This article talks about the poor receiving phone aid services, but in the past couple of years these services have been abused.
"Regulators looking into the burgeoning federal program to provide subsidized
phone service for the poor are finding growing cause for concern.
Last year, the government spent an estimated $2.2 billion on the Lifeline
program, up from $819 million four years earlier."
Did you know that phone services were provided for the poor and do you think this is a good idea? What do you think the government could do to prevent these people that are not qualified from receiving these services?
Great journalism work to uncover a story like this! Its a sad unearthing, but when companies are given millions of dollars to subsidize a service, and this is no regulatory body--this is the type of thing that happens. Companies have every incentive to hand out free phones as they are subsidized by government money. Those that aren't technically eligible have every right to abuse it, because hell, they get a free phone regardless!
ReplyDeleteThis idea of supplementing phones for poor households in case of emergency is a great idea in the abstract. Perhaps some sort of regulatory measures on 'talking time', $-per-minute, etc would help curtail the policy abuse. One still might be able to twist the program into getting a free phone after this...but a lot less people would--if the service terms were greatly shortened.
When I started reading the article, I identify with this cartoon (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-slwHzCJcZaY/T-N4xy-SVKI/AAAAAAAAAHA/a1Zl50UWw0c/s1600/Cartoon_-_Unemployment.png). It said that people are looking for a job during the crisis, but the government is doing another things as health care or solving the climate change. If we relate the cartoon to the spending in the lifeline one can see that the government does not have any idea about the cost-benefit analysis. With my deepest sorrow, I do not think that the government should solve the problem of the cellphone among the poor people. According to the Australian School, if the government begins to decide which things should be subsidized or not based on its discretion we will finish depending on its discretion to choose our life. Probably, this sounds radical. However, I do not know why the government has decided to pay $2.2 billion in lifeline program. The US government should analyze its inversion in the crisis stage if not want to fall in depression.
ReplyDeleteI actually remember stumbling upon this fact when I was in grade school. Our class had found this service online that you would type in a message into a conversation box. A person would then call a phone number at your choosing and they would speak whatever message you wanted to them and then type back that person's responses. It was not until later we all found out that this was a service for the hearing disabled. Later on when looking back for nostalgia's sake, it appeared that the system now required a registration with your local government that listed you as hearing disabled in order to access the service. My point of this whole story being that any free government service is going to be taken advantage of (even if by harmless accident) but increases in efficient regulation goes a long way to cutting costs so that the people who really need these services can use them.
ReplyDeleteI also remembered the service that Travis is talking about back when I was in middle school. People abused it and used the service the wrong way (sometimes inappropriately). I remember a few times people would use it to call each other just so they could here the operator talk. We need regulation in these kinds of services so citizens don't abuse what the government is giving them. I think the phone service provided to the poor is a good idea in emergency situations only. There should be a specific list of people on the list that are able to use this service, especially since things like this don't come cheap.
ReplyDeleteSince when are cell phones a right? That is what is bugging me the most. Im sure there are people who are poor and have jobs that would require a cell phone, but can't afford one. I'm completely fine with those people receiving help from the government. What really concerns me is the number of people who are unemployed but are completely cool with that because now all they have to do is stick out their hand and the government will give them a free cell phone. Meanwhile, hard working Americans are paying more and more taxes because now apparently everyone is entitled to a cell phone. I'm quite worried about this trend continuing and having more and more goods and services turn into "entitlements".
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWell thank you Andrew! I really appreciate it!
ReplyDelete