Speaking of entitlements like food, housing, and healthcare, advocates for the poor are now insisting that having a cell phone is also a necessity of life which should be taxpayer-subsidized:

Should the poor have cell phones?

It's a question that has engaged both ends of the political spectrum since 2004, when the conservative Heritage Foundation published a controversial paper saying the poor enjoy "high living standards" and cited as proof that many have cell phones, among other things.

In rebuttal, advocates for the poor have argued that cell phones are not luxuries but necessities, as basic to modern life as electricity.

Complicating the debate these days is a new development: free cell phones for the poor and working poor distributed by a Miami wireless company.

They're paid for, in part, by charges on phone bills that the federal government allows carriers to levy. It's a little-known collaboration between the federal government and phone carriers, devised by the Reagan administration 26 years ago.

The Lifeline program does seem to be a Reagan vintage idea, too (aided by later Republicans, of course):

Though free phones are a new idea, the notion of the government's becoming involved to help the poor get phone service is not.

The federal Lifeline program, begun in 1984, requires phone companies to discount the bills of poor people up to $10 a month.

The Federal Communications Commission established a subsidy for carriers so they could recover those costs. Money for that subsidy comes from all phone customers, who pay a charge of up to $2 per monthly bill.

Under the administration of former President George W. Bush, TracFone and other wireless carriers were allowed to participate in what had been a wired-only program, industry experts say. TracFone changed the equation two years ago by offering discounted service and free cell phones.

To opponents, the government funding feels as though phone customers are being surreptitiously taxed, said Kevin Kelly, a leader of Loyal Opposition, a conservative Center City political group.

"This is theft masquerading as charity," he said. "If companies want to help the poor, they should take the money out of their own hides, not their customers'."

I'm wondering where these endlessly-expanding entitlements to "necessities" will end. Is a television a necessity? If so, then why not cable TV or satellite? How about a car? A computer? A washer and a dryer? A dishwasher? Automatic garbage disposal? And what about furniture? Isn't there a right to beds, chairs, tables, pillows, bookcases, patio furniture? And if there's an entitlement to these things, isn't there also an entitlement to have them repaired?

I think it's unfair that anyone should get to have anything that everyone else can't also have.

So where's my free phone?