For the Poor, Lifeline Prevents Dire Choices

[Commentary] The Wall Street Journal’s July 11 editorial “Who Needs an ObamaPhone?” wrongly suggests that Lifeline, which provides a modest subsidy to families struggling to afford basic communications services, may be unnecessary.

Subsidy or not, it is clearly reasonable for poor families to prioritize access to communications so that they may call 911 in an emergency, communicate with employers, contact a child’s school or interact with health-care professionals. For many, paying a phone bill means other needs will go unmet. In millions of American homes, Lifeline allows families to avoid the tough choice between staying connected or keeping roofs above heads, food on plates and clothes on backs. The Economic Policy Institute estimates a family of three (two parents, one child) in Hickman County, Tenn., in Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s district, needs to earn $48,000 a year to cover housing, food, child care, transportation, health care, taxes and other necessities—and attain “a secure yet modest” standard of living. However, a family living at 135% of the federal poverty guideline, and therefore eligible for Lifeline, earns about $27,000 per year—almost half of what it actually needs to cover critical expenses. It’s no wonder that 320,000 families in Tennessee utilize Lifeline. For some families, this difficult balancing act can ultimately prove unsustainable without help. Nearly 44% of smartphone users making less than $30,000 a year reported having to cancel or suspend service due to the financial burden.

[González is Executive Vice President and General Counsel at the National Hispanic Media Coalition]