Fuel on the fire

I'm repeating myself here, but what's the point of having a blog if you don't allow yourself to harp on your personal hobbyhorses ...

In the previous post, I mentioned the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, a government subsidy program that enables poor families to buy heating fuel. This is a good program and a necessary one -- heat is a necessity, not an option. But then so again is food. And many low-income American families cannot afford both without some help. LIHEAP keeps them from having to choose.

Many families who qualify for LIHEAP assistance don't get it. This is partly because, as with many antipoverty programs, we're not trying to get all these families to apply. It's cheaper when not everybody who qualifies for assistance knows that they do. And it's partly because the program has never been fully funded such that every qualifying family could receive LIHEAP.

This makes no sense to me. This is not a partisan issue. There's no reason everybody in Washington shouldn't be for fully funding LIHEAP. And not just because it's the Right Thing To Do.

Liberals should support LIHEAP because it helps poor people, and we're all about that.

Keynesians should like this idea, since LIHEAP is an incredibly efficient mechanism for pumping out cash to stimulate the economy. Every dollar in the program is 100-percent guaranteed to be spent, within weeks, circulating back into the economy. That's far more efficient than the supply siders' tax-cut "stimulus" plans, which ought to even win some of them over to the idea. If we relabeled LIHEAP funds as "refundable tax credits" we could probably win over the rest.

Deficit hawks and fiscally responsible lawmakers ... well, there aren't actually any of those left. But even if there were, none could argue that LIHEAP constitutes wasteful spending.

But here's my main point: Corporate capitalists of the Bush/Cheney/Joe Barton school should support LIHEAP because all that money it funnels to poor families is really funneled through those families on its way to its actual destination: Energy companies. These guys could toss a little gratitude back to their corporate donors by throwing another $100 million into LIHEAP, a tasty lagniappe for the folks at ExxonMobil that nobody is going to condemn you for. The fact that this money would also keep poor American families from shivering through the winter probably rankles Cheney, but it's an unavoidable side-effect of an otherwise very efficient piece of corporate welfare. And it helps Mike Gerson pretend that his boss really is a "compassionate conservative."

What other constituencies are there? The religious right? Just tell them that Jesus commanded them to care for the least of these people without heating fuel might be tempted to resort to gay sex to stay warm.

I'm betting that even fervent, "all-taxation-is-theft" Internet libertarians are willing to take a walk on this one. Sure, they'll go through the motions, but their heart won't be in it. "You want to coercively redistribute wealth, with the implied threat of military force and imprisonment, in order to ... aw, hell, it's not like I like the idea of poor families freezing to death ..."

This ought to be a no-brainer.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

NOTE: The comments thread to the previous post is primarily occupied with Hugo Chavez, the democratically elected president of Venezuela who sometimes behaves in ways that cause some to question his full commitment to democratic principles. Chavez is often characterized as anti-American, which isn't accurate. He seems to like America, he just doesn't like the Bush administration -- which might have a little something to do with that administration's premature celebration of the undemocratic coup that briefly removed Chavez from office. (A coup that the Bush administration and the CIA absolutely, certainly, may have had nothing to do with.) What strikes me as odd is that none of the complaints about Chavez and Citgo are also being made about Vladimir Putin and Lukoil. It seems to me that to the extent that any of these arguments about Chavez/Citgo are legitimate, they are a fortiori true for Putin/Lukoil. But then while Putin may actually be antidemocratic and even anti-American, he likes George W. Bush.

Comments

[Quinn]

Slacktivist, you rock my world with this particular post. Sometimes we need to put aside all the silly justifications and think: does this help people? yes. Does it hurt people? no. Well then let's do it. end of story.

[Puck]

You make one correct observation:

>> But here's my main point: Corporate capitalists of the Bush/Cheney/Joe Barton school should support LIHEAP because all that money it funnels to poor families is really funneled through those families on its way to its actual destination: Energy companies.

Subsidies are a really subsidies to the providers of goods - not the recipients (the same is true of rent subsidies in Philly - who gets the money? And if those subsidies were not provided you thing landlords would let their rooms go empty? No - they'd have to price their goods at market - e.g. lower).

Government first takes our money to give to energy companies, then funds police whose job is to protect the rich from the retribution they'd face from those poor if only the police were not there.

[Jeff G.]

I have to mention here that there was an even better Federal program than went into low-income people's homes and actually fixed the energy inefficiencies that were causing them to buy so much fuel in the first place. (like hidden holes in the walls and the like). In the long run it saved both the government and these people money.

However, unlike LIHEAP which is merely underfunded, this thing was incredibly slashed in the latest budget.

There was a feature on it on NPR about two weeks back.

[Stephen]

Your comment about what rankles Cheney is really the heart of the matter. I can reach no conclusion about these guys other than they hate poor people. There is an awful lot of rhetoric that seeks to blame people in bad circumstances for their own problems. Women who want abortions are sluts, the homeless are all drunks, poor people are lazy and/or spend their money unwisely, etc. Soon, I imagine, we will no longer need to provide secondary reasons for reviling the poor, it will just be self-evident that they are bad people who are undeserving of whatever pittance may come their way.

[bellatrys]

Putin is KGB. KGB is sexy-scary-cool in a way that "Latin American general" is not, to USAns. The idea of a competent, popular, re-elected-because-he-has-done-things-for-the-poor Latin American leader who is not a comic-opera villain is scary in a way that a former head of the KGB believed by many of his subjects to have blown up an apartment block in his own capital to have an excuse for escalating an unpopular war, is not, counterintuitive though it may seem. Putin appeals to the inner authoritarian-submissive in many of us. A radical populist who gives health clinics, reading clinics, and raises the minimum wage is just *terrifying* to worshippers of Tashlan.

[Mark]

But Dear Leader looked into Vlad's heart and saw that he's a "good man."

Dear Leader would never lie, would he?

[Steve]

Another group that should love LIHEAP is those whose primary measure of success is economic efficiency. I work with the homeless. The cheapest way to help a homeless person is prevent them becoming homeless in the first place. I.e. once people become homeless...the cost in shelter stays, longer term transitional housing programs, and many other services is significant. A couple hundred bucks to help people deal with an unforeseen bill or make their rent or pay their utility bill can help that individual/family avoid becoming homeless.

I don't measure success primarily by economic efficiency...just pointing out how some well targeted "hand-outs" can help people maintain their dignity and housing, and avoid ending up on the street.

[Lila]

Putin has nukes. Chavez doesn't.

Cf. Iraq/North Korea--both members of the "Axis of Evil" but being treated very differently by the guy who labeled them thus.

[alex]

Jesus said: "The poor you shall always have with you."

If we made the poor people into not-poor people, then we'd turn Jesus into a liar, prove the Bible is not inerrant, and slide right down that slope into man-on-dog sex.

Okay, that's enough thinking like a wingnut for me--I'm getting a headache.

[Linkmeister]

"He seems to like America, he just doesn't like the Bush administration"

Gosh, Mr. Chavez and I are alike in that one thing, at least.

[Lucia]

The Bible is not inerrant??! Excuse me, I must go find a hanky.

[Mabus]

Stephen, is it your position that no one has ever been responsible for their own problems? No one ever becomes poor because they spend too much money? No one ever loses their job because they're drunk all the time? I think you're too honest to contend that. It follows that we need to be able to determine which people are thus responsible and filter them out--not out of spite, but simply because we have limited resources.

Granted that the Republicans are no better (indeed, worse), it's a real shame how much money Democrats are willing to pour down the hole of keeping poor people just barely alive and how little they're willing to do to help them not be poor anymore. But that, I suppose, would expand the "exploiter class".

(Can anyone give me a link regarding the other program about fixing homes and such? I'd like to read up on that.)

[Naomi]

Mabus says, "Stephen, is it your position that no one has ever been responsible for their own problems? No one ever becomes poor because they spend too much money? No one ever loses their job because they're drunk all the time? I think you're too honest to contend that. It follows that we need to be able to determine which people are thus responsible and filter them out--not out of spite, but simply because we have limited resources."

To which I reply,

Have you seen or read _Les Miserables_? The Bishop of D--- and the grace of God reform Jean Valjean, not by helping him after he proved himself worthy, but by treating him as worthy, even though he had proven he was not.

I agree it's a puzzle to be worked out and a serious judgement call. I don't always follow this principle myself -- I'll buy food for panhandlers but won't give them cash -- but I try.

[Erick Oppeen]

So now you're using _Les Miz_ as data?

I'd bet almost anything that you'd be the first to sneer at the sort of people who talk as though the people and happenings in _Atlas Shrugged_ were real.

As for helping people keep warm...why not something like taking all taxes off heating oil, and natural gas? Make the stuff cheaper. Of course, that would increase use, and then we'd get the ecofreaks whining about "po-LU-shun."

Or howzabout changing the tax laws so that any monies spent on heating are deducted from the income on which one pays taxes? But then, to a progressive, taxes are Good Good Good, so lowering taxes is automatically Bad Bad Bad.

Speaking as a mean old libertarian, I don't hate the poor so much as I do the people who're the poor's self-appointed champions. And I do think that allowing the chronically feckless and irresponsible to freeze in the dark is Not A Bad Thing, in the same way that I don't think that (forex) a woman shooting the violent, abusive man in her life when he tries to beat her once too often is any big tragedy.

[Ray]

I always thought eco-freaks were concerned about pollution. You learn something new every day...

[bulbul]

So now you're using _Les Miz_ as data?
No, she is using an example from a well-known literary work to make her point. Ladies and gentlemen, I present exhibit A - Erick, the proof of the failure of American education system.

As for helping people keep warm...why not something like taking all taxes off heating oil, and natural gas?
Great idea. Have you written your congressman/senator/President? Let us know when they get back to you and which standard euphemism for FU they used.

Speaking as a mean old libertarian
Mean? Sure. Old? If you say so... Libertarian? Ha.

And I do think that allowing the chronically feckless and irresponsible to freeze in the dark is Not A Bad Thing
Er... Nope, I got nothin'. This level of idiocy and plain ol' full-of-shitness is too much even for me. Excuse me while I throw up.

[lbb]

About that fix-the-leaks program...such programs do still exist, on the state level. They're funded by utility fees. But they're not All That: they cover 50% of certain repairs/upgrades, and come with considerable strings. I looked into doing this in my house, which is old and inefficient, and found that I couldn't get any insulation work done unless/until I paid to remove all the old knob-and-tube wiring in my walls out of pocket.

The short version of all that is that if you're prone to responding to human need with a vague murmur of, "There are programs...", you haven't read the fine print.

[Erick Oppeen]

Bulbul, if you think you impress me, do please allow me to disillusion you. I _have_ written to my legislators. I've yet to hear back from them.

As far as that "Obituary" you linked to goes---Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? I'm not in favor of the war in Iraq---hell's bells, I'm _pro-Arab_ at least to the point of feeling that the "evol Ay-rabs" HAVE a bunch of valid grievances!

And my crack about "Les Miz" _stands,_ dropout-child. I know 'way too many Randroids (aka "man-qua-tape-recorder") whose response to any question at all is "Let me check _Atlas Shrugged_ and I'll get back to you. In a work of fiction, things can and do happen because the author wants them to---particularly in a work written to Make A Point. I suppose you also think that Oliver Twist would have, in RL, talked like (the nineteenth-century version of) the BBC? Of _course_ Jean ValJean was redeemed---Victor Hugo wanted it so, and in the world of _Les Miz,_ Hugo is GOD.

In RL, bad people do not become good again. Goodness is like virginity---once lost, it can never be regained. Rehabilitation is about as likely as the transmutation of base metals into gold. And feckless, irresponsible people deserve every bit of their suffering, and a good deal more.

[lbb]

And who decides that they're "feckless" and "irresponsible", Erick? Do you know any people on heating assistance? Or are you doing the usual job of armchair I-got-mine-to-hell-with-you "libertarianism", which assumes that everyone who isn't as well off as you is so for good reasons?

[The Navigator]

Erick,
In RL, bad people do not become good again. Goodness is like virginity---once lost, it can never be regained. Rehabilitation is about as likely as the transmutation of base metals into gold. And feckless, irresponsible people deserve every bit of their suffering, and a good deal more.

So, "RL" is Libertarian Fantasy Land of Purely Good and Bad People? Is this anything like Dungeons and Dragons?

Not to mock too much, because I'm very glad you posted that, Erick - it's very interesting and enlightening. A remarkably honest window into the libertarian world view. It has nothing to do with real life, of course - anyone who thinks that people can be divided neatly into "good and responsible" versus "bad and irresponsible", and that once found in the latter category one can never leave it, and that all bad, irresponsible people are atomistic free agents entirely responsible for their own circumstances, without the influence of mental health issues, socio-cultural-economic forces, context-dependent views and habits, addictions, little-understood chemical-physiological reactions, ignorance and limited understandings/perspectives, personal/ racial histories of discrimination, abuse, hostility...well, anyone who thinks that that none of those things matter in any significant way, and that we can just point to the "bad" people and let them freeze, has a very poor understanding of human nature and the modern world. As to their understanding of morality, I'll let others opine.

[jhlipton]

Erick:
bad people do not become good again.

Too bad you see yourself as irredeemable.

Since you're pro-Arab, how does Arafat fit into this neat equation?

[Axiomatic]

What if you just call yourself a pro-Semite? That way, you're basically pro-justabouteveryoneinthemiddleeast.

[AH]

Axiomatic, you've been confused by a Nazi PR trick. They (or rather, their intellectual forefathers) coined the term "anti-Semitism" as a way of spinning "Jew-hater" so it sounded more respectable. They didn't really mean "Semitic" as in Semitic people or languages or cultures. They were just muddying the waters.

[Duane]

A better catch-all would be "pro non-Aryan".

[AH]

Except that "Aryan" is a Germanic Nationalist PR trick too - "Aryan" is an old Sanskrit term for the ancient Northern Indian/Persian nobility. It suited the Germanic Nationalist extremists to claim that these aristocratic North Indians/Persians were blonde-haired and blue-eyed and identical, in fact, with the ancestors of modern Germanics.

If anyone today is Aryan, it is the Iranians (yes, that's where the word "Iran" comes from).

[Duane]

So it works then, with the exception of Iranians who aren't Arab or Jewish anyway?

[Daniel Martin]

And feckless, irresponsible people deserve every bit of their suffering, and a good deal more.

People keep piling onto Erick for this, but I just have to say that here, in this quote, he's absolutely correct. Where he fails, I think, is in not realizing that every one of us falls into the "feckless, irresponsible" category. Thank God most of us receive far, far less suffering than we actually deserve.

[Kim]

On the topic of redemption: I have a friend who is a forensic psychologist, who says that men have a spurt in brain growth at somewhere around the age of 35. He says that many of the violent criminals he works with in prisons, suddenly, at about 35, say, "What on earth was I thinking?!?!?" about their own violent past.
Is this not change? Is this not redemption? Is this not the possibility of becoming responsible?
Here is California we recently executed someone who had a violent past, has been in jail for a long time, and had changed into someone who was doing some effective anti-gang work with young people. It was people unwilling to forgive when there is real change who took this man's life. We have now lost the good work he did with young people, as well as shown those young people that there is no use in improving because no one forgives the past. (Unless you're a Bush, then they forgive you...)