For many, talking about the weather is a pastime or perhaps even a hobby. For others, watching the mercury rise or fall can mean much more — even life or death . This summer, many individuals were faced with the critical decision of whether or not to keep the air conditioner on when the nation experienced heat waves that killed people. This winter, families will need to decide if they can afford to keep the heat on.
Some of the anguish and suffering can be avoided through the sufficient funding of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which helps approximately 6 million households get through extreme weather. LIHEAP was born at a moment of historical need — the energy crises of the 1970s. It was, and still is, intended to be a partnership between federal and state governments, the private sector, and community organizations designed to help reduce the energy burden on low-income households.
Unfortunately, federal funding for this program has not kept up with its need. While the cost of living has more than doubled since 1981, LIHEAP funding has only increased by $12 million, and its purchasing power has fallen by 58 percent since then. With an average of 6 million households receiving aid a year, this minimal increase does not come close to meeting the increasing number of households in need. Making matters worse, energy costs have risen by as much at 44% for heating oil and 17% for electricity since 2002.
Knowing the facts certainly puts the Administration’s FY 2008 LIHEAP request of $1.78 billion in perspective: less money (than 1981) for more LIHEAP-eligible households to cover higher energy costs. Is this responsible public policy?
While this sort of fiscal tussle and playing with numbers is routine in an appropriations cycle, many are left wondering why LIHEAP funding is subject to so much uncertainty at a time when weather patterns have been trending extreme for more than a decade. The fact remains that extreme weather — more or longer heat waves and more violent storms — affects low-income people the hardest, many of whom are older Americans.
Congress has the opportunity to update LIHEAP and bring its funding level out of the Ice Age. The House of Representatives has proposed a $500 million increase to LIHEAP, and we hope the Senate follows that example. This will be money well spent; it will help prevent the consequence of higher health care costs and better reflect today’s economy and our nation’s needs.
Adequate LIHEAP funding — and providing help to the vulnerable in times of extreme need — should be on our nation’s priority list.