Posted on 03/31/2010 4:41:10 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
Government-sponsored text messaging? You got it.
Welfare recipients in approximately 20 states–with more to follow– are currently eligible to receive a free cell phone with a limited number of monthly minutes. All individuals that qualify for state or federal welfare–food stamps, Medicaid, etc.–and have an income at or below 135% of the poverty level, are eligible. According to a Fox News report, the cell phone service is currently the fastest growing welfare program in the country.
In 2008, the fund that foots the bill for this program contributed $819 million to subsidize low-income telephone services. The fund is projected to grow to over $1 billion this year. That’s $1 billion of over $800 billion the United States will spend on welfare in 2010.
This particular program is covered by the federal Universal Service Fund. At first it received its money by essentially taxing telephone companies that provided long-distance service, with the money then being used to provide affordable rates for those living in less densely populated areas where phone service was more costly. However, in 1996, Congress voted to extend the use of this fund to subsidize low-income households and subsequently expanded the list of those required to pay into the fund to include: local telephone companies, wireless companies, paging services, and payphone providers. (Naturally, the cost for this fund is passed to the customer.) In 2008, the Federal Communications Commission began subsidizing cell phones for low-income households.
Besides the $1 billion price tag, which is likely to increase as more states implement the service, not to mention the concern for growing entitlement created by this program, cell phone recipients are loosely monitored. According to Heritage welfare expert Robert Rector, this means that if an individual’s income increases to where he or she is no longer eligible for the service, there is no one to make sure he or she stops receiving it.
Jose A. Fuentes, director of Government Relations for TracFone–one of the providers of the free phone service–says that the phones are not meant “for heavy usage.” Instead, they are meant “for quick phone calls, as well as a way for people to reach you in case of…emergency or for calls from a potential employer,” not meant to replace a landline. This idea indicates that not only should government subsidize phone service, but that as SafeLink, one of the providers of the cell phones, states, “cell phone ownership is a right.”
This is just another example of the ever-expanding welfare state and the increasing entitlement mentality. At the very least, policymakers should require greater monitoring of the program to prevent misuse. Furthermore, if the purpose of the cell phones is truly to give lower-income people more access to potential employers, participants should be required to account for their job search activities. A welfare program that does not require personal responsibility will only encourage dependency and diminish human dignity.
It's way past time for leaving unchallenged the use of obfuscating language like this, which is especially irritating when it comes from the Heritage Foundation. Funds like this don't foot bills for anything, taxpayers pay a tax that taxpayer-paid bureaucrats confiscate and then pay-out to preferred political supporters. Want to know why your cellphone bill is so high? Ironically, if one were able to remove the cost of financing this confiscation from the economy and honest, "poor" working people would be able to afford cell phones.
And it's about time for this "official poverty" level to be tossed. I've yet to see a single program that didn't use an actual hurdle above 100 percent, usually 200 percent.
I’ve never sent a text message because I didn’t see the value in it. I guess I just have to go on welfare so I can see just how important texting really is.
It works great on the iPhone. I use it when I don't want to talk to someone on the phone but need some information. I mean, if I want to get off the phone with my brother in a hurry -- forget it ... LOL ...
So, he's a prime candidate for a text message, doncha know... :-)
I’d give it another once-over. If there was only one call, you’d hear the screams about it from there. That sounds rather iffy. Who knows though..., you may be right.
sw
If you look at the stats posted up at the top, it is hard to say we have anyone who is really "poor" in this country.
I look at all the truly poor people in the Third World. What they live in is true poverty, and it is nothing close to the living standards of the average welfare recipient in this country.
I’d give it another once-over. If there was only one call, you’d hear the screams about it from there. That sounds rather iffy. Who knows though..., you may be right.
In Texas it was 68 minutes total... and like I was saying above, I can't get off one phone call with some of my relatives in 68 minutes... LOL ...
Another leach off of the hardworking people of America.
Having any kind of designer handbag and getting a free phone is a sign of the government misspending my funds.
I hope you know the “poor people” who show up for these programs are often dressed well and driving a newer SUV.
Many many people in this country are living big off the system.
How about people who drive their cars to get groceries with food stamps?
I'll bet the US is the only country where that happens.
Your tax dollars at work. Perhaps soon the government will begin to issue social secretaries and even butlers, while demanding that everyone else pony up for the cost.
Not only free content on their site, you can pick topics that they will email you for free.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.