"Free" Cell Phones: $1.6 BILLION

Those "free" cell phones that Reader defends [because she believes all government entitlement programs actually qualify their recipients...LOL!] cost us $1.6 BILLION in 2011...much of it fraudulent.

http://news.yahoo.com/washington-footing-cell...

Last year, a federal program paid out $1.6 billion to cover free cell phones and the monthly bills of 12.5 million wireless accounts. The program, overseen by the FCC and intended to help low-income Americans, is popular for obvious reasons, with participation rising steeply since 2008, when the government paid $772 million for phones and monthly bills. But observers complain that the program suffers from poor oversight, in which phones go to people who don't qualify, and hundreds of thousands of those who do qualify have more than one phone.

Last summer, a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review story shed some light on a government program that relatively few Americans knew existed.(Read more about it here.) The Lifeline program provides low-income Americans with free cell phones (basic ones such as those made by Tracfone, not smartphones) and covers up to 250 free minutes each month. As many as 5.5 million residents in Pennsylvania alone could qualify for the program, which is funded primarily by the Universal Service Fund fee added to the bills of land-line and wireless customers.

The program came to be after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed, and the FCC created the Universal Service Fund to help "to promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates," among other things. All telecommunications carriers must pay into the fund, and many do so by tacking on a fee to each of their customers' bills. It's probably added into your monthly wireless bill and your landline bill, if you still have one.

The Universal Service Fund provides discounts on phone services, or in some cases, entirely free services to low-income Americans. The fund helps pay for landlines or cell phones, whichever the recipient prefers. There's also a one-time discount of up to $30 to cover an installation fee or a cell phone. Considering how cheap some cell phones are nowadays, the money more than covers the costs of a basic phone. Then, the fund covers phone bills to the tune of $10 a month, which typically translates as 250 minutes for wireless plans of the types of phones we're talking about. Americans who receive food stamps, Medicaid, or other federal aid, or who earn up to 135% of the federal poverty guidelines, qualify for the program.

Now, Bloomberg Businessweek reports, we have a pretty good idea of how much the program pays out -- and how quickly it's growing as more and more people find out about it. In 2011, Lifeline paid out $1.6 billion, more than double the amount paid in 2008 ($772 million).

What's more, an FCC audit of the program last year showed that many participants in the program were taking more than their fair share. According to Businessweek:

269,000 wireless Lifeline subscribers were receiving free phones and monthly service from two or more carriers.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) has been taking a closer look at the program since she personally received an invitation to apply for a free, government-subsidized cell phone in the mail. McCaskill has asked the FCC to investigate Lifeline. As a result, the FCC is building a database to see if a subscriber has more than one subsidized phone. In other words, until recently, such a database didn't exist.

The FCC, which announced the changes by using the euphemism that it is "modernizing" Lifeline, has set a goal of saving $200 million on the program in 2012. After eliminating nearly 270,000 of the duplicate subscriptions discovered in the audit last year, the FCC said it has already "saved" $33 million.

Those phones should have birth control that can be absorbed through fingers.

No wonder these 'people' are sh^tting in the streets in honor of obama, the parasite class' patron scumbag.... since saint is an offensive word to this garbage.

hey now wrote:

No wonder these 'people' are sh^tting in the streets in honor of obama, the parasite class' patron scumbag.... since saint is an offensive word to this garbage.

Once again, how does this story, or this program (which was started in 1998), have anything to do with Obama.

Sorry, I was wrong, it was started in 1996.

And if you notice, it is a Democrat who is asking the FCC to investigate Lifeline.

Wasn't the FCC exec Colin Powell's spawn?
Go figure...

markbano wrote:

<quoted text>
Once again, how does this story, or this program (which was started in 1998), have anything to do with Obama.

A government freebie that devolves into fraud. What? You trying to suggest obama is encourging people to contribute to society when he's enabling them to be parasites upon society? Costs magically began climbing in '08, ten years after Clinton planted the 'gimmie'. He probably knew of the program because he probably had one of the freebie phones.

markbano wrote:

<quoted text>
Once again, how does this story, or this program (which was started in 1998), have anything to do with Obama.

Hey DB, how about this connection?
http://obamaphone.net/
Filthy progressives...typical.

hey now wrote:

<quoted text>A government freebie that devolves into fraud. What? You trying to suggest obama is encourging people to contribute to society when he's enabling them to be parasites upon society? Costs magically began climbing in '08, ten years after Clinton planted the 'gimmie'. He probably knew of the program because he probably had one of the freebie phones.

My guess would be costs began climbing in 08 because that is when the economy tanked and more people would have qualified for the program.

I am glad there are those (like the Dem Rep. calling for an investigation), who are concerned about fraud in a worthwhile program. Fraud should not be tolerated in any form or in any program, and those who abuse programs such as this should be weeded out and automatically declared inelligible.

hey now wrote:

<quoted text>Hey DB, how about this connection?
http://obamaphone.net/
Filthy progressives...typical.

I'm not even going to try and guess what DB is, but why is your link the only place, or time, I have heard this program referred to as an "Obama Phone"? And why would it be referred to as an "Obama Phone" when the program has been in existence for 16 years?

I don't think your link is an actual government website, but rather a site designed to further attempt to portray Obama as trying to give away your hard earned tax dollars to freeloaders and frauds.

From factcheck.com :

The president has no direct impact on the program, and one could hardly call these devices "Obama Phones," as the e-mail author does. This specific program, SafeLink, started under President George Bush, with grants from an independent company created under President Bill Clinton, which was a legacy of an act passed under President Franklin Roosevelt, which was influenced by an agreement reached between telecommunications companies and the administration of President Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson Phones, anyone?

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-ph...

markbano wrote:

From factcheck.com :
The president has no direct impact on the program, and one could hardly call these devices "Obama Phones," as the e-mail author does. This specific program, SafeLink, started under President George Bush, with grants from an independent company created under President Bill Clinton, which was a legacy of an act passed under President Franklin Roosevelt, which was influenced by an agreement reached between telecommunications companies and the administration of President Woodrow Wilson.
Wilson Phones, anyone?
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-ph...

Wilson did tremendous damage to the Republic and it a century later.

George Jefferson Hilliard wrote:

<quoted text>Wilson did tremendous damage to the Republic and it a century later.

The bastard.

But at least now you don't have to be angry at Obama over this false issue, and instead can concentrate on other false issues.

markbano wrote:

<quoted text>
The bastard.
But at least now you don't have to be angry at Obama over this false issue, and instead can concentrate on other false issues.

It's obvious that liberals LOVE certain policies when administered by their own kind...free cell phones, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, taking Wall Street money, drone attacks...

George Jefferson Hilliard wrote:

<quoted text>Wilson did tremendous damage to the Republic and it a century later.

Wilson was the first communist elected president. Then FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and now Obama.

Spooktackular wrote:

<quoted text>
Wilson was the first communist elected president. Then FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and now Obama.

You forgot to add Nixon, Bush 41 and Bush 43 to the list. Maybe even Eisenhower if you think about it.

Enzyte Bob wrote:

<quoted text>
You forgot to add Nixon, Bush 41 and Bush 43 to the list. Maybe even Eisenhower if you think about it.

No to nixon and Bushs they just were not constituional conservatives. Eisenhower fits given his desire to hold back so the Russians could catch up.

Spooktackular wrote:

<quoted text>
No to nixon and Bushs they just were not constituional conservatives. Eisenhower fits given his desire to hold back so the Russians could catch up.

But Nixon sold out Taiwan, so we could outsouce manufacturing to China. I think that qualifies.

George Jefferson Hilliard wrote:

<quoted text>It's obvious that liberals LOVE certain policies when administered by their own kind...free cell phones, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, taking Wall Street money, drone attacks...

Actually, if you remember, I have said I do not agree with everything Obama has done and have no problem discussing those issues on which I disagee. Two of those would be the continuation of the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay, as well as our troops still active in Afghanistan. I personally am all in favor of drone attacks (regardless of who is President), and think many of our foreign "problems" could be solved by using more subtle methods such as we have with Seal Team Six.

As far as the cell phones, why would I be opposed to it if a Republican held office? To me it seems you have it reversed. I never heard a peep about free cell phones until recently, and certainly not while Bush was President. But now all of a sudden they are dubbed "Obama phones" and Conservatives get themselves in a tizzy because of how cushy Obama has made being poor (I believe that is what you were arguing on a previous thread).

Further examples of Conservatives switching allegiances to policy include both "Obama Care" and "Cap and Trade", which were originally Conservative ideas and did not become hated until they were embraced by Democrats.