Eastern Oregon’s own Rep. Greg Walden and a couple of other Republican congressmen have unleashed their righteous wrath on a federal program that helps low-income folks heat their homes.
Walden and two Texas congressmen, Michael Burgess and Joe Barton, had the Government Accountability Office look into the Low Income Heating Assistance Program (LIHEAP), and it discovered, according to a report by KTVZ, (http://www.ktvz.com/news/24113285/detail.html) that “9% of households in seven states could be improperly receiving” LIHEAP money amounting to $116 million a year.
The GAO discovered that “more than 11,000 dead people and hundreds of prisoners were used as applicants or household members for LIHEAP benefits,” said the KTVZ story. “More than 1,000 federal employees whose federal salary exceeded [the] maximum income threshold received benefits and in several cases, people living in million-dollar houses received benefits.” (You can read the whole 62-page GAO report here http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/063010_GAO_Report_LIHEAP.pdf)
“LIHEAP seems to be another example of waste, fraud and abuse running rampant and unchecked in government programs, and must be reined in,” Congressman Burgess fumed. “Low-income Texans have a hard time accessing their fair share of LIHEAP funding, so to learn that 9% of LIHEAP funds are wasted is astonishing.”
(It would truly be astonishing to learn that 9% of LIHEAP funds are wasted, but the GAO report doesn’t say that. It says that “about 9% of households receiving benefits — totaling $116 million — in the selected states contained invalid identity information.” LIHEAP is funded at $5 billion a year; if 9% of that was being wasted the waste would amount to $450 million, not $116 million.)
Not to be outdone in outrage by his colleagues, Walden declared that the LIHEAP program is “yet another poster child of waste, fraud, and abuse. … By the way, this is the same outfit” – the Department of Health and Human Services – “that’s going to run the $1 trillion government takeover of healthcare. The American people deserve far better protection of their tax dollars.”
Since HHS has been such a colossal failure at running LIHEAP, I think Walden and his fellow Republicans should push a bill turning that program – and also the new health care program –over to an agency of the federal government that has NEVER been tainted by waste, fraud or abuse and has ALWAYS meticulously accounted for every penny: the Department of Defense.
Okay, there has been an occasional minor slip-up – like when the DOD’s own inspector general discovered in 2003 (http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-05-18/news/17491492_1_pentagon-gao-financial-accounting) that the Pentagon couldn’t account for more than a trillion dollars of its spending. Amonrevealed g other things, the Army apparently had mislaid 56 planes, 32 tanks and 36 Javelin missile command launch units.
Or when the Pentagon’s chief deputy inspector general revealed (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/01/iraq/main4767378.shtml) that same year that there were “154 open criminal investigations into allegations of bribery, conflicts of interest, defective products, bid rigging, and theft stemming from the wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Or when nobody could figure out what happened to tens of billions of dollars in cash – pallets stacked high with bundles of $100 bills – that was flown into Iraq shortly after the US invasion and vanished as if it had been sucked into the desert sands.
Wrote The American Conservative magazine (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/oct/24/00007) in 2005: “The 15-month proconsulship of the CPA [Coalition Provisional Authority] disbursed nearly $20 billion, two-thirds of it in cash. … Most of the money was flown into Iraq on C-130s in huge plastic shrink-wrapped pallets holding 40 ‘cashpaks,’ each cashpak having $1.6 million in $100 bills. Twelve billion dollars moved that way between May 2003 and June 2004, drawn from accounts administered by the New York Federal Reserve Bank. The $100 bills weighed an estimated 363 tons.”
But, as I said, these are just minor instances – nothing to compare with a middle-income family getting over on the government for a cord of firewood or a tank of propane.
written by H. Bruce Miller , July 02, 2010
written by bruno , July 02, 2010
written by dan strand , July 02, 2010
written by stickfish , July 03, 2010
written by bruno , July 03, 2010
written by H. Bruce Miller , July 03, 2010
As for the Constitution, if we followed the literalist interpretation the conservatives want we wouldn't have the interstate highway system, the FAA, the space program, most of the hydropower and irrigation dams in the West ... or, as far as that goes, the Erie Canal. I'm not trying to second-guess the Founders, but I really don't believe they meant the Constitution to be an all-inclusive document listing in minute detail every last little thing the federal government might possibly do.
written by dan strand , July 04, 2010
It maybe nice for the fed to help poor people pay their heating costs but is that a legitimate function of the US goverment? My son isn't doing that well and I help him with his bills. Perhaps the fed should help with all the utility bills of poor people?
Greg Walden seems to think that LIHEAP wasn't a legitimate function of the fed in the first place thus waste is more egregious. It all depends on how big and powerful we want to allow the fed to be. If you like powerful then totalitarin is a good choice if you just want the gov to take care of you join the military. I like "the Blessing of Liberty" thank you. Yes, that's from the constitution again.
Dan
written by H. Bruce Miller , July 04, 2010
Indeed we do.
"It maybe nice for the fed to help poor people pay their heating costs but is that a legitimate function of the US goverment?"
It is just as legitimate under the "general welfare" clause as any of the examples I gave and that you approve of. It is not hard to see how the "general welfare" is promoted by enabling the population to stay warm and healthy.
"My son isn't doing that well and I help him with his bills."
That's fine. I would do the same for my daughter if she needed it. But not all low-income people have somebody to help them with their bills.
"Greg Walden seems to think that LIHEAP wasn't a legitimate function of the fed in the first place"
I'm glad to see you understand that the real agenda of Walden and the other Republicans is to discredit the program so they can eventually reduce or eliminate it.
The philosophical difference between me and people like Walden is that the Waldens of this country appear to believe the only legitimate functions of the federal government are to wage war and subsidize the wealthy (e.g. the Wall Street bailout). Any federal policy or program that benefits ordinary Americans (e.g. LIHEAP, health care reform) they deem "illegitimate" and "socialist."
written by dog , July 05, 2010
written by dan strand , July 07, 2010
"It is just as legitimate under the "general welfare" clause as any of the examples I gave and that you approve of. It is not hard to see how the "general welfare" is promoted by enabling the population to stay warm and healthy."
People have been keeping themselves warm for thousands of years but now the national gov has to help. Have we really become this helpless? This problem is local and the solution should be left to local gov or the community. If all needs are to be met at the national level perhaps we should do away with local and state gov? You may have noticed that nearly all departments in state gov are duplicated at the national level.
All members of congress swear uphold the constitution. Democrates had no problem with the bailouts. The history of the last hundred years shows that Democrates have little problem with war.
Goverment loves power. They get it under the pretense of helping the people. This means more regulation, programs and taxes. The trade off is less liberty and freedom for us. The end result is tyranny. Just remember anything the gov gives you they can take away and that includes your freedom.
Dan,
written by H. Bruce Miller , July 07, 2010
One last question: Why do you spell it "Democrates" instead of "Democrats"? Is that supposed to be an insult? If so, it's childish.
written by Stephen Cramer , July 07, 2010
Breaking up the 'to big to fail' (sic) requires the very Big Government Action that the Tea Party decries. Not exactly reining in Uncle Sam and shrinking government, is it?
'For every problem there is a simple solution--that is undeniably wrong.'
written by dan strand , July 07, 2010
You are absolutely right that LIHEAP takes no liberty away from us. I think the problem should be dealt with at the local level rather than the national. This is an honest difference of opinion. I beleive that the national government should be limited to those powers given to it by the constitiution. You seem to beleive in unlimited government. Governments are instituted to insure the Rights of the people. Jefferson spelled those Rights out pretty well. We can expand rights almost without end but then government will have to expand endlessly to meet them. If the national government becomes all powerfull we will have no rights, they will.
All war is senseless and unnecessary especially the most current ones. All politicians that have anything to do with starting them, approving of them or extending them should resign. All voters who voted for any of those politicians should hang their heads in shame. War seems to be an over reaction to circumstances beyond our control. The founders knew we would have war and provided for it.
Dan,
written by dan strand , July 07, 2010
The goal of government is to amass power. They get it under the pretense of helping the people. This means more regulation, programs and taxes. The result is higher prices and less liberty and freedom for us. The end result is tyranny.
The goal of business is to make money. They do this by competing in the market place, the result is lower prices more and better products and services. As for big business just think of millions of autos, international air travel, cheap and plenitful steel. Just try to build a 747 at your local machine shop.
written by dan strand , July 07, 2010
http://constitutionalawareness.org/genwelf.html
Dan,
written by H. Bruce Miller , July 08, 2010
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." -- Declaration of Independence
Note the words "among these." The three rights Jefferson mentions are not an all-inclusive list; they are AMONG the rights with which all men are endowed.
I also would suggest that the right to the "pursuit of happiness" is empty without the basic means to pursue it.
"Government has the power to say what is legal, tax you and incarcerate you. Business can't do any of this."
Businesses, if they get big and powerful enough and aren't subject to any regulation or control by government, can sell you products that poison or kill you, can make you labor 80 hours a week for starvation wages in a toxic and unsafe workplace, can put your children to work in factories and coal mines and can hire thugs to shoot you down when you try to organize to fight these abuses. Businesses in America did all those things, and much more, before the Progressive movement at the start of the 20th century finally reined them in. And many conservatives in America would like nothing better than to allow them to do it again.
Our government also, at least in theory, is answerable to the people. Businesses are answerable to no one except their shareholders.
written by dan strand , July 08, 2010
This statement is flat out false. I am a retired chemist from the world's largest aluminum company (ALCOA). Much of my work involved verifying that we met EPA and DEQ regulations. In many places in this country you can't cut down your own tree without asking for permission from the government. There are ADA and OSHA regulations just to name a few more.
Let's keep the discourse to what is happening now rather than the distant past. The following happened about a week ago.
"Officers responded at 7:10 a.m. Wednesday to the King of Prussia Plaza area of Mall Boulevard for reports that union protestors were blocking the entranceway to the new Toys R Us building site. While en route, an assault was reported in the mall parking lot.
Upon arrival, police found two construction trucks with their rear windows completely shattered, and one victim bleeding from the head. The victims said they were blocked by numerous union protesters from entering the construction site, and so they drove to the mall area to await police assistance.
A short time later, a black sedan pulled up and several men exited with baseball bats, ran up to the two trucks and repeatedly slammed the bats into the windows. As the workers exited the trucks, at least two were then physically assaulted with the baseball bats, and one victim had to be hospitalized. Another victim was able to use his cell phone to photograph the assailants and their vehicle.
Police said the construction site is being protested by Local 401 of the Iron Workers Union."
Daniel,
written by dan strand , July 09, 2010
"Note the words "among these." The three rights Jefferson mentions are not an all-inclusive list; they are AMONG the rights with which all men are endowed."
Perhaps Jefferson's contact with the "Creator" didn't allow him know what other rights man had. This misses the point of what Jefferson meant. He meant that government could not take these rights away just because it could. The British did this to the colonists. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the Communist Party deprived these rights from tens of millions. Hitler and the National Socialist Workers' Party killed six million Jews. FDR and Wilson interned thousands just because they were of the wrong race. Check this book out "Death by Government" by R. J. Rummel.
"I also would suggest that the right to the "pursuit of happiness" is empty without the basic means to pursue it."
Do you think that people can't be happy unless government somehow makes them happy? You can't buy happiness and Lincoln observed that people were about as happy as they wanted to be. Poor people seem to be just as happy as rich people. People who have won large sums of money have often said it made them miserable. Just how is the government going to decide what basic means are needed in order to pursue happiness and then give it to them?
Daniel,
written by H. Bruce Miller , July 09, 2010
Maybe not, but it's harder to be happy when you can't heat the house and you've got medical problems you can't afford to get taken care of.
"Poor people seem to be just as happy as rich people."
Really? Do you have any data to back that up or is it just your personal perception? The poor people I know definitely seem to have more pains and problems than the affluent people I know; whether they're "happier" in spite of that I can't say.
