

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Today, Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) Vice-Chair Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) and CPC Co-Chairs Keith Ellison (D-MN), and Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ) were joined by 78 Democrats in expressing support and providing recommendations for the Federal Communications Commission's proposal to increase access to high-speed Internet for low-income families through its Lifeline program.
Today, Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) Vice-Chair Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) and CPC Co-Chairs Keith Ellison (D-MN), and Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ) were joined by 78 Democrats in expressing support and providing recommendations for the Federal Communications Commission's proposal to increase access to high-speed Internet for low-income families through its Lifeline program.
In a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, the group praised the agency's proposal to modernize the program by adding broadband to the list of services eligible for Lifeline subsidies. The letter also urged the FCC to issue specific guidance for the program that ensures it will meet the evolving needs of low-income Americans.
These recommendations include:
"High-speed Internet is not a luxury, it is a requirement for students to complete homework assignments, workers to find job openings, and families to connect with basic services," said Rep. Takano. "I strongly support the FCC's effort to modernize the Lifeline program and I'm hopeful they will adopt many of our recommendations, which are critical to achieving our shared goal of closing the digital divide."
"Millions of students and families are being left behind because high-speed Internet isn't available in their area or because it is too expensive," said Rep. Ellison. "Nobody should be forced to spend an hour on a bus to travel to a public library just to access a quality Internet connection. Modernizing the Lifeline program will help bridge our digital divide, and help millions of Americans who are being left behind."
"Few innovations have had a greater impact on daily life around the world than the internet," Rep. Grijalva said. "Given its power to open doors, expand horizons and empower users, we must ensure the internet is not reserved for only those with financial means. Each and every American deserves an equal opportunity to succeed in our society, and in the 21st century that means an equal opportunity to harness the power of the World Wide Web."
The 81 current signers are: Reps. Adams, Bass, Beatty, Becerra, Blumenauer, Bonamici, Boyle, Brown, Bustos, Butterfield, Capps, Capuano, Cardenas, Cartwright, Chu, Cicilline, Clark, Clarke, Cleaver, Cohen, Conyers, Costa, Cummings, DeLauro, Edwards, Ellison, Engel, Farr, Fattah, Foster, Gabbard, Grijalva, Gutierrez, Hahn, Hinojosa, Holmes Norton, Honda, Huffman, Jackson Lee, Jeffries, Hank Johnson, Kaptur, Keating, Kelly, Kirkpatrick, Lawrence, Lee, Lieu, Lewis, Lowenthal, Carolyn Maloney, McCollum, McDermott, McGovern, Moore, Nadler, Napolitano, Nolan, Pingree, Plaskett, Pocan, Rangel, Richmond, Tim Ryan, Linda Sanchez, Schakowsky, Bobby Scott, Serrano, Sewell, Sherman, Slaughter, Takai, Takano, Bennie Thompson, Titus, Tonko, Van Hollen, Veasey, Velasquez, Watson Coleman, Yarmuth.
A copy of the letter is available here.
Full Letter Text:
Chairman Tom Wheeler
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Dear Chairman Wheeler:
We are writing in support of the FCC's proposal to modernize the Universal Service Fund's Lifeline program. In order to fulfill its purpose of meeting the changing needs of low-income Americans, the FCC should update the program to reflect the increasing importance of the Internet. Broadband has evolved to become an essential vehicle for expanding access to information, health services, educational resources, and employment opportunities. Often deprived of these opportunities due to the cost of broadband, low-income households are further disadvantaged in society.
To best serve these Americans, the Lifeline subsidy should be made portable to all telecommunications services whether offered as standalone services, or as bundle packages. This would allow the consumers to elect which service best meets their individual needs, applying the subsidy as a credit. Additionally, if a consumer is dissatisfied with a particular provider's service, they should be able to easily opt out and subscribe to another provider without transfer and disconnection fees. Not only would this best serve consumers and ensure they are receiving the best quality service at an affordable cost, but it would also encourage competition among providers to provide the best plan.
The FCC should also provide guidance on the program that discourages providers from using the Lifeline program as a means to commit consumers to long term billing relationships. The program should avoid requiring credit checks, banking account requirements, and disclosure of subscription history. Additionally, an ideal Lifeline broadband plan would be one that does not require the subscriber to contribute anything more than the subsidy. Under the basic, entry-level broadband subscription contract, consumers would not be required to make any investment in the providers' services, but they would also not be discouraged from upgrading their plans in the future should their needs change. The Commission should also instruct participating providers not to levy conversion or installation fees that would essentially be punishing the subscribers for taking advantage of the Lifeline program.
The broadband services available to the eligible households should not sacrifice quality for affordability. The standard would allow for functional, not subpar, internet access to define the entry-level Lifeline plan. Its flexibility would reflect evolving provider capability, program requirements, and support for higher speeds. The standard should also be relative to the capacity of an area as to prevent consumers from being excluded from applying to Lifeline because their community does not have the infrastructure to support higher speeds. Establishing a minimum standard prevents providers from taking advantage of the subsidy by offering second-class service that would not best serve the digital needs of an average American.
Acknowledging that many people access the Internet through their wireless devices, the FCC should include wireless Internet coverage under the Lifeline program to increase broadband accessibility for households. To account for the different capabilities of the two services, respective minimum standards should be established for each service. The standard for wireless should avoid small data caps, as well, to avoid overages resulting in fees for the consumer.
Rather than allowing providers to oversee the eligibility verification of consumers as the Lifeline program expands to include broadband, the FCC should streamline the process with preexisting databases for other federal assistance programs. This coordination would allow for co-enrollment, as many consumers eligible for programs such as SNAP or TANF would also be eligible to subscribe for Lifeline, but it would not eliminate the income-level qualifier. The process would remove the burden from qualifying Americans by simplifying the application process for not only Lifeline, but other assistance programs as well, and it would help improve program integrity.
We applaud the Commission's efforts to bring the Lifeline program up to date to 21st century standards with its proposed inclusion of broadband service. With this new service, low-income Americans would have the means necessary to access essential health and social services, educational resources, employment information, and communication networks. We encourage the Commission to implement the expansion as soon as possible, as we cannot be inactive and allow the digital divide to further deepen at the expense of the 53% of low-income households without broadband access.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) is made up of nearly 100 members standing up for progressive ideals in Washington and throughout the country. Since 1991, the CPC has advocated for progressive policies that prioritize working Americans over corporate interests, fight economic and social inequality, and advance civil liberties.
(202) 225-3106The new estimate comes amid warnings that the war, now in its fourth week, could "cost the US trillions of dollars in the decades to come."
The price tag of US President Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran is on track to surpass $25 billion by the end of this week as more American troops head to the Middle East, signaling a protracted conflict and possible ground invasion that would explode the war's already massive financial and human costs.
The latest estimate of the dollar cost of the Iran assault to US taxpayers, who are also facing significantly higher prices at the pump because of the war, comes from the Center for American Progress (CAP). The liberal think tank noted Tuesday that, based on a combination of official figures from the Pentagon and outside estimates, "the Iran war’s cost has likely surpassed $20 billion already and will likely surpass $25 billion by the end of this week."
CAP found that $25 billion would be enough to provide Medicaid coverage to around 3.1 million people for a year, or fund free school lunches for more than 29 million children for a full school year.
"While the cost of the war is funded through the Pentagon’s budget, and that money could not have been legally spent on domestic social programs, the spending nonetheless reflects a choice both Congress and the president made in allocating the country’s limited resources," wrote Bobby Kogan, CAP's senior director for federal budget policy. "This trade-off is particularly salient as Congress considers the president’s upcoming request."
"Before Congress chooses to provide $200 billion in new funding for the US Department of Defense," Kogan added, "it should seriously consider other ways that funding could be used, including improving people’s lives."
"One of the officials lamented that Americans would be paying off the war for generations."
The updated price tag came amid reports that the Pentagon approved a deployment of around 2,000 elite Army soldiers to the Middle East, heightening concerns that the Trump administration is preparing for a deeply unpopular ground invasion of Iran even as the president publicly declares victory.
Experts believe the true financial cost of the Iran war is likely much higher than what publicly available estimates indicate so far.
The Intercept's Nick Turse reported last week that the Trump administration is "drastically undercounting the price tag of the US war with Iran, peddling fragmentary estimates that offer Americans a skewed understanding of the costs."
Citing analysts, lawmakers, and unnamed US officials briefed on Iran operations, Turse reported that "the war is burning through between $1 billion and $2 billion per day—or roughly $11,500 to $23,000 per second."
"The cost, the officials told The Intercept, could rise to a quarter trillion dollars or more over the coming months," Turse added. "Even that is a drop in the bucket compared to the long-term expenses, which could cost the US trillions of dollars in the decades to come. One of the officials lamented that Americans would be paying off the war for generations."
"Every day the Pentagon makes a video of cool explosions from Iran for the president of the United States to watch, so he can bounce up and down in his high chair, clap his little hands, and cry 'Yay! Make it go boom again!'"
A Wednesday report from NBC News is raising concerns that President Donald Trump may be getting a rose-colored view of the unprovoked and unconstitutional war he started with Iran.
According to NBC News, US military officials show Trump a daily two-minute video montage of operations conducted in the Iran war, featuring "the biggest, most successful strikes on Iranian targets," with one official telling NBC that the video essentially consists of "stuff blowing up."
Two sources in the administration told NBC that "the video briefing is fueling concerns among some of Trump’s allies that he may not be receiving—or absorbing—the complete picture of the war," and one official told the network that "the information Trump gets about the war tends to emphasize US successes, with comparatively little detail about Iranian actions."
The video montages are also leaving the president confused about why the media is covering negative ramifications of the war, which he believes to be an unqualified success, NBC reported.
Critics of the president were quick to slam him and his administration over the reported war highlights montage.
"Sounds like Trump is getting a Centcom propaganda video briefing of things blowing up every day," commented foreign policy journalist Laura Rozen, "but not being briefed when things go wrong."
Anthony Zurcher, North America correspondent for BBC, wrote that it appears Trump is "getting an overly rosy picture from his generals of how an unpopular war is going."
MS NOW columnist Paul Waldman contended that the president's behavior as depicted in the NBC report was positively childlike.
"Every day the Pentagon makes a video of cool explosions from Iran for the president of the United States to watch," wrote Waldman, "so he can bounce up and down in his high chair, clap his little hands, and cry 'Yay! Make it go boom again!'"
National security attorney Bradley Moss summarized the NBC report with a single five-word sentence: "The emperor has no brains."
Even Trump's mail-in ballot was not enough to keep Democrat Emily Gregory from winning the seat over Republican Jon Maples in a district swing of more than 13 points.
A Democrat in Florida running to win a state house seat in the Palm Beach district that includes US President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate was declared the winner in a special election on Tuesday night, defeating the Trump-endorsed Republican in yet another powerful rebuke to the running of the country by the president and his party.
Emily Gregory flipped Florida's House District 87, defeating Republican Jon Maples, who Trump loudly endorsed and cast his vote for personally via mail-in ballot—something he wants to bar other voters nationwide from being able to do. Trump said on Monday that Maples, a financial planner who previously held office at the municipal level, was the choice of "so many of my Palm Beach County friends.”
But with almost all votes counted late Tuesday night, the Associated Press reported Gregory led by 2.4 percentage points, or 797 votes. In 2024, the district went to Republicans by 11 points.
"Republicans are vulnerable everywhere.”
Political strategist Sawyer Hackett named the obvious implication by saying, at least through November of 2026, "Trump will be represented by a Democrat in the Florida legislature."
“I think it demonstrates where the Florida voter is,” Gregory, who runs a fitness center for postpartum mothers, told Politico in an interview following her victory. “They want someone who is focused on solutions and the issues and not focused on the noise.”
“If Mar-a-Lago is vulnerable, imagine what’s possible this November,” said Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, in response to the victory. Williams noted that Gregory's win was the 29th seat that Democrats have flipped from GOP control since Trump returned to office last year.
“Gas prices are spiking, grocery costs are up, and families can’t get by," she said. "It’s clear voters at the polls are fed up with Republicans. A Trump +11 district in his own backyard shouldn’t be in play for Democrats, but tonight proves Republicans are vulnerable everywhere.”