be cut, with all his wifes money you'd think he might contribute to charities to help people heat their homes, but they need a few more homes and SUV's.

[Jefferson78]

12:19 AM on 02/12/2011

We need to cut every dime. This is not something the federal government has any business paying for. It is up to the states or private charity. We must stop wasting money.

[southingtonian]

05:08 AM on 02/12/2011

begin with congress perks. We do NOT need to subsidize their haircuts!

[Andy Williams 1]

10:28 AM on 02/12/2011

I agree, begin with their perks and go right through to the end. Our government is paying for far too many "bennies" at every level

[NoBlueDogs]

03:48 PM on 02/12/2011

Charities are already overwhelmed.

[gayandmarried]

11:37 PM on 02/11/2011

i voted for hillary, and even wrote in her name in the general election as i WARNED you people he would throw anyone under the bus to fit HIS agenda and to help HIM
obama is, has always been and always WILL be, for obama

Hillary/ Bill Clinton 2012~!!!

[Andy Williams 1]

10:29 AM on 02/12/2011

Lol, as if she is any different, just a different colored stripe of the same animal.

[allengoldchain]

04:40 PM on 02/15/2011

Obama has been smart and calculating to ensure that their will be absolutely no chance of Hillary running in 2012....

she won't run

[Tedfl34]

09:14 PM on 02/11/2011

It seems like nobody is looking at the big picture. We now know its a fact that the earth is warming due to our burning of fossil fuels. Theres no reason people can't keep warm with more clothing and burn less fuel. These record setting cold temps are just an anomaly and we can't lose sight of the big picture. As Sen. Obama said 'under my plan energy prices will necessarily skyrocket'. Even though it seems cold we must continue to block all domestic energy development for future generations. If you are having trouble with your energy bills or are freezing in your house right now, just be proud that its for the greater good and someday it will be colder because of your actions.

[Jefferson78]

12:20 AM on 02/12/2011

Global warming has been revealed as a fraud. Try and keep up.

[Tedfl34]

08:58 AM on 02/12/2011

You just hate our mother earth and the children. Why do you hate children? Hater

[Nick Sarlo]

02:30 PM on 02/14/2011

lol?

[Nick Sarlo]

02:31 PM on 02/14/2011

Sarcasm.

[bleek]

08:34 PM on 02/11/2011

I have a great idea for President Obama and his Administration that will allow he and they to save major $$ on the next budget while allowing enough room for poor people to still exist without freezing to death. Ready?

Everywhere that President Obama goes with his people, they travel in a tiny little car, all together. And then, when they get to where they are going for their super-important non-slash all safety net support-to-the-poor event, they all come hopping out of that tiny little car, President Obama first, then all the rest of his super-important super-rich but still sensitive to the plight of the poor American Administration. One after the other, so many you can't count, hundreds, thousands of these saviors, all hopping out of that same little car following right behind Mr. Change-We-Can-Believe in, himself !!!

I can't think of a cost-saving measure that more concisely would define exactly who Mr. Obama is and what his legacy will be. How 'bout it, Prez? Huh? Can you rise to your own legacy? Tiny little car, lots of little Obama saviors riding around with you, all made up with fancy costumes befitting their function. Maybe some elephants, too, wouldn't that make it just perfect for you?

[snowballinhell]

05:45 AM on 02/14/2011

You mean all of us should sacrifice a little. Hey, great idea! F&F.

[FGDinVA]

05:54 PM on 02/11/2011

Let's take a week or two off from War and that should cover the cost with some left over.

[Andy Williams 1]

10:32 AM on 02/12/2011

Hardly

[FGDinVA]

03:35 PM on 02/12/2011

The war in Afghanistan costs over $2 billion a week.

[allengoldchain]

04:57 PM on 02/15/2011

Wouldn't cause a dent. There are certain mandatory spending we have to have money available for then there is the rest.. Additionally some portions of the defense spending has been lowered. compared to the social entitlements the defense is wasn't increased as much.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

[grannybet]

02:55 PM on 02/11/2011

I voted for Obama because anything or anyone was better than what we had. Highly educated,young,terrific orator=gift of gab. A vote wasted.What is this "puppets" problem? The rich are pulling his strings. I'm 73, sure 'nuff living on a fixed income and he keeps messing with it.I'm sick of him.No cost of living increase for two years,it's not that much but every little bit helps.Thanks Kerry for caring. I HOPE you're not the onlyone feelng this way.

[johngary66]

06:42 AM on 02/12/2011

I hope I'm you first fan grannybet. Your a lot sharper at 73 than the people here that can't see that Obama is just about as bad as Bush. At least we knew Bush would screw us. I'm all for Obama running for President in 2012, but as a Republican. Then maybe we could have the option of voting for a real Democrat. or better yet Bernie Sanders.

[Andy Williams 1]

10:34 AM on 02/12/2011

Real Democrat, do those things exist? And, even when you get one, how do you find one that won't eat its children?

[snowballinhell]

05:42 AM on 02/14/2011

Not many profiles in courage left. Grayson and Feingold both lost, but I would like to see a reduex for them. I'd run, but I think I have too many enemies here already. I suggest you run, too. All of us should run... for something. Or at least stay involved. And to granybet, it won't be long til many of us are in the same situation you are in today. And Obama is making trouble for SS. Shame on him! I'd fan you, but already did. So, I'll fan grannybet for number 2.

[merrymay]

02:43 PM on 02/11/2011

This reminds me of people who clean out tbeir kid's saving's account to buy their fourth 60" TV and a Harley.
The gargantuan waste in medicaid and the Pentagon will sink America...especially an America with no solidarity with it's elderly and young. It's a cert.

[donbrown]

02:58 PM on 02/11/2011

It's how all great powers topple and fall — over-investment in defense at the expense of the citizens who the government is suppose to serve.

Problem is, the Republicans have never even heard of the Roman Empire, so don't have the mental tools to learn from it.

[Jefferson78]

12:24 AM on 02/12/2011

The problem is that the federal government forgets that its only role in society is to provide for our common defense. Almost everything else the feds currently waste money on is outside their authority. The Roman Empire failed when societal norms broke down (homosexuality was accepted s normal) and because the army was not respected or funded sufficiently. The same road Mr. O is trying to drag us down.

[Andy Williams 1]

10:49 AM on 02/12/2011

yes, please enlighten us on how the Roman Empire toppled because of an over-investsment in defense. Lol! Couldn't have been due to diversity or decadence or any of a thousand other reasons that led to the fall of Rome in a bloodless coup!! So, what other great powers fell because they over-invested in defense?