More back room legislation.   The members of this administration are experts at shell games, lies, slight of hand and smoke and mirrors. It's time to get really scared for our country and our Republic.

Considering this all stems from the universal access law of 1985, yeah, I'd say that Reagan was a real jerk.

Oh, wait, he was a GOP'er...

Hmm...well, the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for this!

Oh, wait, they don't: Not directly, anyway.

Who Pays for the Lifeline and Link-Up Programs?

All telecommunications service providers and certain other providers of telecommunications must contribute to the federal USF based on a percentage of their interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues. These companies include wireline phone companies, wireless phone companies, paging service companies, and certain Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers.

Some consumers may notice a “Universal Service” line item on their telephone bills. This line item appears when a company chooses to recover its USF contributions directly from its customers by billing them this charge. The FCC does not require this charge to be passed on to customers. Each company makes a business decision about whether and how to assess charges to recover its Universal Service costs. These charges usually appear as a percentage of the consumer’s phone bill. Companies that choose to collect Universal Service fees from their customers cannot collect an amount that exceeds their contribution to the USF. They also cannot collect any fees from a Lifeline program participant.

Another important point: if you earn more than 135 percent of the national poverty level, you don't qualify. (That's $29,767 for a family of four, or $14,620 for a single person). Also, only one line or phone per household.

Just more faux outrage...or fox outrage, if you prefer.

Poor or not, the taxpayers should not be footing the bill for a free cell phone for people; if you cannot afford one with your own money, they you don't have one.

A home phone I have no problem with as every one should have a home phone for emergency's. Even senior citizens should have a phone that is paid for - again, not a cell phone.

A cell phone????? NO WAY And what makes you think there is really only one phone per household???  dreamer!  These same people learned how to scam the welfare program this would be a cake walk.

A cell phone, anymore, is as cheap as a landline phone. Maybe even cheaper. And it's portable. Technology marches on.

Clinton and the Moral Majority came up with this crap.  Talk about the law of unintended consequences...

Landline phones are cheaper than the taxes you pay to have one

Found this on Politifact concerning "Obama Phones".

We spoke with Rosemary Kimball, an FCC spokeswoman, to get more details.
 
She said consumers can qualify for a cell phone plan if they don't have access to a land-line. Though the exact details of the benefit vary from state to state, cell phone providers typically provide low-income consumers with some form of a monthly discount, whether it be free minutes or a reduced rate, she said.
 
And here's a key detail: The program is more than decade old.
 
Kimball said it comes from the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which amended the Communications Act of 1934 to require low-income assistance. The law required the FCC to create the Universal Service Fund, a pool of money subsidized by small charges on our phone bills (we checked our bill and found we kicked in $2.80 last month) and redistributed to the low-income service programs as well as programs that bring telecommunications services to rural areas and schools. And the LifeLine program has been around even longer — since 1985.

It's a matter of opinion whether this program threatens the very foundations this country was built on. But the e-mail is correct that tax dollars are being used to support the cell phone program. Still, it mischaracterizes the program by making it seem as if it was created by the Obama administration. In fact, Lifeline and Link-Up have been around for nearly 14 years. These are not "Obama phones." (Maybe we should call them "Clinton phones.") So we rate the claim Barely True.

Is this the same company that makes Obama Tacos?

Land lines, basic, no frills or long distance runs about $14 per month.   Is there a cell phone plan for that amount?  About 5 years ago I paid $20 per month for 100 minuted.  Since I didn't use the phone much it was no problem.  How long would t take a househod to use uo 70 minutes?  What kind of access do they have when those minuted sr used in the first few days?  Question.

edit..s'cuse the typos..holding a toddler on my lap and typing with one left finger.

Actually it's about $5 in CA, Nancy. 

You can even get it down to $2 (where you have limited calls) in CA and pay extra for additional calls.

If you don't qualify for the subsidized program then you pay about $9 for the line then about $10 in surcharges, fees, and taxes.

I just had my basic no frills ATT land line phone disconnected and with taxes and all the gov't stuff it cost me about 19.00 every month.

(I was so smart that I put in a Magic Jack...just before my computer went belly up and now I only have my cell phone..)

A cell phone, anymore, is as cheap as a landline phone. Maybe even cheaper. And it's portable. Technology marches on.

So we should pay for it for someone else because they can't afford one???  Is that a sousa march????

JF:  thanks for the correction and clarification :-)  "o" is choke-cough-hack-hack............................ ..innocent.  eeewwwwwww that tasted nasty!!!!!!!

from what ive seen, welfare recipients already have cell phones.  I phones with data plans....much more than i care to dish out for, have been seen in the hands of  kids whose parents are on the dole..

THE WELFARE LIFESTYLE CONTINUES

If this is an "Obama phone", I suppose this time last year it was a "Bush phone"?

Snopes has an article clarifiying the policy. It is not an innovation of Obama even though its plain he's not trying to abolish it.

Ever try to find a job without a phone number? If you want these people to get a job, it's only reasonable they have the means to do so.

 JFB & CATPAW........................see above yesterday at 6:05pm and 6:34pm.  The issue of who started what was clarified, AND I acknowledged the correction.

CATPAW:  yes, they do need a phone..................a HOME phone! IMO, a cell phone is not a right it is a privilege you can afford on your own money. If you don't have the money you don't have one.

WP, and other conservatives on this blog: The amount of human kindness in your hearts is overwhelming. May whatever God you pray to bless you and keep you, and hopefully keep you from hard times.

I read the posted letter again and it leaves me more confused than the first time.

A former employee asks for a job and leaves a phone number for contact. The guy who let him go is not outraged about making him jobless. He is not outraged because the job seeker is reduced to welfare (and presumably, food stamps). He is not outraged because the job seeker is personally asking for a job and apparently told there isn't one. But he's livid because this guy has a cheap cell phone with limited minutes.

Nor does he seem to be outraged with the dire circumstances it takes to qualify for the stupid phone. Would he not be outraged if the job seeker came to his office every day and asked the same question? How about if the job seeker left a carrier pigeon to contact?

I do agree with the writer that this is absolutely insane. We just disagree on the source of that insanity.

catpaw is correct in stating that this was not an Obama initiative.  Here is the link if you are interested or need clarification

http://www.snopes.com/polit...

Infowar is right...................................people do not read the WHOLE blog before commenting. 

RICKT: please see above wherein JF corrected my blog and sited a reference. I agreed w/his correction. Does that work for ya?!!!

CATPAW: I understand what you are saying - that said, I believe the outrage is not the fact the welfare people have phones, it is that we are paying for CELL phones!!!! It has nothing to do with applying for a job and no one is saying welfare people/jobless people should not have a home phone - just the need for a CELL phone.

I looked up the link, but it hasn't hit California as of yet.....I guess exchanging food for a phone is important...But then in this country what does makes sense these days.