HARRISBURG, Pa. – Responding to the threat of a cut at the federal level, Pennsylvania's Department of Human Services has proposed reducing the budget for home heating assistance. Calling it a "lower-impact program," President Trump wants to eliminate the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP.

DHS officials want to be prepared if funding is reduced, so they've proposed a 25-percent cut to program funding in Pennsylvania.

But according to Maripat Pileggi, staff attorney at Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, about 348,000 Pennsylvanian families relied on LIHEAP grants to get through the latest heating season.

"We are really afraid that a LIHEAP cut would mean more cold kids, more cold seniors, more cold people with disabilities and more lives at risk," she says.

DHS is holding public hearings on the proposed cut Tuesday in Harrisburg and on Thursday in Pittsburgh.

DHS says if the cuts go through and the state then gets more money than anticipated, money could be restored to the program. But Pileggi thinks making cuts now would send the wrong message.

"What we hope is that DHS will send a really clear message to the federal government that we need full federal funding so that we can operate an effective program in Pennsylvania," she explains.

The DHS proposal also would end the LIHEAP heating season earlier and reduce the maximum crisis grant by $100.

Pileggi notes that if the federal program is cut, the state currently has no plan to step in to provide needed home-heating assistance.

"We're one of the few cold-weather states that doesn't have some state funding available for heating assistance," she adds. "So we certainly hope that's something that we could see in Pennsylvania."

In the winter of 2015-16, Pennsylvania households received a total of $159 million of assistance from LIHEAP.


get more stories like this via email

A package of New York bills could boost public services and create a fairer tax system.

The Invest in Our New York Act aims to get corporations and the state's ultrawealthy to pay their fair share of taxes. The legislation would put the money into essential programs like affordable housing, child care and education. One of the bills establishes a capital-gains tax.

Isaiah Fenichel, Hudson Valley lead organizer for the group Citizen Action of New York, said another would create a more equitable tax structure.

"It creates new tax brackets where it is kind of spacing out the percentages and what folks are paying on the way up," Fenichel explained. "That is to generate more of the wealth because as it stands if you make between $250,000 and a million dollars, you're taxed at the same rate, regardless of where you fall on that spectrum."

Despite wide support for the bills, the biggest opposition surrounds the question of 'what if this drives wealthy people away from New York?' However, studies show it's the working-class population leaving the state. The Fiscal Policy Institute finds, on average, savings from lower housing costs in other states are 15 times greater than savings from taxes for former New Yorkers.

The package of legislation also includes spending priorities for housing, climate change and other areas. Fenichel noted the money from the legislation would help pay for programs like housing access vouchers and foundation aid. As a new parent, he said child care accessibility is another area in need of better funding.

"One of the things we're advocating for is a billion and a half dollars to raise wages for New York's child care workforce," Fenichel outlined. "We can bring more folks in, have more child care workers, that way there can be more facilities open, and people can take more folks into the classroom."

Census data show New York State has a high rate of employment for child care workers but their average salary is close to $38,000 a year. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Living Wage Calculator finds the living wage for a single person is more than $55,000 a year.


get more stories like this via email

Pennsylvania's landscape is undergoing a transformation, paid for with billions in federal funding from the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

The state is expected to receive more than $13 billion over five years for highways and bridges.

David Gunshore described himself as a "semiretired inspector," working on a bridge project in Clarks Summit and said it's being paid for 100% by federal dollars. Gunshore said the crumbling bridge was built in 1959 and last rehabbed in 1983, and stands 65 feet above railroad tracks.

"Like a lot of the concrete, it rots out and it falls, that means it deteriorates and breaks out," Gunshore explained. "So you cut all that out, and you re-patch it with new stuff, so that the rot can't go any deeper into the pillars. We're redoing the bridge deck and the piers, the pillars, the columns that hold it up."

Gunshore estimated the bridge project will be finished by next fall. As of March of this year, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law had allocated more than $15 billion to Pennsylvania, for more than 450 projects. Of those funds, $6.7 billion are for highways and just over $1 billion for bridges.

Gunshore pointed out in his years on the job, the construction industry seems to have struggled more under Republican administrations but thrived during President Bill Clinton's tenure and with the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act during Barack Obama's presidency to fix roads and transit lines. Gunshore thinks it has been money well spent, noting the Biden-Harris administration's support for construction, manufacturing and apprenticeship programs.

"Big government spends the money but you're building roads, people get jobs, and money goes into the economy, and you're still ending up with new roads and new infrastructure," Gunshore emphasized. "I think that's one of the best investments going, that and health care, because the better the health care, the less people are going to get sick."

Gunshore noted the last major federal project he worked on, the Twin Bridges project, is underway to replace two mainline bridges in Lackawanna County. He added there is a lot of work to be done and jobs are available for the project.


get more stories like this via email

Nebraska is one of four states with measures about state funding of private-school vouchers on the ballot this year. Referendum 435 asks voters to decide whether to repeal the school voucher program passed on the last day of the 2024 legislative session.

Backers of the law claim vouchers are needed by low-income families who can't otherwise afford to send their children to a private school. But studies show that in a number of states, most who benefit from school vouchers are not from low-income families.

Tim Royers, president of the Nebraska State Education Association, said this has been borne out in Iowa.

"In Iowa, for example, who just implemented their voucher system last year," he said, "the median income for the voucher recipients is roughly $120,000."

Iowa data also show that more than two-thirds of the students using vouchers had already been attending a private school.

Another of NSEA's objections is that the law doesn't benefit all of Nebraska, since more than half the counties have no private schools. Critics of the voucher programs say they siphon state funds away from the public school system.

Royers said choice is fine - as long as it's publicly accountable choice.

"As long as private schools can discriminate and deny certain children admission; as long as they don't have to follow the same testing and reporting requirement that we do, we just don't feel public tax dollars should go to those institutions," he said.

Arizona's private-school voucher program has ballooned in scope and cost, and contributed to the need for significant state budget cuts. Dave Wells, research director at the Grand Canyon Institute, a "centrist think tank" in Phoenix, says Arizona's voucher program means the state is essentially supporting two school systems - public and private.

"In Arizona, we can't afford to do that, and it's had really negative impacts," he said. "And I think it has especially negative impacts on rural areas where there aren't private schools even to pick from. And the people who benefit the most from this are people who can already afford to go to private schools, is what we've found in Arizona."