“Government’s programs, once launched, never disappear,” said Ronald Reagan in his 1964 “Time for Choosing” speech. “Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” And a finer example of the immortal nature of taxes and other government initiatives than the telephone tax you will never find. It was passed in 1898 to fund the Spanish-American war and stayed on the books in different forms until 2006, despite that conflict having ended in the same year it started. Added to this in 1996 was the Universal Service Fund fee, which was introduced in the Telecommunications Act of that year. And I bet you don’t know what it pays for.
Among the typically vague justifications for the levying of the Universal Service Fund fee — the best of which is to “promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates” — is that it pays for a program called “Lifeline,” which is not remotely as urgent or necessary as its name suggests. Bottom line: You are paying for millions of other people’s phone service with every call you make.
There are currently 12.5 million wireless accounts registered under the scheme, which is administered by the FCC. Any American citizen who is on food stamps, Medicaid, or who earns up to 135 percent of the federal poverty line can apply. If an application is successful — and, given that the FCC actually advertises it by direct mail, who are we kidding here — the $1.6 billion program will pay for either a cell phone (up to the value of $30, of which there are many available) or a landline installation, and then pay your bill to the tune of $10 a month, which is roughly equivalent to about 250 minutes talk-time on an entry-level handset. To paraphrase Rick Santelli, Congratulations! You are now paying your neighbors’ phone bill.
The Lifeline program has become increasingly popular in the last few years, and spending on it has more than doubled, from $772 million in 2008 to $1.6 billion in 2011. It is now so popular, in fact, that many people have registered multiple times; an FCC audit conducted in 2011 showed that up to 269,000 wireless subscribers had free phones and cell service from at least two carriers. (And people who don’t qualify appear to like it, too.) These abuses have caught the attention of Democratic senator Claire McCaskill, who has called for an investigation.
The FCC will be hard-pressed to do much about the abuse, however, as until it was investigated, it had not considered it necessary to build a database to keep track of its handouts. It has now rectified this and claims to have saved $33 million since the audit. Greater efficiency is always laudable; but nobody seems to have stopped and asked a basic question: Why is the federal government running a semi-secret program to equip 12.5 million Americans with phones and pay $10 of their bills each month?
It's not such a secret program. I regularly see television ads promoting this featuring (usually) an elderly black woman who's in her house during a thunderstorm and is now somehow safe because has this free phone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's what worries me about the stability of the republic -- the last few years have seen the airwaves abuzz with commercials for new entitlements. From the welfare/rebate checks they were mailing out a few years ago to the mortgage programs to the food stamps... the vote-buying is brazen and ugly.
It never fails to occur to me that the vote-buying is happening with my money. Even the ad time is being bought with my money! Talk about class division -- I might someday forgive these people but I will never forget. Ev-ah.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGet your new scooter at no cost to you!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is why I advocate that if you receive money or goods from the government as a charity case, you cannot vote in any election during the time you received that charity, nor for an equal period afterward. Or, of course, we could simply follow the Constitution as it's currently written and abolish federal charity altogether.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBTW, I include direct subsidies in this, as well. It's much harder to draw a bright line, but if you get money from the government to make your business succeed where it would otherwise fail, you should also not be able to vote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've always said that if you receive more from govt in direct payments, than you give to govt in taxes, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Sometimes when I'm in a bad mood, I say that anyone who receives a check from govt shouldn't get a vote. Of course that exclude tax refunds. (Not including those abysmal refundable credits that congress has fallen in love with in recent years)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe only problem with this is it would exclude the military. Maybe another exclusion for anyone who puts their life on the line while receiving a govt check. That would cover the military, cops who actually do patrols, and firemen who man the trucks, while excluding their supervisors.
You don't have to make it an exemption based on putting your life on the line, Mark. Just word it such that paychecks (and payment for goods and services rendered) are excluded. (Because, despite my moments of more incandescent loathing of government, I do think government employees ought to be able to vote. I just don't think there should be as many of them......)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow, thanks for pointing that out! I'm going to get me one of those free cell phones and ten bucks per month.
You see, my only income is from dividend payments on my rather large stock portfolio. I've retired, but am not yet drawing Social Security (eligible, though). A quick check shows that my dividends amount to less than 135 percent of the poverty line.
Why didn't I think of this before? I wondered how it was that the supposedly poor illegal immigrants who pick fruits all have cell phones.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Why is the federal government running a semi-secret program to equip 12.5 million Americans with phones and pay $10 of their bills each month?"
Let's be honest here. It's not a "semi-secret" program. Ignorance of something doesn't mean that something is secret or semi-secret. I don't know much about wine. That doesn't mean it's "semi-secret."
But the question still remains: why? Well, Congress decided that there are certain things that all Americans should possess - access to water, roads, sewer, electricity, communication technology, etc. Part of the reason people don't have some of these things (or didn't when the law was written) is based on availability (mostly in rural areas) and part was because of cost (mostly among the low-income). So Congress created a program to help low-income people afford phones. That's why.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>help low-income people afford phones.
135% of poverty level is low-income and entitles you to phone bill subsidies? Really?
You, sir, are the problem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAccording to the law, it does entitle one to subsidies to buy a phone. I'm fine adjusting the the level at which someone becomes eligible for this subsidy. Spare me your melodrama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf congress were to decide that everyone should have access to fine wines, does that mean it's your responsibility to pay for that as well?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, legally, yeah. Just like today we are legally responsible for paying, through our taxes, to help other Americans have access to and afford basic utilities.
But I'd still protest the wine policy as a bad one and try to change it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know about other people, but here in NC I've heard this boondoggle advertised on the radio. It is annoying to fight against though. The radio ad makes it seem like you're doing it to help somebody so they can have a phone in an hour of need. Of course, most people just use it to get a free phone that they otherwise could likely afford. Worst part about it? People call it their "Obamaphone". Yes, vote for Obama because he gives you a free phone . . . that's what gov't is for. Anyone interested in getting back to the real purpose of gov't? Hint: it's not to give us goodies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI want my fellow citizens to pay for my Extra Innings package this summer!
My quality of life depends on it!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe primary purpose of govt is, and will always be, to take from those who work, in order to give to those who vote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd for their beer, gold teeth, kids dr visit, sirloin tips,trailer home rent, townhouse rent, recreational drugs, tv, cable bill, McDonalds, cool shoes, disability payments, disability assessment, court system when they break the law, lawyer when they break the law, child care, "welfare to work" gas vouchers, and so much more!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusestereotype much?
I know quite a few poor people. They attend our church. None of them have gold teeth, town homes, eat sirloin, or wear expensive shoes. Yeah, and shame on them for getting assistance to take their kids to the doctors or a disability payment. What a privilege!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, there you have it. I used to get snippy when in line behind some dope buying a pile of junk food with an EBT/SNAP card whilst yapping on the cell phone.
"Great. I'm partially subsidizing their cell phone..."
As it turns out, we're fully subsidizing a LOT of cell phones.
I feel much better, now...
Yes, my friends, there will be riots, but only if we do our job correctly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere else can drug dealers get an untraceable number? Since they nver give thier real address on these things, and the Feds really don't ever keep track of anything, it is a very clean, hard to attribute cellphone. Go by any section 8 housing and see all the dirtbags standing in the driveway running their drug business with one (or more) of those gubmint cellphones.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey also take payment in food stamp benefits cards, which they deal like playing cards to their homeys outside the bodega.
How convenient!