Obama cuts to home energy assistance to have devastating consequences

[Hannah Bell]

The Obama administration’s plan to introduce a major cut in funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) will have a devastating impact on the lives of working families throughout the United States.

Obama has slashed funding for LIHEAP down to $3.3 billion in his proposed budget for the fiscal year 2011. This represents a 35 percent reduction in funds allocated to the program, which had been budgeted for $5.1 billion in the previous year. The cut comes at a time when demand for assistance is at a record high due to soaring levels of unemployment in the US...

Applications for assistance have been increasing at an alarming rate with at least 10 states reporting an increase of 25 percent or more. The situation in Mississippi, which has the highest poverty rate in the country, is especially dire, with a staggering 68 percent increase in applicants since last year. In that same time, Washington state has seen an increase of 42 percent; Michigan, 38 percent; Nevada, 34 percent; and New Jersey, 31 percent.

The Obama cuts to LIHEAP will cripple a program that has already been overwhelmed by demand and has proven inadequate in meeting the social need for energy assistance. A significant number of those who are eligible for LIHEAP assistance in the US do not receive it. In Michigan, where a series of deadly house fires have taken the lives of Detroit residents struggling to cope without utilities, 1.7 million households were eligible for assistance through LIHEAP in 2009, but only 640,000 received it.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/mar2010/heat-m27.shtml

[bluestateguy]

1. Oh here we go.

That time of night again...

:eyes:

[Hannah Bell]

2. Do you have counter-evidence about the facts, or just personal attack?

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Hannah Bell]

7. if you have counter-evidence, please present it. if the article is mistaken, i will be happy to

acknowledge that.

the additional personal attack is noted.

ps: do you have some issue with people who do shiftwork? as there seems to be an implication in yours & your friend's post that posting at night is suspect.

[cali]

10. it's wsw. do you

have this story from any other source? wsw is no more accurate than world nut daily.

[Hannah Bell]

15. ...

Administration’s Budget Calls for Change to LIHEAP Funding

February 1, 2010

The President’s FY 11 Budget for LIHEAP is complex. 

It would reduce the total core budget from $5.1 billion in FY
10 to $3.3 billion. 

Of this amount, $2.51 billion would be allocated by formula
grant and $790 million would be allocated for emergency
funds. 

In comparison, the FY 10 appropriation provided $4.5 billion
in formula grant funds and $590.3 million in emergency funds.


The FY 11 Budget would also authorize a new “trigger”
provision for LIHEAP that would be similar to the trigger
proposed last year but would build in more flexibility. The
trigger would provide adjust funding levels upwards in the
event of higher energy prices. 

The President’s Budget set aside $2 billion for the trigger
for FY 2011. I am expecting to get details on the trigger
shortly. 

As such, assuming the all trigger and emergency funds were
released, then the Budget would provided a total of $5.3
billion, an increase of $200 million over the current year.
Details to follow. 

 http://www.neada.org/news/2010-02-01.htm.



                         2010        2011 request

Formula grant:           $4.5B         $2.51B          

Emergency funds:         $590M         $790M

Core budget:             $5.1B         $3.3B

"Trigger" funds:                       $2B

Total:                   $5.1          $5.3


Here's how the director of National Energy Assistance
Directors' Association parses that:


Does the Budget represent a cut or an increase? 

The Budget represents a cut in guaranteed funding to states. 

The Budget would reduce the block grant portion of the
appropriation from $4.5 billion in FY 2010 to $2.5 billion. 

The Budget would increase the amount of emergency contingency
funds available from $590.3 million to $790 million. 

Thus the total amount of “guaranteed” funding under the
current program structure would be reduced from $5.1 billion
to $3.3 billion.

How would the Budget increase funding? 

The Budget also calls for a “trigger” that would release
additional funds in the event of an increase in energy prices
or Food Stamp recipients. The Administration has estimated
that the trigger would result in approximately $2 billion
being released in FY 2011, thus, resulting in a net increase
in LIHEAP funding from $5.1 billion in FY 2010 to $5.3
billion in FY 2011.


http://www.neada.org/news/2010-02-01.htm.

Note that, if energy prices rise, the increased funding
doesn't increase the number of low-income people served, only
payments to energy corps.

Guaranteed funding has been reduced by $1.9 billion dollars.

Emergency "contingent" funding has been increased
by $200 million.

"Trigger" funding (also a kind of contingent
funding) has been increased by $2 billion.

[Tarheel_Dem]

14. Another perspective.

Michael Laracy
Public Policy Coordinator, Annie E. Casey Foundation
Posted: February 11, 2010 09:52 AM

The President's 2011 Budget Priorities: Cut Poverty and Promote Opportunity

There are winners and losers in every budget, and President Obama's proposed federal 2011 budget, released this month, is no exception. What's most remarkable, however, about the president's proposal is that low-income kids and families stand out as a clear priority. Wherever you look in his budget document, you see that he has worked hard to put the poor and disadvantaged near the top of his agenda. We've been following federal budgets for some 40 years, and this is one of the strongest attempts we've seen from any president, of either party, to propose spending priorities that would do much to reduce poverty and promote opportunity.

Even more remarkable, he proposes to do this within a very austere spending plan. President Obama has proposed a freeze on domestic non-security discretionary programs. However, within that freeze, he has protected and improved many critical low-income programs. The priorities in the President's budget work to address both his short-term goal of strengthening the economy and creating jobs, while helping those hardest hit by the downturn, as well as his longer-term goal of bringing the deficit down and restoring fiscal responsibility.

We expect a vigorous, engaging debate about what this budget accomplishes for low-income families, and what still needs to be done, but here are major highlights of the proposals that would do the most to cut poverty and promote opportunity:

More Here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-laracy/the-presidents-2011-budge_b_458182.html

Perhaps you'll be big enough to read the entire article. I have no doubt this administration is working, as best it can, for the little people.

[Hannah Bell]

16. The numbers:

http://www.neada.org/news/2010-02-01.htm.



2010 2011 request

Formula grant: $4.5B $2.51B

Emergency funds: $590M $790M

Core budget: $5.1B $3.3B

"Trigger" funds: $2B

Total: $5.1 $5.3



Guaranteed funding 2010: $4.5 billion

Guaranteed funding 2011: $2.51 billion (request)


Contingent funding 2010: $590.3 million

Contingent funding 2011: $2.70 billion (request)

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. Those numbers mean absolutely zilch to me. Like I said, I know where

the administration's priorities are. And I don't see anyone freezing to death because the administration cut funds to LIHEAP. You just posted an alarmist o.p. designed to get people riled up & misled. Only on the internets.:eyes:

p.s.: I realize that for some of you, the president's best will never be good enough. FWIW, I take you all with a huge grain of salt.

[Hannah Bell]

18. first you wanted a better source, now the numbers from the better source mean nothing to you.

okey-dokey.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Hannah Bell]

20. I gave you the data from a legit source. You have only personal insults in response. Too bad.

No further conversation seems warranted.

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. I'll take the president over the WORLD SOCIALIST anyday of the week. (nt)

[Tailormyst]

64. When you have nothing left....attack the person

Pathetic.

[QC]

68. I love the way they screech about SOCIALISTS!!1! just like some other people do. n/t

[inna]

77. Amazing, isn't it.

Red-baiting is revolting.

[laughingliberal]

90. The numbers from LIHEAP's own website confirm there is a request to cut money from the program

President requests $3.3 billion for LIHEAP in FY2011:

February 1, 2010



Today the Administration released their FY2011 budget request to Congress and asked for $3.3 billion ($2.51 billion in regular funding and $790,000 in contingency funding) for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). This is lower than the $5.1 billion that was provided in the current FY2010 appropriation. Once again, the Budget proposes to create a new mandatory trigger mechanism to provide automatic increases in energy assistance in response to energy price spikes as well as changes in the number of households in poverty.

As this bill moves through the committee process in hearings and markups, the Campaign will advocate on behalf of a larger appropriation than the President requested, based on the demonstrated need across the country.

http://www.liheap.org/

I'm sure the President is a very nice man with the best of intentions but I am equally sure this is going to hurt a lot of people. My husband and I were unable to afford enough propane to heat our home this winter and have stayed with friends (thank god for them) a great deal of the time and prayed our pipes did not burst and ruin our home. We managed a few nights with the wood burning fireplace in the family room but it was not sufficient for the coldest part of the winter.

In my work with poor, home health patients I found this to be one of the most difficult programs to get people assistance through. Even those who met the draconian requirements of poverty to qualify were generally not able to get help as the program is grossly underfunded and there is not enough money in it to help very many of those who qualify. The most difficult for me was those who were on oxygen who would not use their concentrators as they could not afford the increase in their electric bill and still heat their homes. Medicare would only allow so many portable tanks in a month, not even close to enough for a few hours every day. And they could not afford the electricity for the concentrator. Even under these circumstances I was never able to get one patient any help under this program.

This is inexcusable. Welcome to the new American Austerity Program.

[inna]

39. Do you have anything but personal attacks?

:thumbsdown:

[Tarheel_Dem]

40. Yup. I have a working "Ignore" feature. Thanks for reminding me. (nt)

[Forkboy]

87. Which gives us all the answer to what was asked.

[laughingliberal]

91. Yes, the answer is: place hands firmly over ears and chant 'lalalalala' nt

[Dr.Phool]

103. You only have two hands.

You can't cover your ears and wave pom-poms at the same time.

[QC]

57. No. n/t

[anigbrowl]

86. Oh ho ho ho, too funny

I thought that the numbers you quoted seemed rather inconsistent with your OP, and so indeed they are. From your link:

'The President’s FY 11 Budget for LIHEAP is complex. It would reduce the total core budget from $5.1 billion in FY 10 to $3.3 billion. Of this amount, $2.51 billion would be allocated by formula grant and $790 million would be allocated for emergency funds. In comparison, the FY 10 appropriation provided $4.5 billion in formula grant funds and $590.3 million in emergency funds. The FY 11 Budget would also authorize a new “trigger” provision for LIHEAP that would be similar to the trigger proposed last year but would build in more flexibility. The trigger would provide adjust funding levels upwards in the event of higher energy prices. The President’s Budget set aside $2 billion for the trigger for FY 2011. I am expecting to get details on the trigger shortly. As such, assuming the all trigger and emergency funds were released, then the Budget would provided a total of $5.3 billion, an increase of $200 million over the current year.'

You've been had.

[Grinchie]

46. I'm sure you don't doubt anything spoon fed to you by this Administration either

Perhaps you'll be big enough to understand that some people depend on that assistance to be able to afford to keep their house warm, or maybe you'r going to go chop some firewood for them.

That would be really Big of you.

[Tarheel_Dem]

71. And perhaps you could tone down the drama. I, and others, wonder why

the o.p. chose to single out this program, when others have been dramatically increased? Just sayin'. You guys jumped all over the headline, because you thought it would paint the administration in a negative light. Assistance is assistance, no matter what form it takes.

And nobody's gonna freeze for lack of heating oil. It's funded.

[Better Believe It]

76. "the little people"??? Talk about condescending! So is that how you look at working class folks?

Will you pat us on our little heads if we are nice and behave?

I absolutely hate that "little people" reference I hear from rich upper class people.

[leftstreet]

3. Let them heat their homes with $40 Billion worth of Boeing Tankers!

K&R

[CountAllVotes]

4. this will finish of many elderly/disabled folks

who depend on these home energy assistance programs, especially ones like LIHEAP.

I find this sickening. No Social Security increases and increasing costs (inflation!) and now this - less energy help to those that need it the most!

Wars without end as We the People freeze to death! :argh:

:dem: :kick: & recommend.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[Bluebear]

5. But $$$ for the Pentagon? Without question. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. From the World Socialist Website? I think I'll wait for a real journalist to weigh in. (nt)

[Hannah Bell]

9. i thought you had some counterevidence? you certainly posted as though you were sure of your facts.

however, since you now say you *don't* have any information,
here's some from a different source:

Administration’s Budget Calls for Change to LIHEAP Funding

February 1, 2010

The President’s FY 11 Budget for LIHEAP is complex. 

It would reduce the total core budget from $5.1 billion in FY
10 to $3.3 billion. 

Of this amount, $2.51 billion would be allocated by formula
grant and $790 million would be allocated for emergency funds.


In comparison, the FY 10 appropriation provided $4.5 billion
in formula grant funds and $590.3 million in emergency funds. 

The FY 11 Budget would also authorize a new “trigger”
provision for LIHEAP that would be similar to the trigger
proposed last year but would build in more flexibility. The
trigger would provide adjust funding levels upwards in the
event of higher energy prices. 

The President’s Budget set aside $2 billion for the trigger
for FY 2011. I am expecting to get details on the trigger
shortly. 

As such, assuming the all trigger and emergency funds were
released, then the Budget would provided a total of $5.3
billion, an increase of $200 million over the current year.
Details to follow. 

 http://www.neada.org/news/2010-02-01.htm.



                         2010        2011 request

Formula grant:           $4.5B         $2.51B          

Emergency funds:         $590M         $790M

Core budget:             $5.1B         $3.3B

"Trigger" funds:                       $2B

Total:                   $5.1          $5.3


Here's how the director of National Energy Assistance
Directors' Association parses that:


Does the Budget represent a cut or an increase? 

The Budget represents a cut in guaranteed funding to states. 

The Budget would reduce the block grant portion of the
appropriation from $4.5 billion in FY 2010 to $2.5 billion. 

The Budget would increase the amount of emergency contingency
funds available from $590.3 million to $790 million. 

Thus the total amount of “guaranteed” funding under the
current program structure would be reduced from $5.1 billion
to $3.3 billion.

How would the Budget increase funding? 

The Budget also calls for a “trigger” that would release
additional funds in the event of an increase in energy prices
or Food Stamp recipients. The Administration has estimated
that the trigger would result in approximately $2 billion
being released in FY 2011, thus, resulting in a net increase
in LIHEAP funding from $5.1 billion in FY 2010 to $5.3 billion
in FY 2011.


http://www.neada.org/news/2010-02-01.htm.

Note that, if energy prices rise, the increased funding
doesn't increase the number of low-income people served, only
payments to energy corps.

Guaranteed funding has been reduced by $1.9 billion dollars.

Emergency "contingent" funding has been increased by
$200 million.

"Trigger" funding (also a kind of contingent
funding) has been increased by $2 billion.

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. Your defensiveness of this crap piece, without corroborating evidence, speaks

volumes. You couldn't wait to post it. Like I said, I'll wait for a credible news outlet to come to YOUR conclusions. I mean WSW? You gotta be kiddin'.

[Hannah Bell]

13. I just gave you some corroborating evidence. You, on the other hand, just produced insults.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. Your corroborating evidence points out that the payout this year may be larger than last year.

So what the fuck are you trying to prove here?

[Hannah Bell]

30. It also points out that *guaranteed* funding is $1.9 billion less.

And that core funding (Guaranteed funds + emergency contingent funds) is $1.8 billion less, or $3.3 billion, precisely as reported by the OP.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

31. That really doesn't matter though, does it?

Unless you totally misunderstand how the trigger mechanism works, which I expect you do.

[Hannah Bell]

34. as the details of the trigger mechanism haven't been reported, I doubt you do either.

It is reported that *in general* the trigger would respond to rises in energy prices (which would provide more money to energy corps, but not necessarily provide relief to more households).

It's also reported that the trigger would kick in with increased numbers of food stamp recipients.

Thus, if food stamp recipients increase over 2010, additional funds would trigger -- i.e. if a high % fall into poverty than in 2010, funding would rise to the level of 2010.

[Tarheel_Dem]

38. Here's some more corroborating evidence.....

*It provides an additional $3.3 billion resources and a new funding trigger for Energy Assistance to Low-Income Families (LIHEAP), so that any time there is a spike in energy costs or a significant increase in economic hardship, the LIHEAP budget will automatically increase to meet rising demands. The Administration notes that they expect the trigger to provide roughly $2 billion in additional assistance in 2011 and $6.5 billion over 10 years.

*The budget would extend the current Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Emergency Fund authorized under ARRA for one year - through September 2011 - and would increase the federal share for states to create subsidized jobs from 80 percent to 100 percent. Under this proposal, states would get another $2.5 billion targeted to very low-income families and kids.

*The President also projects spending at nearly $57.2 billion for SNAP/Food Stamps, an increase of nearly $7.6 billion over FY 2010. The requested level would continue American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provisions, which began boosting SNAP/Food Stamp benefits in 2009, as well as anticipated increases in program participation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-laracy/the-presidents-2011-budge_b_458182.html


There are tons more goodies in the budget for working families. I'm not sure why you chose to leave those out? I mean you did want to get WHOLE story out there didn't you?

[Hannah Bell]

42. feel free to make your own OP about those other points. this op is about the reduction

of $1.9 billion in guaranteed funding for energy assistance.

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. Nope. I like pointing out the hypocrisy of your o.p. Besides, I think it's against the rules

to call out another o.p.?

Besides, I want people to read yours first, from WORLD SOCIALISTS, and then follow my link to a genuine journalist, as opposed to some obscure blogger from a weird political party.

[tsuki]

53. Oh now, Huffpo a genuine journalist? That's a bit thick. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

72. Most of you have one very interesting thing, or the absence of something, that's

seems pretty common with the defenders of the o.p. I'll leave it to others to take notice. It would only be deleted if I spelled it out.

[Forkboy]

88. Spell it out, coward.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. What's with the red baiting?

You throw that word 'socialist' around much like the Tea Bag Republicans do. Very McCarthyite of you. Typing it in outraged CAPS like a Teabagger as well.

[inna]

24. What's your objection to the World Socialist Website?

(Other than reactionary red-baiting?)

Please clarify.

[Tarheel_Dem]

27. Just the same objection I have to any reactionary rag. NRO, anyone?

[inna]

28. Fail.

[Tarheel_Dem]

32. You mean besides the fact that this isn't a socialist website? What's the fail?

[amborin]

75. hmmmm....vehement anti-socialism?

where else do we keep hearing this?

[Tailormyst]

65. Self-delete

Better to not sink to your level.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

29. For one thing, they make shit up.

They take data out of context, use it to their own ends, and don't give two shits about the truth. The only thing they care about is driving hits to their website with their pro-Iran anti-EU nonsense.

[Karmadillo]

69. "The only thing they care about..." Who's making shit up?

nt

[bridgit]

35. Well I think its clear that ransom notes are often assembled most haphazard & frenetically...

And www.wsws.org is some of the more frenetically bizarre, behind-the-curve shit out there. And it only took them since September 25, 2009 - at the least - to see what they think they see tricking down from a G20 minute of that meeting cause as even Frank Luntz would suggest, "A draft G20 commitment to end fossil fuel subsidies in the “medium-term,” pushed by U.S. President Barack Obama" would have to mean it would just *have* to: that at the bottom of all subsidies are the poor, right?

It would certainly seem that insofar as propaganda may be concerned; its mostly a matter of how you tear & assemble the pieces and whether your preferrnce is for cream cheese or library paste on your toasted bagel

G20 fossil fuel subsidy push may aid climate talks

September 25, 2009

LONDON/OSLO (Reuters) – A draft G20 commitment to end fossil fuel subsidies in the “medium-term,” pushed by U.S. President Barack Obama, could be a step to help a new U.N. climate deal in December.

The Group of 20 meeting in Pittsburgh planned to agree on Friday to phase out subsidies on oil, gas and coal, and so curb global greenhouse gases by about a tenth by 2050, said a draft text seen by Reuters.

Scrapping fossil fuel support could highlight cheap emissions cuts for developing nations, chiefly responsible for such handouts, and so aid U.N. talks meant agree a new climate pact in Copenhagen in December.

“It could be a critical element for Copenhagen from the side of what developing nations might do,” said Helen Mountford, head of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s climate, biodiversity and development division.

“Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies…is one of the few options where there are win-win benefits both for the economy and the environment,” said Mountford.

http://www.blueplanetnews.org/2009/09/25/g20-fossil-fuel-subsidy-push-may-aid-climate-talks

[Hannah Bell]

36. your post has nothing to do with the op, for which i have provided corroboration.

but thanks for the herring. red is my favorite color.

[bridgit]

37. Its clear your favorite color is 'red', but your OP has no ref to the larger context of energy

[Hannah Bell]

41. the op is about the 2011 budget. your post is rotten herring, which is why it's red.

[bridgit]

74. Oh please, a problem socialists such as yourself have, a big one...

is the interconnectivity of all things i.e. Venezuela being part of OPEC as a mere for instance while having experienced among the largest environmental disasters to hit that region since Chavez fired all the pipeline dudes that developed that resource into the petro dollars (capitalism) Hugo enjoys today so yeah OPEC, now there's a real social-thinking group there http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/about_us/171.htm FFS what is wrong with you? These sort of developments do not just *happen* when or as soon as you read them on www.wsws.org - they are many times often the result of months, years, and decades of policy directive I mean talk about a simply mind, sheesh

But you have no interest in concentrating on that now isn't that true?

Which is very much a part of the reason why socialism is in great measure lapped up from weeks old kitty saucers full of fly riddled 1% milk that just has to taste little more than dish water until you flail it about with emotionalism & histrionic gibberish ala Hugo Chavez wrapped in *your* red flag

America today is the result of hundreds of years of policy - interconnectivity - your task here is to justify this bullshit little www.wsws.org link back & by doing so to some the of premier Obama haters on the fucking web and you know it; that's *why* you're doing it, Hannah, you're a hater of Barack Obama and I don't understand why you just don't stand up on that, start crowing and own it like you know you do

But, again, and certainly in my opinion: you're just not understanding the interconnectivity, Hannah, when you could just as easily go to FR, NewsWorldDaily, Storm Front, or FoxFuckingNews and get the same shit - cause they're all griping about Obama's 2011 budget too

[Hannah Bell]

79. the OP reports a matter of fact. your posts = a mess of rotten red herrings.

if you dispute the *fact* please present your evidence.

[bridgit]

84. You are not prone to evidence & its time to admit that as well...

;)

[Hannah Bell]

94. i posted the article, plus corroboration. you posted herring.

the facts are as stated.

[bridgit]

97. The fact is is that this is not Socialist Underground, this is not Anarchy Underground...

This is not Green Underground (all of which and more as were explained to me years back now by DU mods (...I do wonder where they went or if they were only being mean to me :cry:) and in no uncertain terms when I used to post German 'green party' links I'm a social democrat in the mold of Orwell that would like to think they haven't as yet surrendered their thoughts irrespective of the color of pills in that little paper Dixie cup and no there is no further discussion with disruptor's) this is not Hannah Bell Underground - Hannah - it isn't even bridigt Underground this is Democratic Underground, LLC and if you have a larger problem with that then you do have your means to arrive there wherever that other place is for you

Though as was explained to me by a friend of mine who also operates a Dem forum & blog; socialists come up in here, there and elsewhere - RW disruptor's too, science club disruptor's and just plain as day bent-minded people - to disrupt proceedings and not enhance them but drag them so far afield they are no longer recognized; and that seems more than clear in your case, Hannah, in that you conduct your affairs as would a socialist disruptor to democratic proceedings...as would Hugo Chavez, and perhaps even inna, smell the sulfurs of diablo they keep dragging about to disrupt go'head, post a link about Hugo Chavez if you'd care to see what a complete and utter waste of time looks like in fact don't bother because you're doing it yourself and already know what it looks like isn't that right, kiddo? Isn't that the desired effect?

And that is part of the reason brilliant thinkers such as Tom Hartmann are made to play *that* game by running down the list of otherwise lofty American poetries contained within The American Quilt of a "more perfect union" have now to be framed as: socialist public roads & infrastructure, socialist post office services, socialist social security admin, socialist Amtrak, socialist this & socialist that, etc, etc, etc, because the opposition has forced them to speak in such ways merely by RW disruptor's framing Obama as a 'socialist'. You, however, are a LW disruptor, Hannah, seeking a similar end: the disruption & downfall of the Obama Admin and there should be no further misunderstanding about that on anyone's part including your's so I reject your BS, Hannah - where I receive a letter in my mailbox I have not received a 'socialist letter' by way of a socialized postal system...I've received a letter; a receipt not unlike the one I received yesterday and that's it

You have taken great and inconsolable umbrage when I suggested that a primary aspect of socialism is to annex the product of others in that socialism did not invent 'the letter', or the mailbox - and so it is incumbent upon socialist' to have other people think that they did as is the case with equity, fairness, justice, and the Sousa band it marched in on

In the very end, Hannah, you have posted nothing. Nothing but the ravings of a socialist cadre bent upon the manipulation of data in such a way that you are able to understand it as well the ex-patriot Cherokee princess of s. america so yeah oh yes - www.wsws.org knows its target audience - its you, Hannah

[anigbrowl]

89. They only gave you one half of the story and left out the bits that didn't fit their narrative

they do this kind of thing all the time. There is not one word in this article about the fact the budget has not only been restructured, but the total sum for this purpose increased. From the WSWS you would think the program had been cut by 35% and that was it - nothing in reserve, no emergency funding, a strictly one-way change. I saw above that you found another source with that data...why didn't WSWS consider their readers worthy of receiving that information?

They suckered you. Ask yourself - why didn't they give you all the information about the budgetary changes? Wouldn't you have been better informed if they had? It's not like that extra information would have prevented you from forming your own opinion. why did they only report the parts that sounded bad? Surely it's always better to be more informed, rather than less. But WSWS doesn't seem to think so.

[Hannah Bell]

95. guaranteed funding has been reduced by $1.9 billion. The rest is contingent.

And it will only be spent if:

1. energy prices rise, i.e. it takes more money to provide the same heat (which is less than this year)
2. more people get food stamps (i.e. more poor), which means more poor people using funding equivalent to this year.

Any way you slice it, it's a reduction.

If conditions stay the same as 2010, there's less money.
If conditions get worse than 2010, there's about the same money as in 2010.

[anigbrowl]

98. anyone reading the WSWS alone wouldn't know that contingent funding even existed

You said yourself upthread that the guaranteed amounts had recently been increased in response to the financial crisis. the fact that they are being cut reflects an expectation that they will not be needed as much next year. But in case that expectation is misplaced, contingency funds exist too, and the overall total set aside is greater than the current amount.

Now try addressing the point - that WSWS reported only the cut, and told readers nothing about the other changes to the same program.

[Hannah Bell]

101. "in case that expectation is misplaced" doesn't mean conditions return to pre-2008, it

means they exceed the bad conditions of 2010, but will be addressed with a 2010 budget.

wsws reported cuts to "core" funding. now why don't we compare their reportage to the glossy mainstream spin on the same point? which will also not give you the full picture?

my posts = counter to the gloss, & it hardly balances, as the spin is strong in these parts.

ps: liheap's website must be "spinning" too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8041735&mesg_id=8049940

[inna]

81. LOL, what a massive fail.

Completely incoherent "mess of rotten red herrings", indeed.

[bridgit]

85. But of course, inna, our *precious* one and thank you...

For your 'considered' algorithms ;)

[truedelphi]

11. K & R. Meanwhile in California Pigs Greedy Effluvia (P G & E)

Are installing these "Smart Meters" which many are claiming will up the size of your utility bill. Highly computerized, so one must really HOPE THAT no one out there figures out how to put a large magnet on their meter to cause Pigs' Greedy Effluvia any lack of data.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

22. Will you please stop posting stuff from that useless website?

There has been no cut in LIHEAP funding. The structure of the funding has been changed slightly - that's it. In an optimal scenario it actually equates to MORE funding than last year.

Of course you won't learn any of that from WSWS because they're a bunch of fucking assholes.

[Tarheel_Dem]

25. Thank You. They're the World Net Daily of the left. (nt)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

33. Hardly. At least WorldNutDaily is entertaining. n/t

[Kolesar]

44. You sound like you are proud to read World Net Daily...eom

[Hardrada]

100. Wow, do we ever need re-education camps in this country!

Then we can fix the communication problem we have with you filthy reactionary counter-revolutionists!

[inna]

82. Will you please stop your repugnant red-baiting and attempts to bully other posters?

:thumbsdown:

[laughingliberal]

92. +1000

Who knew when Ann Coulter said, a few years ago, that McCarthy was correct we'd have so many Democrats joining in that philosophy?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

99. Red-baiting?

Disagreeing with WSWS's crud is red-baiting? Sorry, no it's not. The FACTS have been pointed out by many in this thread. I guess pointing out actual facts amounts to red-baiting too.

[dkf]

45. Doesn't it make sense that funding goes up or down depending on the cost of energy?

And on the need at the moment? I would think the idea is to fill the gaps as they occur.

Keeping it at a constant funding level implies that the number of people accepted will fluctuate based on total funds allocated, not on need.

[Grinchie]

48. So energy cost is going down these days?

News to me..

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aZdLMAQ77ECI

[Hannah Bell]

52. It's not being kept at a "constant" funding level. It's being cut. If energy

costs rise, funds would kick in -- but that wouldn't serve any more people, just make the extra payments the energy corps are demanding.

And the other provision: if more (greater than 2009) people join the food stamp rolls, then funding would rise to the level it was in 2009.

It's a cut.

[rox63]

49. My Mom gets LIHEAP assistance - she got more help this year than last year

[Hannah Bell]

51. That's because guaranteed funding was almost doubled over 2009 --

because of the recession.

The request for 2011 is back to the level of 2008.

[JVS]

50. When you see this thread along with the one about military families' college support being cut...

you can see the logic used by those in power. The belt is being tightened for those who are already underfed.

[Vinca]

55. This is frightening. Lives are at stake without LIHEAP funding.

Local charities don't have the means to help much when heating oil is $2.50 or more a gallon.

[CBR]

56. It seems he just changed the way it is funded.

The National Council of State Legislatures estimates this will result in increased funding -- $5.1 billion in FY2010 to $5.3 billion in FY2011 --

"Includes $3.3 billion for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Proposes a trigger mechanism to provide automatic increase in energy assistance whenever there is a spike in energy costs or increase in food stamp recipients. It would reduced the block grant portion of the appropriation from $4.5 billion in FY 2010 to $2.5 billion in FY2011. The Budget would increase the amount of emergency contingency funds available from $590.3 million to $790 million. The Administration has estimated that the trigger would result in approximately $2 billion being released in FY 2011, which, if released in full, will result in a net increase in LIHEAP funding from $5.1 billion in FY 2010 to $5.3 billion in FY 2011."

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=19670

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

70. Many people who qualify for food stamps don't apply. LIHEAP works because when taking

advantage of it, you are doing it without public scrutiny.

[Hannah Bell]

78. changing "the way it's funded" = $1.9 less in formula funding, i.e. $1.9 less distributed

under current conditions.

for more to be distributed, new requirements must be met, i.e. a rise in energy prices or a rise in food stamps applications.

under current conditions, <$3.3 billion would be distributed.

[Hannah Bell]

80. the change in "the way it's funded" = $1.9 less in *guaranteed* funding, $2.0 more

in conditional, contingent funding which is not guaranteed to be distributed.

And the conditions under which it would be distributed = 2011 is a worse year economically than 2011, & energy corps take a lot of the added funding, not additional low-income energy customers.

[madokie]

58. What a crock

of shit this is. Where to begin when one starts off with such tripe as this. :hi:

[Hannah Bell]

102. funny that the liheap website says the same thing. since it's a crock & all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8041735&mesg_id=8049940

[midnight]

59. This program should be payed for out of the profits of the energy companies.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

62. I suggest you reread this

Obama has slashed funding for LIHEAP down to $3.3 billion in his proposed budget for the fiscal year 2011. This represents a 35 percent reduction in funds allocated to the program, which had been budgeted for $5.1 billion in the previous year. The cut comes at a time when demand for assistance is at a record high due to soaring levels of unemployment in the US...

[SidDithers]

63. With triggers that will make the release $5.3 billion...

which is $200 million more than FY2010.

Seems like a change in the way the funding is administered, rather than the amount funded. I suggest we bookmark this thread, to see what is actually released during FY2011.

Sid

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

66. bookmarked. :)

[SidDithers]

67. Me too...

:hi:

Sid

[Hannah Bell]

96. The triggers are prices go up or poverty goes up.

so if conditions stay the same as in 2010, there's less money.
If conditions get worse than in 2010, there's the same money as in 2010.

= cuts.

[SidDithers]

73. $5.3 billion is more than $5.1 billion...

reposting deleted post #61 without (what I thought was innocuous) comment.

Sid

[branders seine]

83. it will not have a devastating effect on his constituency.

They are shitting in high cotton these days, with big bonuses, stock windfalls, millions of new captive customers, no regulation at all...

Good times!

For Obama's crew.

[laughingliberal]

93. Isn't the new gilded age just the best, ever? nt