Keep GA Red - FWFA - Dec 2020

Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation 1250 H Street, N.W. Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 783-3870 Competitive Enterprise Institute 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 1250 Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: (202) 331-1010 December 11, 1998 The Honorable William Kennard Chairman Federal Communications Commission 1919 M St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Dear Chairman Kennard:

"South Carolina’s attorney general, Charlie Condon, has done consumers and taxpayers a great service by withdrawing from the government’s case against Microsoft," according to Paul Beckner, president of Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation. Commenting on Attorney General Condon’s Dec. 7 announcement, Beckner said, "It’s hard to claim that consumers are being hurt when prices are plummeting and innovation is booming."

The most important arguments for Social Security privatization are moral, not economic. Privatization would not be justifiable if it were economically beneficial but morally suspect. However, a privatized Social Security system meets moral criteria far better than does our current, bankrupt, pay-as-you-go system. A privatized Social Security system gives individuals more freedom to run their lives, is fairer, provides more security, and creates less antagonism between generations, fostering a greater sense of community.

Comments of CSE Foundation before the Federal Communications Commission in the Matter of Merger of SBC Communications, Inc., and Ameritech Corporation. CC Docket No. 98-141 BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ------------------------------ In the Matter of ) ) Merger of SBC Communications, Inc., ) CC Docket No. 98-141 ) and ) ) Ameritech Corporation ) ------------------------------- Comments of Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation

One of the more common concerns about transforming Social Security’s pay-as-you-go financing into a market-based structure is the transition cost. Critics claim that people would be unduly burdened because they would have to pay twice—once for their own retirement and once for those already retired. This double expense would be so prohibitive, it is argued, as to warrant rejecting privatization even if it were meritorious on other grounds.