Taxpayers foot bill for free [low income] government cell phones [$1+ billion per year!]

WLS - Chicago ^ | June 12, 2012 | Ben Bradley

[kevcol]

New questions have emerged about a government program that has given away millions of free cell phones and service to people with low incomes and those in rural areas.

The money comes from the federal "Universal Service Charge" on your phone bill. It has its roots way back in the 1930s. The goal was to make sure people in rural areas and the poor had access to telephone service. In the 1990s, it expanded to include wireless phones.

Since then, the numbers have exploded. The cost of the program is now more than $1 billion dollars a year. The FCC, along with some Democrats and Republicans, are trying to reign it in.
.
.
On an abandoned lot on the West Side of Chicago, a sign on a bright green tent advertises a deal too good for many to resist.

"My daughter told me about it. It's a government phone," said Jeanetta Anderson.

When asked if she had to pay anything for it, Anderson said no.

She's right. This is one case where "free" really means free -- at least, for the people receiving the phones.

When asked who pays for the program, cell phone user Michael Brown said, "The government or the taxpayers. Someone. I don't pay for it. Like I said, I can't afford it. It helps me."
.
.
An FCC spokesperson said: "Since 1985, [the wireless service program] has helped low-income consumers find jobs, contact friends and family, and call 911 in emergencies, and we will not allow fraud and abuse to destroy this valuable program for the nation's most vulnerable citizens."

[GOPJ]

Any charged phone can call 911 - plan or not. Also if you need to call 911 and you’re out of phone tower range - no bars -there’s a good chance the call will go through.

[Boogieman]

D’oh! Guess I’m overdue to reread the whole thing again if I forgot that part.

[berdie]

I didn’t know that, but find it interesting.

So all the phones that are trashed due to upgrades could be recycled for 911 calls to people that have no phone.

Interesting.

[berdie]

to=for

[sand88]

It at least gave some alternatives.

Those ideas sound rational and workable in a rational world. But, the cold reality is they would NEVER be implemented -- by the left or by the RINOs.

No government willingly gives up power. Yes, throughout history there have been times when there have been small moves towards Liberty, but it is always short-lived.

To get back to the Liberty our citizens enjoyed in the 1800s is impossible through legislation at the national level.

We will never wean ourselves back to less government. True dramatic reform at the National level can only come about by actions by the States.

The other option for obtaining Liberty is through a 2nd Revolution (impossible to imagine) or through complete economic collapse (something no one should desire).

Reality demands that we look coldly at those who currently rule over us. They are not our friends, they are not after our best interests. Government at all levels are infested with sadistic humans who live to seek ways to control and abuse the citizenry.

Government is also infested with people with low morals who seek only to steal the productive wealth of others.

That is the current reality of government. I am trying my best to convince as many people as possible to view government in the way our Founders viewed government -- as something inherently evil.

We cannot survive with people assuming that this program or that program exists to help the downtrodden. The fools who believe that are handing over the rope to their enemies.

I leave you with two quotes from Thomas Jefferson.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

[Mycroft Holmes]

I don’t see anything in the Constitution to authorize the feds to operate a mail service...

Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution, known as the Postal Clause or the Postal Power, empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and post Roads".

Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[RightField]

I don’t know how much minutes cost after the free 250.

I don't know either, but I do know that the Safelink TV ad says "you can never go over your plan minutes." What does THAT mean?

[GOPJ]

So all the phones that are trashed due to upgrades could be recycled for 911 calls to people that have no phone.

Yes - for kids in your family (those too young to be trusted with a phone) or neighborhood kids - or if your city has an abused women's crisis center - they'll take your extra phones for their clients - and you get a tax donation write-off.

[Monorprise]

I don’t see how the two concepts are connected except in that giving people food and shelter (which is taken from the hard working mouths of those who actually labored to produce) tends to cause all folk to do even less for themselves.

I am of the same opinion on theses matters as Benjamin Franklin, the best way to help the poor is to do less for them and thus compel them to do more for themselves.

[berdie]

I sincerely pray you are never completely down and out hungry. BUT...if you are, ping me...I’ll read some Benjamin Franklin to ya. ;)

[Monorprise]

If I am I might enlist the aid of actual (voluntary)charity.

It is not the responsibly or right of government to (forcefully)take bread from the mouths of the one who produced and give to the one the Government(politicians) deemed more “worthy” or in “need”.

You have a mind of your own as well as right to the resources you produce. It is up to you, and whatever proxy you choose to make that determination as to who is more in need of your money than you.

[berdie]

O.K.....Before I read about Ben Franklin to you, I’ll find a nice big box for you and your family to live in and take you to the nearest under pass. Don’t ask me for food...but I will leave a magic marker so you and yours can make “I’m hungry” signs.

Being serious for a moment...I don’t think the provision of food and shelter should be a lifelong experience. I have experience with Section 8 rental properties. I know what happens. A “step up” with certain limitations and criteria should be available.

I also have experience with charitible organizations. They are severely overloaded and underfunded. Most have no living accomodations available. Those that do are packed. So good luck if you want to “enlist the aid of actual (voluntary) charities”.

I do understand what you are saying, but charities cannot support these things exclusively. Furthermore if you give your cash as a donation, much goes to administration.

I think there should be changes. The government is a poor administrator.

[supercat]

I don’t think the provision of food and shelter should be a lifelong experience. I have experience with Section 8 rental properties. I know what happens. A “step up” with certain limitations and criteria should be available.

Help should be provided, but only in such fashion that people would rather do just about anything else than accept it; the penalty for accepting it, though, should be short-term rather misery rather than long-term harm or indebtedness, such that accepting the help will give people the impetus to ensure that won't need it again, rather than crippling them so they will.

[Kickass Conservative]

I've told this story before. When my BLIND Aunt lost her job (sewing garments at a Sweat Shop in Brooklyn in the late 40’s), she was living in squalor. Her younger Brother, was living with her at the time and they were scraping by on the little money he earned.

My Parents had no extra money to help, so my Mother told my Father to take my Aunt to the Welfare Office to get some help. My Aunt would have no part of it, so my Father had to force her to go with him. She was embarrassed to have to go on the Dole, even though there was little else she could do. My Aunt received $10 a week for about six months until she found another job. To this day at age 89, she still thinks about how bad it made her feel to take that money. I still shake my head in disbelief when I see so many able bodied people with their hands out. I learned early on that nobody owes you a living. Now we have Politicians and a willing Electorate that feels much differently. Since the Safety Net has turned into a Hammock, shame has turned into entitlement with no end. Debit Cards replace Food Stamps because we don't want anyone to feel embarrassed. Now through Presidential Decree, Illegal Aliens can legally take the Jobs of Taxpaying Citizens while the Press goes after a Reporter who asked a question of Pharaoh Obama out of turn. It has to be a nightmare or an epidemic of Stupid.

[Big Giant Head]

The only question that should be asked when evaluating a proposed government program is this: is it allowed under the United States Constitution?

thank you. Saved a bunch of us from having to post this exact sentiment.

[Monorprise]

So charities have poor administration and government has poor administration, in both cases your talking about a large sum of money going to “administration”.

I’m sorry you have so little faith in your fellow man both poor(To find ways to provide for themselves) and wealthy(to be charitable when necessary).

That being said I admit the poverty problem is greatly increased by the fact that Government by law denies anyone the opportunity to work unless they can be productive enough to merit minimum wage & benefits. That is where our real unemployment problem began.

That does not however mean we can afford to give way the hard earned fruits of other people’s labor to folks who have labored not. Nor does it mean that we can afford to allow politicians to pick and choose who “is in need of money”. That is the root of the political patronage system.(voting yourself other people’s money.)

[berdie]

At one time it was not seen as respectable to accept help. How we return to those days will be tough.

[berdie]

Looks like we agree on at least two things.

1. “political patronage system”. I absolutely agree that a lot of vote “buying” goes on thru these programs.

2. “I’m sorry you have so little faith in your fellow man”. You are correct, I am the ultimate cynic in most if not all areas of my life. Most of that cynicism is due to dealing with government programs and charitible programs and those that partake of each. Abuse is rampant in both. Of course there are good people on both ends.

I salute your optimism. (I’m not being sarcastic at the moment).

If the government programs were cut and sent back to the charities, the charities would be flooded. No amount of private donation could support the need.

As I originally posted...this country should not be one that has a lot of homeless starving people living under bridges. I simply don’t find that acceptable. Does the system need to be changed...you bet!

[Monorprise]

I am pleased that we are able to establish several points of common ground.

I must however reiterate my objection to the notion that should the government remove itself from this unconstitutional and corrupt field that Charities would nessarly be “overrunn”.
I would contend that many charities are already, at least in their own minds pushed to their limits. But i also beleive that many if not most people are far more capable than they are letting on to.

The fact is even the poor in this country(the receptiants of charity) live far better than they ever have, far better than the poor of any other country in the world. Perhaps infact too well for someone unable to pull thier own weght.

We have in fact defined the bottom bar far too high, far higher than many of us can reach in fact. Indeed I would go so far as to point out given our enormousness amounts of debt All the “bars”(IE Standards of living) are far higher than most Americans can reach.

We are instead using that Hamiltonian tool of Federal Debt obligations to force our children and grandchildren to pay for it. This is not only unfair to them, its unsustainable for all of us.

The mere cost of financing that growing debt going to continue to grow and consume an ever larger share of our economic output thus snowballing the need for even more debt.

Frankly speaking even the people reserving charity are reserving far more than any other generation of poor in history while doing less. Charity uses to be teaching people a skill to be self-suffent or at least feed and house themselves. Now even that is luxuriant and often impractical because any skill that we can teach them won’t necessarily produce enough in trade to reach that minimum bar(Minimum wage & benefits) just to be allowed to work!

The Government and the people controlling it have boxed us all into an impossible situation for a large share of our population. We can’t afford housing because the standards are too expensive. We can’t find work because nobody with a plan or means can make enough money off of us to meet the minimum standards required just to employ us.

Some of us can’t even afford food because again we have to not only buy it in stores(increasingly are profited from growing & hunting it ourselves) but all the food that we legally can buy has to meet FDA standards of testing and quality ect..

Frankly because of the Government Americans live in a world where they ether get top quality work, goods, & services by historic standards or they are not allowed to have anything at all. You either can reach that bar are your on the doll.

[supercat]

So charities have poor administration and government has poor administration, in both cases your talking about a large sum of money going to “administration”.

I believe that one can often predict the way in which a general task will generally be performed, well or badly, by examining the incentives of people charged with performing it. If those who do a task one way will be rewarded more highly than those doing it another way, people will be more likely to do the task the first way, even if the second way would be better.

If a private charity gives $100 to someone who doesn't need it, that charity will immediately have $100 less to give to people who do need it. If the charity runs out of money, it may put out an appeal for public support, but if it has wasted much of its money, it may have trouble getting people to donate more. By contrast, if a public welfare agency gives $100 to someone who doesn't need it, that will generally not reduce the amount of money it will have available to give to others. If anything, the increased demand for its services will be used as justification for a bigger budget.

Given the differences in incentives faced by private and public agencies, it should hardly be surprising that they behave very differently.