The right seemed pretty worked up yesterday after Drudge pushed a video of a woman claiming she's voting for President Obama because he gave her a phone (thanks to James Carter for the tip). It wasn't long before Rush Limbaugh and others like him were excitedly asking over-the-top questions: is Obama getting votes through bribes?
And though I don't doubt that your Fox News-watching uncle will be emailing all-caps messages about this any minute now, the truth is far from scandalous.
The Federal Communications Commission has a program called Lifeline that provides low-cost or free phone service. The agency's website says this is because it and Congress "recognize that telephone service provides a vital link to emergency services, government services and surrounding communities." Who qualifies varies by state, but "in general," to qualify you must have an income that is no more than 135 percent of the federal poverty line, or be enrolled in assistance programs like Medicaid, public housing assistance, discounted school lunch, or yes, food stamps. [...]
Strictly speaking, it's not a government-funded program: the telephone companies make payments to a fund administered by a non-profit called the Universal Service Administrative Company, but anyone with a phone bill chips in through a surcharge on their service.
Though the origins of the universal service program date back at least to 1934, the Lifeline program in particular was instituted by a well-known redistributionist by the name of President Ronald Reagan in 1984. A related effort, expanding affordable access to cell phones for low-income Americans, was created by another radical liberal by the name of George W. Bush.
As for the larger context, Dave Weigel's point bears repeating: "Shockingly, despite the bipartisan origins of the service, the idea of an 'Obama Phone' for the undeserving has existed for a long time. You know what else has existed for a long time? The Drudge Report hyping up tabloid news that makes black people look like violent dopes who'll do anything for more goodies from Obama."
Leave a Comment:
I've donated phones to organizations that use them for women of domestic violence or that just need them. It's a great program. This is nothing new, they are digging deep for anything. Poor babies are desperate.
I think that would actually be a different program than the one the wingers are whinging about now, but it's also a good one - kudos to you for your compassion.
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!
;-)
Imaginary bribes with phone republicans are foaming at the mouth, real voter suppression republicans get out their pom poms out
This garbage never stops. If the sky was blue the Rep and Limbaugh would say it is purple, I can not wait for the debates and The President runs ROmneyhood under the bus and on with victory in 2012.....
Shocking... I'm going to call my Congressman on my free phone.
Thanks for clarifying the true facts about the "Obama Phone" actually it was started by George W Bush and is bi partisan effort to help the poor and struggling to have basic emergency and cell phone service. I applied for one myself and resent them who say I'm among the tribes Obama wants to reel in. The poor just wanting freebees, not true for me and many others. I was disabled from a car crash that wasn't my fault. It took at least 8 years to recover on my own from the head injury. It ended my successful career as an RN, but today my life is very wonderful and gets better each day. The whole Republican backlash against the poor and struggling is horrific. They want to call us victims and yes of an accident and that's all for me and there are millions more that struggle in their own ways. President Obama is the only candidate that really cares about all of us
Delusional... this email is perpetuated to sell more phone lines that are obsolete! Nothing more nothing less. That equates to corporate profits which are subsidized by the tax payer. Despite the fact Rachael has contributed to this advertising email for a "good" that is obsolete by writing a column about the myth of the free phone, you seem to feel that Obama cares for you. He doesn't not a single bit, no more than any republican politician or opposing media outlet. The helping the "poor" meme is garbage. This program simply funnels money set aside for the poor to corporations. Obama campaign has only has one difference from Romney campaign. The mandated indoctrination of society to the concept that life is expendable. That is it pick your poison but do so wisely.
Rachel, Who has set up this website?
http://obamaphone.net/
I posted the registrant data in comment #17.2
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!
;-)
I had a GoDaddy DIY website once. They offer a privacy feature for a nominal fee. I discovered GoDaddy founder was doing some things I did not wish to support. I think it may have been on Maddow Blog, he was hunting some exotic animals, among others.
Anyway, it appears GoDaddy is HQ in Scottsdale, AZ.
http://www.ip-adress.com/whois/godaddy.com
I am not proficient with the inner workings of all this, but I suspect the server is there and the owner of the domain name has the privacy feature.
Another racist dog whistle, brought to you by the father of Breitbart, Mr. Sludge, I mean Drudge! It's a sad day for Rushbo when Drudge is breaking his news for him.
Well, the government is broke. Something has to give. Which programs do we cut? Like it or not it has to be done, and the Obama administration doesn't get it. Spend, Spend, spend. The fed prints more money, devalues the dollar and the problem gets even larger. Debt still climbing and no one seems very interested in stopping it. I am extremely worried for future generations. I am older, so the amount of time it affects me is irrelevant, but oh my, I feel for my children and grandchildren unless we get a grip. All of us need to do with much less in order to save our nation and its citizens of the future, but sadly, the attitude is "What can I get for free from the government? Maybe then I won't have to work or do without anything." We all need to look at what is a need and not a want. When looking at those in poverty, many have a car, cable TV, cell phones and a lot of electronics, not to mention booze, tatoos, cigarettes etc.The government shouldn't have to subsidize people who spend their money on such things. If they have that extra money, then they don't need the governmen'ts help.Who is watching that kind of spending and denying entitlements to those who are so wasteful? No one.
The idea that "these people" are spending all kinds of extra money on booze, tattoos, cigarettes and the like is getting to be a tired cliché. People abuse systems at all levels of income. Oil companies are bringing in billions in profit, we could make the same argument for their subsidies. Why, if they are making a profit, should we subsidize them? It is such a misguided and uneducated stance to take to blanket the entire impoverished population with these perceived characteristics.
In a society that does not value mass transit, why should you feel badly about someone with very little income using a car to get around? How do you propose they get to the job to make the money to help them get out of these programs?
Devaluing our currency is not always a bad thing. Spending is out of control but I don't think cutting social programs for this demographic is where we start.
Jimmy, jes33 used the term "many"not "ALL" Liberals use the phrase Getting to be a tired cliche' when ever someone says something they don't like. We need to quit subsidising companies and lowlifes. It is a fact that people will work the system to their advantage when given the opportunity. For the first 100 years of this republic the social safety net was neighbors and family That worked pretty damn well. system gamers on all levels need to be stopped. I say a 20% across the board cut in all federal and state programs is in order. But,then I'm not trying to get elected.
....how do governments go broke and how is our government broke?
How much money has been printed under the Obama administration, how does the printing of money effect it's value, and how does it make the problem larger?
....tattoos are permanent. If you get a tattoo as a young adult it's still there when you're middle aged. This doesn't even make sense. Having a car now means you're not in poverty, having cable tv, and having a cell phone now means you're not? That's amazing. You do realize that federal programs aren't used to pay for these things? You also do realize that people can donate services to the poor like cell phones (provided for free) and that many states require by law that apartments provide internet and/or cable for free. There actually is a federal law in place by the FCC that states all apartments- and this includes low income- must be cable access ready and phone ready. I also love the idea that people are getting this for free. Government programs don't pay for this- people pay for it out of their pocket. Most people who are poor are employed, but are living on minimum wage AND most companies (including Comcast and Sprint) offer special discount programs for people who are in poverty to get basic cable and cell phones for free or for cheap (like 10-20$ a month). I love the idea that a person spending money on this somehow magically now has enough money to spend on food to the point that they no longer need food stamps or some other assistance.
The government isn't subsidizing people who spend money on such things. But even if it did (false premise), what's the statistic? Oh you don't have one do you. Nope. You just make the assertion that X is true without any facts or reason to suppose that X is true. Wonderful.
Why were these social safety net programs created in the first place? What issues were they attempting to address? What was the poverty rate in the first 100 years and what was the death rate? What was the adjusted death rate (assuming people lived in modern conditions and had modern healthcare, but had no social safety net)? How do you make the conclusion that this worked "pretty damn well?" What evidence are you using to conclude this?
What happens when drastic cuts are made into the government? Does GDP go up or down? Does it further recessions/cause recessions or does it stop them? What would be the consequences to those who use the programs? Remember you must provide evidence for all of your assertions.
Jes, I don't think you 'get it,' and I think you are pretty much off topic. The topic is that the woman was confused about the program, and thought it was a program that the president started. It is wrong, and Drudge is using it as a dog whistle to help Willard Romney. Whether or not the program is valid, or should be cut, was not the topic. Please read: the program has been around since 1934 for elderly and very poor people; the litmus test in income is a very low yearly amount. I could think of 50 or 60 other programs to cut, which are mostly wasteful military spending. Don't be confused by the dog whistle, and please get all the facts......
Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring, Obamaphone!
...c'mon, I'm not the only person who thought of that, right?
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5C6X9vOEkU)
My Obama phone rang, I picked it up, and it spoke to me that "Drudge is a racist cracker!" I hung up happily......
Rachel, Do we know who is behind this website...
http://obamaphone.net/
Not sure who is behind the site, but did more digging and the site redirects you to another site when you attempt to apply...I did a very quick search and seems that the Obamaphone website is legit in at least the fact that since people have been referring to the cell phones as 'obamaphone' that should one choose to search under that heading on the web - basic information is provided. Which, in actuality, is not a bad thing.
I posted the registrant data in comment #17.2
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!
;-)
There's no doubt that the ad in question activates particular stereotypes that are intended to provoke an association between Obama and personal flaws that are part of the myths we have about the "inferior black race."
Why is it that conservatives want to demonize people that have nothing while 1000 millionaires paid zero in income taxes and corporations like Exon made 140 billion and paid no income taxes. WHo is the biggest drain?
If the above is true - Reagan and Bush - maybe someone should tell people that qualify for the phone that Obama really didn't get them the phone, but then someone might have to inform Obama too! Seeing as how the website to attain the phone ishttp://obamaphone.net.
I will correct myself <----This appears to be one of many websites that provide basic information about the program. Since, obviously, people are referring to the program as the obamaphone, many people might do a quick search with that heading, so maybe not a bad thing. As a side note, my comment is not a reflection on how I feel about the program - single parents in particular, but really everyone needs to be able to dial 911 or any number in case of an emergency and these days when families are spread apart, it helps morally, spiritually, etc. to be able to keep in contact with extended family...but if we want to remain true, why doesn't someone go correct the women that started this ridiculous controversy and educate her as to how and why she got the phone...Oh, because both sides are too busy trying to manipulate the public instead of educate!
. There is another program that assists with land lines, but it is not free. It's something like $12 per month.Faith Maynard can you tell me what that program is called and where one can apply for it.
You can apply for this at your local phone company. They will offer it to you as an incentive to buy a package deal which includes the hard line. They will tell you to fill out a simple form then and poof the bill is lowered. Then they six months later boost your bill to excess of full rate and claim that you didn't respond to a flier they sent you claiming the government wants more proof. Most people set the phone bill on autopay and this isn't caught for months. They then come after you for the credit you got originally. It's a scam and they bill everyone to fund it. lol ... truth
It's the same program, LifeLine, and you should be able to apply through any social service agency. As someone else mentioned, the Obamaphone website links to applications, and a search would turn up others. In NC, it gives about a $14 discount on a landline. You have to choose--landline discount or free cell phone; you can't get both.
They myth of something for free is a marketing tool to fool people to buy other services they otherwise would not buy. It is a way of funneling government funds to the poor right back to the Corporations. Scam.
Yeah, that medicare and social security is pure socialism, isn't it? And that damn military pension, that you would give your life for? Pure socialism. I got many dog whistles in my pocket, and I'm not afraid to blow them all! The 47 percent are retired, military retired, poor people, and the middle class.........
Tell it like it is Rachel. Is there NO END to the Debacle of the Romney/Ryan ticket? Also did you check out Sarah Silverman's hysterical video entitled "LET MY PEOPLE GO?" I Know you will love it. Unbelievable. WOMEN FOR OBAMA in florida rock....but always a Manhattan Gal.
Interesting take on this by Maddow; I wonder if she thinks the lady in the video should change her vote and vote for Romney because she was wrong about who was looking out for her? Or is it that Maddow thinks the republicans are treated unfairly and Obama gets credit for things he had nothing to do with purely because people are ignorant? Does media like Maddow play an important role in fooling the public?
Since President Obama gets the blame for a ton of things he isn't responsible for--the national debt, gas prices, ....--I have no problem with his getting credit for some good that isn't actually his accomplishment, although it does seem that serious improvements to this program have been implemented under his watch.
Sheeple, it is a scam to direct funds to Corporations. We are billed for it and you think it is a good thing. lol
Interesting point Don. The Drudge "story" is crap, but if the woman actually said that she is voting for Obama because he gave her a free phone is a little interesting to me. Some people equate programs with the current person or party in power, even though in many cases the program(s) may have been in place for years. I will bet that if the "fiscal cliff" takes effect in January with the increased taxes and decreased spending, some people will blame the person that won in November regardless who it is - "see what happened?! We vote for Romney (or Obama) and or the Democrats(or Republicans) and my taxes just went up!" - even though the winners (regardless of party) would not be in office until after those actions take place.
Steve -
Thank you for this explanation of LifeLine and the links. I've used it for 15 years without knowing where it came from. A year or so ago when I tried, I ran into brick walls with AT&T, NC social services agencies, NC's utilities commission and other agencies, and Google. Online I could find plenty about what the program does and how to qualify and apply, but absolutely nothing about how or why the program exists in the first place. So I've bookmarked everything!
Used it for 15 years but just one year ago you tried to use it and couldn't find it?
Weak...
Phone companies will give you the information on it as part of their sales presentation to get you to buy things you can't afford. Other services ... cable/ internet... it is a scam put into place by your legislators who are in the pocket of corporations. It isn't free at all.
It's not only seniors. My niece, who holds a full time job, but doesnt make enough money to pay rent electricity and feed herself (she is what we know as the 'working poor') receives a minimal amount of foodstamps. She also has one of these phones, and it provides a vital tool for communicating with her boss in cases where she is in an on call status.
I had the lifeline a few years ago. In CA, its a $7 monthly local phone line with no long distance and you pay per minute if you go over the allotted calls (about 30).
It was nice. I used it for internet (DSL). Now that Im working I pay $30 a month for the same service. There is NO reason a basic phone line should cost that much.
Yep they will tell you that you have to pay for a phone even if you don't use the line for a phone. The bill you for the DSL and collect a bonus payment for a phone line with limits set up to cost you if you make the mistake of using it. It is a scam and you pay for it in your bill. The phone line doesn't have to be activated to use DSL that is just what they tell you so you will pay the extra fee. I did this then canceled the phone portion and the DSL still worked. Scam.
FOX "News"/Drudge Report SPECIAL:
man can't finish mowing his lawn...OBAMA stole his gas can!!
woman loses purse in Wal-Mart...OBAMA!!
child falls off bike...OBAMA!!
dog bites mailman...OBAMA!!
bad call by refs...OBAMA!!
teen gets speeding ticket...OBAMA!!
gravy stain remains in shirt...after being washed...OBAMA!!
little green men from Mars land on Venus...OBAMA!!
wingnuts lose their ever lovin' minds over 2012 election results...OBAMA!!
All they while they sell these stories to the sheeple public with advertising dollars selling goods. ABC, CBS, and every media outlet out there are just selling goods for corporations. There is very little difference in the two parties and the same corporations buy spots on each network to get the public to buy their flavor of blame. The only essential difference is one party supports the mandate that public pay to self euthanize through mandated healthcare programs that also advocate against children being born.
MORE FREE STUFF!
Next thing, RWNJs will attack Obama for giving "those people" a job!
"We can't have that! We'd have to pay wages! It could affect our enormous dividend!"
I already had someone on this blog claim to be a small business owner who wouldn't hire new people because he thought they were lazy and wanting him to provide them with healthcare. He literally stated that lazy people wanted him to give them healthcare. I asked how were they lazy if they worked for him (and whether or not he was being sarcastic). He said he wasn't kidding that I believe he said he owned a restaurant and that people come in all the time trying to work for him so they can get healthcare and they are lazy because they expect him to give them the handout of employer sponsored health insurance.
Point being: it won't be long, in my mind, before employers start saying only "lazy" people would come work for them therefore they're not hiring. Cause, ya know, paychecks are for freeloaders.
It doesn't matter where the cell phone came from it doesn't matter who paid for the cell phone
All that matters is that crazy lady thanks Obama gave her that call phone and that is why she is voting for him and urging others to do so so she can get more free stuff
Its just more proof you can buy an election by giving away free stuff with tax payer money
So no matter how hard or fast you try to spin it MSNBC you cant change the fact that the crazy lady thinks obama gave her that free cell phone and that is why she is voting for him
This sentence contradicts the first sentence you gave:
Not to mention that it's illogical. If the cell phone wasn't for free and if no one bribed her then your premise is not only false, but completely fictional:
Except that no one is buying the election because nothing free is being given away and no tax payer money was used. The premise is false and a fantasy as opposed to truth and reality.
The only person engaging in spin here, apparently, is you
I could have used this information in 1971!!! That's when we first got married and couldn't afford the deposit or monthly payments. We were making $90 a month!
Can we get free phones to use at our call group, OFA.WY? Just kidding.
Rachel, you are always digging for facts. Here are some facts:
• Lifeline is a federal program that provides discounts to low-income citizens for basic telephone service.
• Qualifying citizens can receive $9.25 per month of discount on monthly telephone service charges from landline or cell phone providers that are eligible to participate in Lifeline.
• The FCC makes Lifeline rules and the Universal Service Administrative Company administers the program.
• Carriers must be designated by a state public utility commission or the FCC to be eligible to offer discounted telephone service.
• FCC rules limit discounted service to one per household.
• The federal government does not fund equipment such as cell phones. Carriers sometimes offer free refurbished phones to low-income consumers.
• Citizens who participate in certain low-income programs, such as Medicaid, SSI, or food stamps, or who have annual income that is less than 135% of the federal poverty level, are eligible for a discount from the Lifeline program.
• The FCC’s rules require carriers to carefully screen customers for eligibility upon sign up, and to recertify their eligibility annually.
• Most carriers follow the FCC’s rules by requiring customers to demonstrate eligibility for a discount by providing documentation that they participate in an eligible program, or provide evidence of income (such as a tax return or pay stubs).
• A few providers have offered discounted telephone service without following the FCC’s rules. This activity has harmed legitimate operators who properly screen out ineligible customers, but must compete with those who do not follow the rules.
• The federal government’s Lifeline program began in 1984 and has been amended from time to time.
• Funding for Lifeline comes from telephone companies who are permitted, but not required, to pass through the cost to consumers.
• Most companies pass through their charges as a line item on telephone bills that may read “Federal Universal Service Fee.”
• This fee funds not only the Lifeline program, but other universal service programs that assist schools, libraries, health care facilities, and high-cost rural areas in connecting to the nation’s telecommunications networks.
• This year, the FCC adopted new rules that tighten the Lifeline program by, for example, creating a data base of eligible participants, and requiring all eligible Lifeline customers to recertify their eligibility annually.
• These new rules have substantially reduced program outlays to carriers who cannot verify their customers’ eligibility.
David
Sounds fairly accurate except the loophole you left out. The loophole is that the service providers tell the customers all they need to do to get this reduced rate is fill out an affidavit along with proof of medicaid or other eligibility proof. Prior to this year they simply signed for it. The phone/cable companies were aware of this requirement being placed into effect and used the program in their marketing sales pitches. Customer: I don't want a house phone it is obsolete. Provider: If you package your service with a hardline we can provide this service to you at no cost, (by lowering the cost of the other services). Customer how can you do that? Provider: If you have someone in your household that is disabled or is on medicaid or similar program you just sign here. Customer: Okay
Six months later they ask for verification in a mailing within your bill which is overlooked by 99% of applicants. Provider then charges a full rate on the phone bill when you fail to provide the subsequent requests for documents. You only find out when you realize your bill went up 50%.
Hence you end up paying for a service you would not have bought in the first place whether or not you qualify during the period you haven't provided the documentation. Most people don't even notice for several months if they are on an auto-pay system.
It is a scam. The cost is passed on to other customers as well who are forced to pay a "universal service fee". Hence Universal Service fee, is a form of taxation, as mandated by the 1996 Act. Where is the money going? http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/monitor.html back to the providers who categorize their customer base to fall within the various programs funded.
The new restrictions or documentation requirements don't reduce the cost of the "Universal Service Fee" it instead reduces the funds available to those that sought the benefit of the reduced rate by restricting to those that provide documentation.
• These new rules have substantially reduced program outlays to carriers who cannot verify their customers’ eligibility.
Sounds great? not really the funds previously available to low income are no longer available and the customer who thought this was free is now on the hook for something they wouldn't have bought in the first place.