The problem with cutting LIHEAP has nothing to do with energy prices. It's about NEED.

Lyric

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Feb-14-11 03:29 PM
Original message

The problem with cutting LIHEAP has nothing to do with energy prices. It's about NEED.

We have more people today that NEED that program than we did back in 2008. We might cut the funding level back to what it was in 2008, but we can't cut the NEED level back to what it was in 2008. The need is created by more than just energy prices, and reduced energy prices do not equal reduced need.

A simple analogy. Let's say that I run a soup kitchen that serves 100 people a day, and I get federal funding equivalent to that. When added together with the charitable donations that I receive from private individuals and groups, the total is exactly enough to fill the needs of the people I serve, and no more. Now, let's say that the economy crashes and potato prices skyrocket SO much that the government doubles my funding. Okay, great--I can maintain. Thanks, federal government! But because of the economy crash, more people lose their jobs while fewer people can afford to give me private donations, and I start to see my client base increasing while my resources are slowly decreasing. Well, okay...it's tough, but I manage to cut a few corners and keep things going.

Two years later, potato prices are lower. However, I am now serving 200 people, and private donations are still slowly dwindling. I'm still maintaining though, because I still have that increased level of funding from the government. Unfortunately, the government takes a look at the price of potatoes and says, "Golly gosh! The prices dropped! Time to get rid of that funding increase." And just like that, my federal funding is cut in half.

I am now serving a greater NEED than ever, far more people than I was in 2008, but I will no longer have the funds to meet that need. The end result? I am forced to serve much smaller portions to the people I CAN serve, and to turn other people away completely. The government based its decision on the price of potatoes instead of the actual cost of meeting the ever-increasing NEED for the service I provide.

This, in a nutshell, is why the LIHEAP reduction is so terrible. Energy prices might have gone down, but the program now serves many more people than it did in 2008. That increased level of need is not going to disappear just because the funding does. State welfare agencies will be forced to reduce the amount of help that people get, and to turn away other people completely. People WILL suffer. Heat WILL be cut off for families who have no other way to keep those bills paid. The President has supposedly promised to revisit the decision if energy prices spike again, but that's a hollow promise, because energy prices are not the only important factor. NEED is just as important, and in this case the level of need has skyrocketed because of the economy crash and job losses.

These cuts are scary news for people who desperately need their LIHEAP subsidies to keep their energy bills affordable during the winter months. Trying to pretend like the liberal outrage about this decision is nothing more than a plot by malcontents to hurt Obama is a serious kick in the teeth to those of us who are struggling with poverty right now.