Comment Re:actual "platform" (Score 1) 668
Let me preface this by saying that, as you would expect, I have done no detailed research or cost analysis of rural or low-income phone subsidies.
That said, I can come up with a number of reasons why rural and low-income phone subsidies could turn out to be a good idea, and could end up being a net positive (or at least a net neutral) economically.
For rural subsidies, the most obvious expense saved is fire prevention. Subsidizing phone service for rural areas can ensure that both forest and house fires in rural areas are reported faster, resulting in reduced loss of property and reduced government costs associated with fighting those fires. This alone may be enough to justify subsidizing rural phone service. There are likely other advantages to subsidizing rural phone service as well.
For low-income subsidies, the case is a little harder to make. The best argument I can make is that low-income subsidies may result in higher employment levels. It can be awfully hard to get (and sometimes to keep) a job if you don't have a phone. The government gets to collect income taxes from those who work, so they have a financial interest in creating maximum employment. Again, there are likely other advantages to low-income phone subsidies.
In both cases, I think everyone can agree that it decreases the value of these programs when individuals exploit the system in ways it was not intended, particularly if those people break the rules when doing so.
Realistically, many times programs like these (particularly the low-income one) really just provide an incentive for people to do things that they should already be doing. Since the government is unable to tell people "you MUST pay for phone service," (grumble... individual mandate... grumble) the subsidies may be a cost-effective way to encourage people to make decisions that they might not otherwise make (like paying for phone service) that ultimately save the government money in other areas.
Again, this is a complex area with a lot of interconnected and non-obvious consequences. It could go either way. Without a good study it's impossible to know. Finding out would require a study of the cost-effectiveness of rural and low-income phone subsidies which would, predictably, also likely have to be paid for by the government.