Weatherization

These days, I am getting ready for the Legislative Conference and preparing for the release of the Administration’s budget. I spend all my time thinking about weatherization though. There are a lot of people participating in the advocacy arena in support of weatherization. When things are going well, these advocates work on getting our money or taking credit for our work. When the stimulus bill was passed, they wanted in on that funding. They wanted some of the regular appropriations. They went to Congress and took credit for the work. But when things get though, as they are now with the 2012 appropriations or with the Administration, suddenly no one is around. Yet, everyone is pointing at me and telling me to do a better job, telling me I have not done enough of this or that. This happens in Washington all the time.

Between Hill visits while walking between the Cannon House Building and my office or wherever I find myself, weatherization inevitably creeps into my mind. It is a strange thing and it seems as though it never ceases. During short breaks in my day, I want to be thinking of other things like baseball, the coming of spring, the political season. But Weatherization comes creeping to the forefront of my mind. 

I have been thinking about how to take a few steps back, take more responsibility for weatherization, reframe the arguments and approach our lobbying efforts differently. I think the arguments for the weatherization program that we currently use are tired and not effective.  A CAP agency can say that they are laying off four or six people in one congressional district as the result of funding cuts, but those numbers are not enough to turn a Member around. We need to be thinking about all the value we bring to a community. We need to find a way to describe that to Members. It is going to take a new approach, new arguments, and a new legislative strategy.

Part of Community Action's History

Anyone who has attended my history seminar or has been in Community Action for a number of years knows that in 1994, House Republicans unveiled a campaign document known as the Contract with America. That document laid out the Republican goals for reducing government and eliminating a number of domestic programs. CSBG was number one on their hit parade. Yet, in 1996, Speaker Newt Gingrich and other key House Republicans reversed their position and actually invested substantially in CSBG and the Community Action network. It would be the largest domestic increase of any program in 1996.

For some time, I have watched the ebbs and flows of Newt Gingrich’s fortunes. His recent participation in the Republican nominating process for president is the latest. In the back of my mind this entire time, I had a thought that at some point someone from the press would ask me about the events in 1996. I don’t know why I had this thought. It seems like a long time ago and such a minor point in Congressional budgeting. But yesterday, the day arrived when I was asked about the threatened budget cuts and subsequent investments in our program in 1996. I received calls from not one but many members of the press wanting to know about Newt’s involvement with our network, and in particular the funding of CSBG in 1996. This is tricky. It was a long time ago. Now we are being interjected into a hyper sensitive and volatile Republican nominating process. The risk of being misunderstood by the press and by others worries me. The risk of being construed as supporting Gingrich or not supporting the Obama Administration worries me. This is a tough situation.

Situations like this come up when one gets involved in new things, when one seeks out new experiences. Weatherization was part of the 2008 Democratic nominating debate during the primaries. Clinton introduced the program into the dialogue and soon others, including Obama, were talking about it. Now I think about the program and wonder what are the up sides to being included in these dialogues? What are the down sides? What if there are similar opportunities for CSBG, Community Action, and poverty? It is interesting in life, even when you feel you have been around the track a couple of times, how new experiences continue to arise. What I discover for myself about some of these recent experiences is that there are few people who I can turn to for advice. At times, I do not know who to contact. I wonder what you think about this current situation of the press inquiring about the relationship that Newt had with CSBG funding in 1996. How would you handle this?

My Impressions of the State of the Union

I thought President Obama’s State of the Union address was a terrific speech. The rhetoric matched his 2008 presidential campaign. It was a strong reminder of why I like this President. I thought he touched on a number of good themes. It was clearly delivered in campaign mode but it was a very strong speech.

That said, I would have been stunned had the President mentioned any of our programs. I know some of you were wondering and I received a lot of questions from within our network speculating as to whether the President would go after CSBG or any of our other programs.  It would have surprised me if our programs were in his speech for a second year in a row. I think his point was well made – and well taken – in 2011.

Now we are waiting for the February 13^th release of Obama’s budget (it has been delayed a week). The budget will be very interesting for all our programs: CSBG, LIHEAP, Weatherization and Head Start. There will be important things in this budget. We recognize that the budget is a campaign document, but it will provide insight and act as a guide to what the Obama administration prioritizes for his second term.

Then, we are off to the races.