Obamaphone program cost 2.2 billion in 2012

[wygator]

Wonder how much of this goes on in other govt welfare programs? We can't afford this.

The U.S. government spent about $2.2 billion last year to provide phones to low-income Americans, but a Wall Street Journal review of the program shows that a large number of those who received the phones haven't proved they are eligible to receive them.
The Lifeline program—begun in 1984 to ensure that poor people aren't cut off from jobs, families and emergency services—is funded by charges that appear on the monthly bills of every landline and wireless-phone customer. Payouts under the program have shot up from $819 million in 2008, as more wireless carriers have persuaded regulators to let them offer the service.

Suspecting that many of the new subscribers were ineligible, the Federal Communications Commission tightened the rules last year and required carriers to verify that existing subscribers were eligible. The agency estimated 15% of users would be weeded out, but far more were dropped. A review of five top recipients of Lifeline support conducted by the FCC for the Journal showed that 41% of their more than six million subscribers either couldn't demonstrate their eligibility or didn't respond to requests for certification.

link

[mocgator]

Well I'm just shocked. How can this be??

I wonder if the same exact thing will happen with Obamacare???

[G8trGr8t]

Government didn't spend it, they took it from those of us that actually pay for our phones and gave it away and took some off the top for managing the program.

My simple local landline bill is $30 per month with 33% of that being taxes. Ridiculous. 33% tax.

Just more redistribution.

[wgbgator]

Never mind that it was the private carriers signing up people who might be ineligable while the gov't weeded out those that werent after tightening the rules when they became suspicious. But I'm sure the gov't was to blame, somehow. I'm sure you can think of something.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

Government didn't spend it, they took it from those of us that actually pay for our phones and gave it away and took some off the top for managing the program.

My simple local landline bill is $30 per month with 33% of that being taxes. Ridiculous. 33% tax.

Just more redistribution.

That goes without saying. Government has NO MONEY to spend that it didn't take from someone. But they did spend it.

The obvious problem with government spending is the extra-constitutional programs that have been added and grown beyond all reason.

[rivergator]

you guys are still pretending Obama started this program?

[wygator]

From James Madison, father of the Constitution and one author of the Federalist Papers:

If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads. In short, every thing, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.

The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.

And finally, his clearest statement of all:

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by rivergator

you guys are still pretending Obama started this program?

The lady in the youtube video thinks so. Isn't that all that matters?

It has more than doubled under his watch:

Payouts under the program have shot up from $819 million in 2008, as more wireless carriers have persuaded regulators to let them offer the service.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by rivergator

you guys are still pretending Obama started this program?

It only matters that he didn't start it if you are treating ever expanding government spending on any bad idea a fait accompli. Liberals have no trouble riding Obama about Gitmo, by contrast, and Obama has ratified that policy as surely as he has this one.

[wgbgator]

LOL. Well, I guess we can expect an immenent Consitutional challenge to the law.

BTW, "subsidy" is not "charity."

[MichiGator2002]

On a related note...



It's like life itself is now political satire.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

LOL. Well, I guess we can expect an immenent Consitutional challenge to the law.

BTW, "subsidy" is not "charity."

Please explain. A transfer payment, whether all or part of an expense, is in this example a gift or charity.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by wygator

Please explain. A transfer payment, whether all or part of an expense, is in this example a gift or charity.

I wouldnt consider subsidizing the cost of something to be a "gift" or "charity." I mean, my state subsidized education at UF wasnt something most people would consider a "gift" or "charity." It just made education more affordable and accessible by partially covering the cost. Moreover the state & employers benefit from a more educated work force (as did other private businesses like bars & food services while I was at school and some fractional dipsosable income), who will pay more in taxes than someone who doesnt have the education to get a high paying job. So, I don't see any act of disinterested charity, but an act of defraying costs to achieve some sort of beneficial end. So, not charity.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Never mind that it was the private carriers signing up people who might be ineligable while the gov't weeded out those that werent after tightening the rules when they became suspicious. But I'm sure the gov't was to blame, somehow. I'm sure you can think of something.

Never mind that practically every government benevolence program, no matter how well intended, usually has rampant fraud and abuse.

Even absent outright abuse, the cost of government providing any kind of service has much higher overhead than any private business or charitable organization that provides similar services to the needy.

[Lawdog88]

No drug deals were conducted using those phones.

Noimsayin ?

[Matthanuf06]

Typical socialist program. Tell me why they are getting cell phones and not land lines?

[wygator]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

Typical socialist program. Tell me why they are getting cell phones and not land lines?

Because if they're homeless, they can still have a phone to try to get a job.

This is true, not hyperbole.

[g8orbill]

mere drop in the bucket to insure his re election-the takers will always vote for those giving stuff away

[wygator]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

Typical socialist program. Tell me why they are getting cell phones and not land lines?

In addition, there was some reporting that the additional companies were added after 2008 election as political payback.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

Typical socialist program. Tell me why they are getting cell phones and not land lines?

Probably the same reason I havent had a land line in 12 years.