• December 3, 2012

  Food stamp advocates misconstrue program

  Newark Mayor Corey Booker’s self-imposed challenge to subsist solely on foods purchased on a food stamp budget might be interesting if it were intellectually honest.

  Booker’s sacrifice is supposed to demonstrate how hard it is to rely solely on food stamps for adequate nutrition and why the government should increase those benefits. That suggests food stamps are supposed to pay for complete meal replacements. Not so.

  Food stamps are funded through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Emphasis on “supplemental.” Originally created to distribute surplus food as determined by the United States Agricultural Department and prevent malnourishment during the Great Depression, food stamps were never intended to be a person’s only source of food. This plain fact hasn’t stopped Booker, and countless other politicians, from perpetuating the idea.

  Many news organizations are all too happy to let the mistake slide.  Look at Politico’s article today that offers a “food stamp menu” for the mayor with a variety of meal option that could be purchased with food stamps.  CNN “shopped” for DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton when she participated in a similar food stamp challenge last year as part of a campaign organized by a group lobbying for increased government benefits.

  Keep in mind, the food stamp program is only one of many food assistance programs that are available. There is also the School Lunch program, the Women, Infant and Children Food Program, School Breakfast, the Child Care Food Program, the Nutrition Program for the Elderly, the Summer Food Service Program, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, the Temporary Emergency Food Program, Needy Families, and the Farmer’s Market Nutrition Program.

  People who want more funding for food stamps also seemingly ignore the explosion in food stamps usage and spending that has already taken place since President Obama took office.

  Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill substantially increased benefits and, at the same time, many states loosened eligibility requirements for the program. And, the poor economy has left millions of Americans without jobs and seeking government assistance. As a result of these factors 1 in 7 Americans used food stamps last year—driving costs up significantly. Spending on food stamps has increased by 400 percent since 2000. The number of people using the program nearly doubled from 2008 to 2010 alone.

  Food stamp spending the single-biggest cost-driver of farm bill legislation, that funds agricultural operations, and still, liberal advocates of the program want more.

  The key component of getting more funds is misleading the public into believing the program should be paying for more than it ever was constructed to fund.

  Shame on reporters covering the various food stamp challenges for making it so easy for them to do so.

  The country is more than $16 trillion in debt and on the verge of a fiscal crisis. Government programs should be targeted to help those most in need.  Politicians who seek to expand those programs beyond what we can afford and refuse to conduct oversight put that critical assistance in jeopardy. They cannot be protectors of the very system they are actively working to break. 

   

   

   

   

   

  

• November 30, 2012

  No. 2 Senate Democrat gets it wrong on Social Security

  If Republicans and Democrats can’t agree what what’s driving our debt crisis, they’ll never agree on a solution how to fix it.

  Case in point: The Senate’s second most-powerful Democrat, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, said in a Sunday interview that Social Security “does not add one penny to our debt.”

  The Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget say otherwise. As the editors of USA Today wrote in a scathing editorial that instructed Senator Durbin and his fellow debt deniers to “look it up”:

  On page 465 of the budget's "Analytical Perspectives," they'll find a chart showing that Social Security ran a deficit of $48 billion last year. This year, Social Security will come up $50.7 billion short. In 2015, as more Baby Boomers retire, the gap between cash in and cash out is expected to reach $86.6 billion. Need a second source? In a report released last month, the Congressional Budget Office said Social Security benefits began exceeding payroll tax revenue in 2010, and without changes, the program will never get back into balance.

  The Annenberg Public Policy Center’s Factcheck.org website also took Durbin to task for his misleading statements. It rightly pointed out, “The federal government for the first time in its history had to borrow money in 2010 to cover Social Security benefits to retired and disabled workers — a trend that worsened in 2011 and will not change at any point in the future unless changes are made.”

  And, yet, Democrats continue to insist that Social Security remain off the table when it comes to negotiations over the so-called fiscal cliff.

  Earlier this week Senator Durbin delivered a speech at the liberal Center for American Progress where he repeated his wrong-headed assertion about Social Security not contributing to the debt and went on to declare the entitlement program must not be part of debt talks.

  Therein lies the problem causing so much gridlock in Washington today. 

  The Democrats who control the White House and the Senate refuse to even recognize one of the biggest drivers of our debt, much less work with Republicans to do anything to fix it.

  
  

  

• November 16, 2012

  FHA nominee oversaw $16.3 billion loss

  The woman who the Obama White House said was “highly qualified” to lead the Federal Housing Administration is responsible for a stunning drop in funds—from a positive reserve to a $16.3 billion deficit—during her year as acting head of the agency.

  Carol Galante was named acting head of FHA in July 2011 and was then nominated to become FHA Commissioner in October of that year. Galante, however, has yet to be officially confirmed or rejected by the Senate. Most of the Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee, including Sen. Jim DeMint, voted against her nomination in committee citing concerns she would not take necessary actions to restore the agency’s financial health. 

  These worries were proven correct Friday when FHA’s annual report to Congress was released showing a gaping deficit, despite receiving nearly $1 billion in mortgage settlement cash from large banks earlier this year. Although the agency has taken steps in increase fees on the mortgages in guarantees, many news organizations are reporting it will likely need an infusion of Treasury cash to stay afloat. (See HERE, HERE,HERE, and HERE.)

  But just one year ago, however, Galante told the public a bailout wouldn’t be needed.  The New York Times reported in November 2011:

  F.H.A. officials argue that the likelihood the 77-year-old agency will need its first taxpayer bailout is slim. “It would take very significant home price declines to create a situation in which the portfolio would require any additional support,” said Carol Galante, acting commissioner. “There is no evidence or widespread prediction that home prices are going to decline to the kind of levels” requiring a bailout, she said.

  Meanwhile, several other people were blaring warning bells about FHA’s woefully overleveraged portfolio.

  A recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and New York University found “More than 40 percent of the Federal Housing Administration loans originated from 2007 through 2009 will be delinquent within five years and the agency’s data underestimate that risk."

  And in 2011, the American Enterprise Institute predicted FHA would soon need a bailout, stating “FHA is levered 422:1 and has a sparse $2.55 billion equity cushion on its $1.077 trillion portfolio.” 

  Still, Congress continued to inflate the limits for which the Federal Housing Administration can insure mortgage loans up to $729,750, effectively allowing the agency to back McMansions with taxpayer dollars. At that time, Sen. DeMint wrote,

  “It’s as if Congress is actively trying to collapse the agency by inflating its limits while it’s already going bust. The situation is eerily similar to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts that have cost taxpayers nearly $170 billion to date. Yet, Congress is making the same mistakes by increasing FHA limits and exposing taxpayers to even greater risk, rather than reining the agency in and reforming it.”

  It’s not too late to take corrective actions. Sadly, Galante has failed to do so making it $16 billion harder to dig FHA out of its hole.

  
  

  

• November 14, 2012

  Government doesn't need more revenue

  On Wednesday, President Obama revealed his plan to avert the so-called “fiscal cliff”: $1.6 trillion in new taxes, doubling his request of $800 billion a year ago. That’s right. Even though the fiscal cliff is dangerous precisely because it raises taxes, Obama’s solution is to raise taxes.

  Taxes cannot be both the problem and the solution to our economic woes. No one, especially not Republicans, should concede to Obama’s misguided notion that the government needs more revenues. What we need is less government.

  After all, what would these new taxes be used to pay for? Debt accumulated over President Obama’s first four years that did not produce the promised jobs and recovery, such as Obamacare, bailouts, and stimulus. Instead of continuing to pay for unsuccessful programs Congress should be striking them from the books to improve our fiscal outlook.

  It’s not as if tax receipts have dried up. Last year, the government took in $2.45 trillion in tax dollars, compared to pre-recession 2007 levels of $2.56 trillion. The trouble is, the federal government spent $3.5 trillion last year.  Let’s pretend Obama gets all the new revenues he wants—the whole $1.6 trillion over the next decade. But, to pay for his spending, he’ll need a trillion in new tax revenues this year! It simply doesn’t add up.

  The necessity of spending reductions is unavoidable and Washington’s continued avoidance is the very reason the country is faced with the ugly predicament of the “fiscal cliff.”

  Everyone knew the Bush tax rates would expire in 2010. Rather than finding a way to permanently keep them low, Congress avoided the work of doing so and temporarily extended them over the last two years. The automatic budget cuts, known as the “sequester,” scheduled to take place at the end of 2012 were agreed upon in exchange for raising the debt ceiling in August 2011. President Obama got his debt limit increase and now, Congress doesn’t have the guts to cut.

  Until a bipartisan coalition finds the courage to do so, this won’t be the last crisis situation our country finds itself in.

  

• November 13, 2012

  What cliff? Senate fritters time on failed cybersecurity legislation

  With only a few working days until the nation hits the so-called “fiscal cliff.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nevada) is scheduling a do-over vote on deeply flawed cybersecurity legislation, wasting precious time on a bill with little chance of passage.

  When the bill was voted on in August, it failed 52-44. Concerns over the legislation sponsored by retiring Senator Joe Lieberman (I.-Connecticut) range widely, from worries about privacy, to its clumsy bureaucratic approach, to the carve-outs it contains for technology companies.

  The insistence by supporters that new standards imposed by the law would be “voluntary,” however, is perhaps the most offensive aspect of the bill.

  While industry members would be permitted to propose new cybersecurity practices, the legislation plainly states that a new bureaucracy called the National Council, housed inside the Department of Homeland Security, would determine what the final standards will be.

  Further, in the section misleadingly titled “Voluntary Cybersecurity Practices,” the bill says: “A federal agency with responsibilities for regulating security of critical infrastructure may adopt the cyber security practices as mandatory requirements.”

  The words  "mandatory requirements" can hardly be construed to mean "voluntary."

  In other sections, the bill is astonishingly vague.

  Much like previously misguided reform efforts such as Dodd-Frank the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 is short on specifics. Most of the regulatory authority would be delegated to the yet-to-be established National Council. If passed, Congress would grant the group the blanket authority to determine what constitutes “critical cyber infrastructure” and how it should be regulated.

  That is, any “commercial item that organizes or communicates information electronically.” This appears to exclude the very products--such as computers, servers, and software--that make the Internet function. 

  What the legislation would definitively do, however, is allow government-selected private companies to monitor personal communications for the purpose of passing that information to the Department of Homeland Security, through the establishment of “cyber exchanges." 

  The creation of a new bureaucracy with broad powers over yet-to-be determined members of an undefined range of industries and private citizens, with an amorphous purpose is not likely to prevent a cyber security attack and it’s certainly not going to help the economy avoid running straight into the fiscal cliff.

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

  

• November 8, 2012

  Harry Reid should reform himself

  If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants to do more in the Senate he should reform his own behavior before making radical, unprecedented changes to take away the minority party’s ability to debate and amend legislation.

  Citing an inability to “get things done” Leader Reid broached the idea of enacting “filibuster reform” in his post-election remarks to reporters Wednesday.  But, what Harry Reid wants to get done is far different than the critical work that he should have been doing all along.

  After all, did the Republican filibuster prevent the Democrat-led Senate from passing a budget over the last three years?  Has there been any meaningful discussion on the Senate floor about how Congress will make our entitlement programs solvent? Did Senate Republicans stop Leader Reid from taking up the multiple pieces of reform legislation that have been passed by the House? No, no, and no.

  Harry Reid isn’t getting things done because he isn’t willing to let Republicans take part in the legislative process. He isn't willing - as the Democrats incessantly carp - to reach across the aisle.  

  When Leader Reid talks about “filibuster reform”  what he really means is that he is ready to do away with the minority’s historic rights, which were exercised with fervor by the Democrats when they weren’t in the majority, because they are an inconvenience to his hard-left, uncompromising political agenda.

  Because of Leader Reid’s hard-knuckled tactics, Republicans have opposed cloture motions in an attempt to leverage some participation in the legislative process.  This is what Harry Reid misleadingly calls a “filibuster.”

  A true filibuster is used to block, delay, or outright kill a bill. For example, it was Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who caucuses with the Democrats, who engaged in a genuine filibuster in 2010. He spoke on the Senate floor for 8 hours straight in an attempt to jettison a bill to extend tax rates.

  Republicans have done nothing of the sort.

  To cut off a true filibuster, the leader of the Senate may file what’s called “cloture” that requires a 60-vote threshold to enforce. Cloture is intended to shut off a long debate or end a filibuster, such as the one Senator Sanders conducted.

  Leader Reid, however, uses cloture as a means of preventing Republicans from amending or debating a bill, long before anyone has even had a chance to discuss it. Reid oftentimes files cloture immediately after a bill is brought to the floor.

  When the bill, predictably, fails to get the 60 votes needed to reach cloture, Reid accuses the GOP of “filibustering” the bill he deprived of them of any opportunity to amend or discuss.

  Many times, when a bill fails to get the 60 votes needed to move forward it’s because Republicans want to amend or debate the bill, which should already be their right.

  Leader Reid's unwillingness to let Republicans offer amendments, violating the Senate’s long-held tradition of an wide-open amendment process, is the reason why the minority has increasingly voted against cloture. Opposing cloture is s a tactic to secure amendment votes.

  This is not a “filibuster."

  If Reid successfully eliminates the 60-vote threshold on cloture, then the majority party could speed a bill through the Senate without ever getting input from the minority party. No bipartisanship would be needed to solve our country's greatest, most pressing problems. The Senate would become, contrary to our Founders’ vision, more like the House where the majority has more powers.

  The Senate was intended to be the world’s greatest deliberative body. The chamber doesn’t need less debate; it needs more. In order to pass legislation on a bipartisan basis, both parties require the ability to amend legislation in a free and open process, as designed by the Founders.

  If anyone seeks a demonstration of how Leader Reid deliberately handcuffs the legislative process, look no further than the forthcoming lame duck session.

  The House has passed all the critical 2012 spending bills. But, they have all gone to die in the Senate. Instead of tending to the people’s work, the Senate adjourned seven weeks before the November elections. That’s seven weeks the Senate could have been working and openly debating ways to avoid the oncoming crush of taxes, defense spending cuts, and debt limit increase. Reid chose to give senators that time to campaign.

  Now, everyone is going to be called back to do a massive amount of work with little time for debate and amendments.

  Harry Reid didn’t wait to do all of the important work until the end of the year by accident. It was by design. He purposefully ran out the clock precisely so he could limit debate and amendments and thus, prevent the public from fully understanding or engaging in the process. 

  Republican filibusters have not prevented the Senate from debating, amending, and passing legislation that would avert the fiscal cliff, enact much-needed spending cuts, or make government programs more efficient.

  Reid’s leadership has.

  

• November 5, 2012

  March unwittingly makes the case against funding public broadcasting

  

  Saturday’s “Million Puppet March” was supposed to make the case for the government’s continued role funding public broadcasting. By accident, participants proved their critics right.

  The long-standing debate over funding public broadcasting has become, today, a question of whether the government should subsidize Big Bird. Even President Obama has adopted the cause, promising to “save Big Bird” if elected to a second term. But, Saturday’s march shows precisely why Big Bird doesn’t need saving.

  Organizers encouraged participants to dress up as, or carry likenesses of their favorite government-funded television personalities for the event. Sesame Street characters were, by far, the most popular, which shows exactly why government funding isn’t necessary at all.

  Look at the photos from the event. Like the ones above and below. (More HERE and HERE.)

  

  Many of the participants, such as the man above, brandished mass-produced, branded, and licensed Sesame Street toys, most likely purchased at a retailer. These trinkets, along with videos and clothing, produce impressive cash flow for Sesame Street, one of the most successful children’s programs in history.

  Pickpocket has previously reported that the  program made $46.9 million in licensing from June 2010-June 2011 and made from $41.9 million in distribution fees and royalties.  Overall, Sesame Workshop showed more than $136 million in total operating revenues. At the end of June 2011, its net assets were worth $227 million.

  Sesame Workshop’s own Executive Vice President Sherrie Westin has said her program doesn’t need the money because it thrives on commercial licensing and its own philanthropic efforts.

  Yet, taxpayer funds still flow to public broadcasting. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting—the entity responsible for distributing funding to programs such as Sesame Street—received $441.1 million in 2012.

  With all the hard choices ahead about how to cut our massive debts, reform our entitlement programs, and fix our tax code, the decision to get the government out of broadcasting should be an easy one. After all, if liberals and conservatives can’t find agreement on small budget cuts, it’s going to be awfully hard to find common ground on large ones.

  Saturday’s march, studded with so many commercially made toys and costumes, shows it’s a cause that doesn’t need taxpayer support.

  The time has come to, finally, let Big Bird fly from the big-government nest. If we can do that, we'll be one step closer towards solving the bigger challenges our nation faces.

  

• November 1, 2012

  How Senator Durbin raised transaction fees

  Less than a week after a Democratic senator lambasted Parkmobile USA for blaming price increases on federal legislation, the pay-by-phone parking meter company buckled to the pressure and issued a vaguely-worded apology.

  Parkmobile recently notified its customers transaction costs would be increasing on their mobile application and urged them to update their records to a new application, Parkmobile Wallet, to avoid the higher fees. In a press release notifying the public of the upcoming increase Laurens Eckelboom, Executive Vice-President Marketing & Channels said,  "They can continue to use existing payment methods, but due to increased cost related to the Durbin Amendment the transaction fee will be changed from $0.32 to $0.45.”

  Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, the sponsor of the amendment in question, immediately demanded that Parkmobile retract their statement and additionally insisted that DC Mayor Vincent Gray “make clear that the District of Columbia does not agree with Parkmobile’s analysis of the cause of these fee increases or endorse Parkmobile’s disingenuous assignment of blame.”

  Durbin suggested that it was “inappropriate for a contractor, using District resources to offer up incorrect, unsolicited legislative analysis while hiding behind poorly reasoned excuses for their own price hikes.” He also, not too subtly, pointed out that as chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, which has oversight over District funding, he is "very interested in the operations of the District of Columbia."

  Today, Parkmobile apologized and said their statement was “overly simplistic” and “potentially confusing.”

  Effectively, Senator Durbin used his clout as a U.S. Senator to interfere with the communications of a private company and attempted to strong arm the mayor of the city it does business in to revoke its contract if it continues to exercise free speech rights. (To date, Mayor Gray hasn’t weighed in on the controversy.)

  The bare-knuckled tactics may have convinced the company to retract its statement, but the fees are still going up. 

  So, who is responsible?

  Senator Durbin would prefer Parkmobile to blame companies that issue debit cards. But, indeed, it was Dodd-Frank, the so-called Wall Street reform legislation, and Senator Durbin’s amendment to Dodd-Frank, which capped “swipe fees,” that caused debit card transaction fees on lower-priced items to rise.

  Debit card processors charge merchants, such as Parkmobile, a fee for every transaction processed. And, before Dodd-Frank was passed, debit card companies could charge higher transaction fees, factoring more expensive items into those costs.

  Durbin’s amendment, however, capped the transaction fee for all items. Thus, to make up for lost revenues on the higher priced items, debit card companies are passing along increased costs by raising fees on lower priced items, such as the parking fees that Parkmobile processes.

  Because of Durbin’s amendment, transaction fees for lower-priced items are higher than they were before.

  While Parkmobile may be reluctant to speak about the negative consequences of federal legislation, Pickpocket will continue to do so.

  There are plenty of other negative consequences of Dodd-Frank and Durbin’s amendment that should be discussed as well.

  For example, the number of large financial institutions that offer free checking has decreased from 96 percent in 2009 to 34.6 percent in 2011.

  Consumers pay 21 percent more for basic checking accounts than they did before Dodd-Frank.

  In addition, community banks and credit unions have seen a 5 percent reduction in debit interchange revenue in the first quarter following implementation of the Durbin amendment.

  But, if Durbin continues to get his way, those companies won’t be talking about it anytime soon.

   

  

• October 25, 2012

  Dodd-Frank, Durbin Amendment raise DC parking fees

  Drivers in the District of Columbia who use the mobile parking payment application Parkmobile will pay 13 cents more per transaction, thanks to legislation known as Dodd-Frank and an amendment authored by Illinois Democrat Senator Dick Durbin.

  In a press release notifying the public of the upcoming increase Laurens Eckelboom, Executive Vice-President Marketing & Channels said,  "They can continue to use existing payment methods, but due to increased cost related to the Durbin Amendment the transaction fee will be changed from $0.32 to $0.45.”

  The Durbin Amendment was attached to Wall Street reform legislation commonly called Dodd-Frank, named after its two Democrat sponsors, the now-retired Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts.

  To avoid the increase, Parkmobile has developed a new service, called Parkmobile Wallet, that allows the company to offer a lower transaction fee, of $0.30.  The company is urging users to immediately update their account information to switch to the new application.

  To date, Parkmobile has upwards of 400,000 members and has handled more than 4.5 million transactions in the District of Columbia since it began offering its services in July of 2011.

  The  $0.13 cent increase, the amount Parkmobile associated with the Durbin Amendment, on the 4.5 million transactions that already occurred would amount to $585,000 in new taxes paid by those parking in the District if those transaction fees were paid today.

  

• October 18, 2012

  Welfare programs cost $1 trillion each year

  Spending on the nation’s 83 different welfare programs now tops $1 trillion each year, according to a new analysis by the Congressional Research Service.

  In fiscal year 2011, the federal government spent $746 billion assisting Americans and the states spent an additional $283 billion. Combined, federal and state governments spent $1.03 trillion.

  Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Senator Jeff Sessions (R.-Alabama), who requested this information from CRS, noted the amount the U.S. government spends on welfare is “more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense.”

  The single-biggest contributor to the growth in the welfare state  were government-run health programs. Health care spending was 37 percent higher in 2011 than it was in 2008. The second-biggest contributor to welfare spending is direct cash aid, which was 12 percent higher in 2011 than 2008. The third biggest cost driver is food stamps, which was 71 percent greater in 2011 than 2008.

  All of the figures calculated by CRS exclude programs that Americans pay into, such as Medicare and Social Security. Programs for veterans were also excluded.

  The 83 welfare programs that contributed to the $1 trillion tab are listed below.

  • Family Planning
  • Consolidated Health Centers
  • Transitional Cash and Medical Services for Refugees
  • State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
  • Voluntary Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit—Low-Income Subsidy
  • Medicaid
  • Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program
  • Breast/Cervical Cancer Early Detection
  • Maternal and Child Health Block Grant
  • Indian Health Service
  • Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (cash aid)
  • Supplemental Security Income
  • Additional Child Tax Credit
  • Earned Income Tax Credit (refundable component)
  • Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
  • School Breakfast Program (free/reduced price components)
  • National School Lunch Program (free/reduced price components)
  • Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
  • Child and Adult Care Food Program (lower income components)
  • Summer Food Service Program
  • Commodity Supplemental
  • Food Program Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico
  • The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)
  • Nutrition Program for the Elderly
  • Indian Education
  • Adult Basic Education Grants to States
  • Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant
  • Education for the Disadvantaged—Grants to Local Educational Agencies (Title I-A)
  • Title I Migrant Education Program
  • Higher Education—Institutional Aid and Developing Institutions
  • Federal Work-Study
  • Federal TRIO Programs
  • Federal Pell Grants
  • Education for Homeless Children and Youth
  • 21st Century Community Learning Centers
  • Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR-UP)
  • Reading First and Early Reading First
  • Rural Education Achievement Program
  • Mathematics and Science Partnerships
  • Improving Teacher Quality State Grants
  • Academic Competitiveness and Smart Grant Program
  • Single-Family Rural Housing Loans
  • Rural Rental Assistance Program
  • Water and Waste Disposal for Rural Communities
  • Public Works and Economic Development
  • Supportive Housing for the Elderly
  • Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities
  • Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance
  • Community Development Block Grants
  • Homeless Assistance Grants
  • Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)
  • Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
  • Public Housing
  • Indian Housing Block Grants
  • Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
  • Neighborhood Stabilization Program-1
  • Grants to States for Low-Income Housing in Lieu of Low-Income Housing Credit Allocations
  • Tax Credit Assistance Program
  • Indian Human Services
  • Older Americans Act Grants for Supportive Services and Senior Centers
  • Older Americans Act Family Caregiver Program
  • Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (social services)
  • Child Support Enforcement
  • Community Services Block Grant
  • Child Care and Development Fund
  • Head Start HHS
  • Developmental Disabilities Support and Advocacy Grants
  • Foster Care
  • Adoption Assistance
  • Social Services Block Grant
  • Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
  • Emergency Food and Shelter Program
  • Legal Services Corporation
  • Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (employment and training component)
  • Community Service Employment for Older Americans
  • Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult Activities
  • Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Youth Activities
  • Social Services and Targeted Assistance for Refugees
  • Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (employment and training)
  • Foster Grandparents
  • Job Corps
  • Weatherization Assistance Program
  • Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)

   

  
  

  

*Currently displaying the latest 10 records. Use the select boxes from the filter bar above to view more records.