This proposal is bad politics and bad policy. Let's start with the
basics - the nation's neediest people should not be the country's
coldest (or hottest) people. Surely there are/were other places where
$2.5 billion in federal spending could be recouped.
Take, for example, extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest
Americans. Extending those tax cuts for two years will cost about $80
billion. That $80 billion makes the LIHEAP $5 billion seem small.
The politics of trying to balance the federal budget on the backs of the
country's neediest citizens is offensive and a huge disappointment from
this president.
And, from a policy point of view, keeping the poorest people the coldest
makes about as much sense as cutting programs that get children to see a
doctor when they have an earache. Get children to a doctor when they
have an earache and get some antibiotics to cure the earache before they
lose their hearing. It costs more to educate and ease into society a
child with hearing impairment than it does to get the kid some
antibiotics. That is simple math.
From a cost benefit point of view, dealing with the health impacts of
8.3 million people freezing or sweltering all winter or summer, it's
hard to imagine the health care and other societal costs associated with
that will be less than the $2.5 billion in proposed savings.
The White House's proposed budget is under careful scrutiny and already
32 senators from both sides of the aisle have announced their opposition
to cutting LIHEAP funding.
Let your elected representative and senators know where you stand on the issue.
{loadnavigation}
