Where is the Gipper?

[Commentary] Sometimes government reform is actually something else in disguise. I am wondering if that is the case with the recent criticism of Lifeline-Linkup, a program established by Congress and started under the Reagan administration to provide access to communications services for the poorest Americans.

Congress and the Federal Communications Commission have long acknowledged the societal and economic importance of communications: networks actually increase in value as more people connect. So does income, employability, access to healthcare, and access to emergency services. With technological change, Congress updated Lifeline-Linkup to include cellular service, and now provide persons below the poverty level a choice—just as higher income individuals have—regarding their devices and services. No one disputes that the program can be streamlined and improved; specifically, duplicate subsidies should be disallowed, eligibility enforced, and overall administration improved. Two industry leaders, Nexus and Tracfone, have come forward with self-regulatory and creative ways to solve many issues related to Lifeline-Linkup. One of these is a data-driven solution, paid for by the industry, to ensure only one subsidy per household. The FCC has an opportunity to adopt an industry-led, voluntary resolution which will be cost-saving because it is paid for by the companies themselves. It can certainly be implemented much more quickly than a burdensome bureaucratic government scheme. And most importantly, will it resolve the program’s problems.

While I would hope our policymakers govern with compassion, perhaps they should just look at the bottom line and realize that Lifeline/Linkup could actually assist in raising incomes and improving the economy. As President Reagan so eloquently stated: “(W)elfare’s purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.” Lifeline-Linkup is one of the few government programs which does precisely that.