[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 109 (Friday, June 30, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9491-S9492]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               LIFTING THE YACHTS, SWAMPING THE ROWBOATS

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if you look past the headlines and the 
hype connected to the conference agreement on the budget resolution, I 
think the American people can get a pretty good sense of who's looking 
out for whom in the Republican budget.
  Republican budget writers talked about putting tax money back into 
the hands of wage earners. Republican budget writers talked about their 
big tax cuts to fuel the Nation's economic engine.
  But the only engine this budget primes is the full-throttle expansion 
of incomes for the wealthiest Americans. The Republican budget does 
nothing to address the fact that middle-income families have been stuck 
in neutral for the past 20 years, while many low-income Americans are 
sliding into reverse.
  Republican budget priorities will only serve to drive deeper and 
wider the wedge between Americans at either end of the earnings scale.
  This country always had, and always will have, the rich, the poor, 
and the middle class. Like never before, however, these economic groups 
are pulling away from each other, and it's tearing at the social fabric 
of our Nation.
  Every year, families in the top 5 percent in terms of income now 
make, on average, the rough equivalent of what 16 low-wage families 
combined struggle to earn in a year. In the past two decades, America's 
top earners enjoyed an average 25-percent increase in cash income. Down 
at the bottom, the lowest wage workers actually felt a 7-percent drop 
in pay over the same period.
  According to a survey published last Sunday in the Washington Post, 
no other industrialized nation on Earth has a greater income gap 
between top and bottom than the United States. And in between, the 
middle class grows larger in number, but their paychecks are stuck in a 
rut. Hourly wages of workers with average skills are sliding. The 
absolute incomes of low- and middle-income Americans are actually below 
those of people in other industrialized countries that are poorer than 
the United States.
  That, Mr. President, is unacceptable. This country was built on the 
promise of hope that people can, indeed, come up from nothing. That you 
can work hard from the bottom and eventually reach the top. That you 
can build a better future for your family through your own honest 
efforts.
  That promise is becoming a lie to an ever-increasing number of 
Americans. The road to prosperity now crosses a bridge that spans 
further than many Americans can see.
  Mr. President, Democrats believe in prosperity. We believe in 
economic progress. We want to help American workers earn more. We
 want more Americans to be wealthy. We would like more low-wage workers 
to join the ranks of the middle-class. We would like more middle class 
workers to join the ranks of the rich.

  But it seems to me that the Republican budget aspires to no such 
progress.
  It seems to me that the Republican budget will punish those Americans 
now mired in this stagnant status quo, and provide a kind of winner's 
bonus to those traveling on the fast track.
  While we don't know yet exactly who will get their hands on this $245 
billion tax cut, we do know that the House bill gave over half the tax 
cuts to the 2.8 percent of families making more than $100,000. It is 
safe bet to assume that the wealthiest 1 percent will get at least a 
$20,000 tax cut. That little bonus alone is more than twice the annual 
income earned by families at the bottom of the scale.
  And what do we offer to those families who are struggling to move up? 
Education cuts that hit 65 million children. Student loans that cost 
$3,000 more per student; $100 billion in so-called welfare reforms, and 
cuts in the earned income tax credit. And I will not even begin to talk 
about the harm that will be felt by their plan for Medicare and 
Medicaid.
  It is painfully clear where the priorities lie in the Republican 
budget. And its not just Democrats who have figured it out. According 
to Stanford economist Paul Krugman: ``Quite obviously these programs 
would make unequal incomes even more unequal, particularly at the 
extremes--the very rich and the very poor.'' Frank Levy, an economist 
at MIT says:

       We're going through a period in which trade and technology 
     are like an economic natural disaster for the half of the 
     working population that does not have a college degree . . . 
     the last thing you would want to do right now is to have 
     Government make a bad situation worse by extending tax breaks 
     to the rich.

  Democrats and Republicans agree on producing a budget that comes into 
balance within a decade. But Democrats refuse to forget the working 
Americans who must struggle to live their lives, pay their mortgages, 
educate their children, and provide for their families over that same 
decade. These are the families Democrats will neither abandon nor 
betray in the face of this $245 billion gold rush within the just-
passed Republican budget.
  Finally, Mr. President, I commend to my colleagues' attention an op-
ed printed in last Sunday's Washington Post, ``America's Tide: Lifting 
the Yachts, Swapping the Rowboats,'' by Gary Burtless and Timothy 
Smeeding. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, June 25, 1995]

       America's Tide: Lifting the Yachts, Swamping the Rowboats

                (By Gary Burtless and Timothy Smeeding)

       During the early postwar era, most American families could 
     expect to see their incomes grow from one year to the next. 
     During both the 1950s and 1960s, median family income 
     adjusted for inflation rose about a third. With incomes 
     growing this fast, few people (and even fewer politicians) 
     bothered to inquire very closely into the distribution of 
     income. A rising tide lifted all boats, the rowboats as well 
     as the yachts.
       But since the early 1970s, the nation's experience has been 
     much more discouraging. In the past 20 years, incomes have 
     not grown at all, and for families near the bottom of the 
     distribution, incomes have done even worse--they have shrunk.
       Instead of routinely hearing news about growing incomes, 
     Americans now read dismal reports of swelling poverty rolls, 
     rising inequality and shrinking wages. It would be wrong to 
     conclude from these reports that the United States has not 
     enjoyed prosperity since 1973. On the contrary, the nation 
     added more than 40 million jobs and enjoyed three of its 
     longest postwar expansions.
       But American prosperity is extremely uneven. Families and 
     workers at the top of the economic ladder have enjoyed rising 
     incomes. Families in the middle have seen their incomes 
     stagnate or slip. Young families and workers at the bottom 
     have suffered the equivalent of a Great Depression. Though 
     the nation is in the midst of a robust expansion, recent 
     census statistics offer no hint that the trend toward wider 
     inequality has slowed. Poverty rates continue to rise, 
     especially among children and young adults. Hourly wages of 
     workers with average or below-average skills continue to 
     slide. At the same time, the percentage of U.S. income 
     received by the top 5 percent of households continues to 
     climb, reaching new postwar highs almost every year.
       Although the United States continues to have a large middle 
     class, the disparity between those at the top of the income 
     scale and those at the bottom has widened significantly. 
     Measured in constant 1990 dollars, a family in the bottom 
     one-fifth of the U.S. income distribution received about 
     $10,400 in gross cash income in 1973. In the same year, a 
     family in the top one-fifth received about $77,500, or 
     roughly 7\1/2\ times the average gross income of those at the 
     bottom.
       By 1992, average gross income in the bottom fifth of the 
     distribution had
      shrunk almost 7 percent, falling to just $9,700. Average 
     gross income in the top fifth of the distribution had 
     climbed to $98,800, a gain of more than 25 percent. The 
     average income of a family in the top fifth of the 
     distribution now amounts to more than 10 times that of 
     those at the bottom of the distribution.
       Gains among the very wealthy have been even more 
     impressive. Those in the top 5 percent of the distribution 
     saw their incomes climb nearly a third in the past two 
     decades so that the average family in the top bracket takes 
     in the equivalent of what 16 families in the bottom bracket 
     earn. The rising tide is now lifting the yachts, but swamping 
     the rowboats.
       Not only have U.S. income disparities soared since the 
     early 1970s, the gap between rich and poor has grown much 
     faster than it has elsewhere in the industrialized world. 
     When the recent inequality trend began, the United States 
     already experienced wider income disparities than other 
     countries with similar standards of living.

[[Page S9492]]

       Income disparities can be measured in a variety of ways. 
     The accompanying table contains information about the 
     distribution of income in 13 rich industrialized countries. 
     The statistics were compiled by the Luxembourg Income Study 
     and are based on household surveys conducted in the mid-
     1980s. They reflect personal incomes adjusted for differences 
     in family size. Each country on the list is ranked according 
     to its median after-tax income, measured in U.S. dollars 
     using purchasing-power-parity, a calculation used by 
     economists to compare one nation's real income to another's 
     in a way that adjusts for differences in the capacity to 
     consume goods and services in each country.
       Not surprisingly, the United States ranks near the top of 
     industrialized countries in median income. With the exception 
     of a few tax havens, we are still the richest nation on 
     earth. But this method of analyzing income does not attempt 
     to define or talk about the size of the middle class; rather 
     it is a means of evaluating the disparity between rich and 
     poor. And by that measure, we are the most unequal rich 
     nation on earth.
       Many people become uneasy when the gap between rich and 
     poor grows too wide. No social scientist or philosopher can 
     tell us when this threshold has been passed. But most of us 
     sense that when the gulf separating rich, middle class and 
     poor grows too large, the social fabric is at risk. Low-
     income citizens, and those whose incomes used to be closer to 
     the middle but have fallen, may begin to feel a weaker bond 
     with the rest of society and see less reason to respect its 
     rules and institutions.
       In recent years, opinion leaders have been increasingly 
     willing to lift their voices in defense of inequality and 
     even to suggest that widening income gaps play a useful 
     social function. The New York Times, in a recent front-page 
     story, described the United States as ``the most economically 
     stratified of industrial nations.'' Shortly after the story 
     appeared, it was attacked in three separate Washington Post 
     columns--by George Will, James K. Glassman and Robert J. 
     Samuelson. Each critic mentioned different shortcomings of 
     the story, but all agreed that the United States is doing a 
     lot better than its lowly rank in the inequality sweepstakes 
     might suggest.
       Glassman argued, for example, that U.S. incomes are 
     extremely mobile.
      Americans who are comfortably well off for one or two years 
     often find themselves in tough circumstances a few years 
     later. The starting pitcher who earned $2 million three 
     years ago can find himself throwing in the minor leagues. 
     Similarly, Americans currently stuck on the bottom can 
     climb their way up the income scale through pluck and hard 
     work. The office messenger can hope for promotion to CEO.
       Though valid, the argument of higher social mobility does 
     not go far toward explaining the widening gap between rich 
     and poor or why the U.S. disparity is so much higher than in 
     other wealthy countries. Growing inequality might not 
     represent a social problem if the increase in inequality in a 
     single year were matched by a similar increase in income 
     mobility from one year to the next. The problem is, there has 
     been no increase in income mobility to offset the sharp rise 
     of inequality.
       The chance of receiving a large one-year increase in income 
     has never been very high. More to the point, the chance of 
     enjoying a big increase has not grown noticeably in the past 
     few decades. Americans with annual incomes that place them in 
     the bottom quarter of the income distribution have an 80 
     percent chance of remaining there for at least two years in a 
     row. Although studies over a longer period of time are less 
     conclusive, some research indicates that the probability of 
     moving out of the poorest class has hardly budged since the 
     1970s.
       It might also be the case that Americans enjoy greater 
     class and income mobility than Europeans. U.S. incomes may be 
     more unequal at a given point in time, but, according to this 
     theory, Americans enjoy better opportunities for advancement 
     than residents of other countries. This is an inspiring 
     story, and one that is cherished by many Americans, 
     especially by conservatives. The problem with the theory is 
     that there is no evidence to suggest it is true.
       Studies of income mobility suggest that the United States 
     ranks about in the middle of industrialized countries. To 
     analyze mobility, a team of economic researchers tracked the 
     same set of individuals over long periods of time in both the 
     United States and Germany. Their findings showed that the 
     level of inequality within each country actually declined, 
     but that the gap between the two countries grew, with the 
     United States showing wider disparities.
       A more fundamental criticism of the Times story, suggested 
     by both Will and Samuelson, goes as follows: Although income 
     disparities are larger in the United States than elsewhere, 
     other societies pay too heavy a price to achieve equality. 
     Will concludes that ``. . . increasingly unequal social 
     rewards can conduce to a more truly egalitarian society, one 
     that offers upward mobility to all who accept its rewarding 
     disciplines.'' Samuelson argues, ``What determines the well-
     being of most people is the increase of national income and 
     wealth, not their distribution.'' Other countries' attempts 
     to equalize incomes have led to higher joblessness and less 
     entrepreneurial activity than we see in the United States, 
     and hence to slower growth abroad. The United States accepts 
     greater inequality, but is rewarded by higher income and 
     faster growth.
       Affluent readers may draw comfort from this reasoning. 
     Americans further down the economic scale might find the 
     logic less appealing. The size and growth of national income 
     undoubtedly helps to determine whether individual citizens 
     can enjoy a comfortable standard of living. Each citizen's 
     living standard also
      depends, however, on the percentage of national income that 
     he or she is permitted to share. If a pie is to be divided 
     among 10 people, the person receiving the smallest slice 
     may prefer to share a small pie that is divided in roughly 
     equal slices rather than a larger pie that is divided very 
     evenly. A little arithmetic will show that it is better to 
     receive 10 percent of a small pie than 2 percent of a pie 
     that is twice as large.
       Stacked against other industrial countries, the after-tax 
     incomes of those people at the lowest 10th percentile of 
     Americans tumbles toward the bottom (see chart). Low-income 
     Finns, for example, receive after-tax incomes that exceed 
     those of low-income Americans by 27 percent. Poor Americans 
     are poor not only by the standards of middle-class Americans, 
     but also in relation to low-income people in most other 
     industrialized countries.
       Samuelson and Will may be right that wide income 
     disparities in the United States offer a powerful inducement 
     for Americans to work, save and invest (though it is 
     difficult to find evidence for this in U.S. saving or 
     investment rates, which tend to languish near the bottom of 
     the industrialized world). They may also be correct in 
     believing large and rising disparities contribute to U.S. 
     economic growth, though evidence for this is also weak. 
     Recent studies on the relationship between inequality and 
     growth in fact suggest that advanced countries with more 
     equal distributions grow faster than countries that are less 
     equal. Whatever the advantages of faster growth, they are 
     purely theoretical for many low-income Americans, These 
     Americans have not shared the general prosperity. Their 
     after-tax incomes have slipped even though national output 
     has increased.
       Even more depressing is the fact that the absolute incomes 
     of low- and even middle-income Americans are below those of 
     residents in industrialized countries that are poorer than 
     the United States. A comparison of Canada and the United 
     States, based on 1991 income statistics, is particularly 
     striking. In 1991, gross domestic product per person was 13 
     percent lower in Canada than in the United States. Because 
     the Canadian income distribution is more equal than our own, 
     however, Canadians in the bottom 55 percent of the 
     distribution enjoyed higher after-tax incomes than they would 
     have received in the United States at a comparable position 
     in our income distribution. Of course, Americans in the top 
     45 percent of the U.S. income distribution received higher 
     incomes than their Canadian counterparts. But for a majority 
     of poorer and middle-class Canadians, the higher average 
     income of the United States has little practical 
     significance. These Canadians enjoy more comfortable incomes 
     in Canada than they would be likely to receive in the United 
     States.
       The United States enjoys a high rank in one international 
     contest, however. Americans near the top of our income 
     distribution tend to receive much larger incomes than people 
     with a similar position in other industrialized countries.
       It is probably safe to assume that Will, Glassman and 
     Samuelson are closer to the upper tier than the bottom tier 
     of the income distribution. From their perch, U.S. economic 
     performance undoubtedly looks quite satisfying. People 
     further down the economic scale can be forgiven. however, if 
     they doubt their economic good fortune as Americans. If wide 
     income disparities have big advantages for the U.S. economy, 
     low-income Americans are right to think the advantages should 
     eventually show up in a tangible way--in larger paychecks and 
     higher incomes. Whatever the virtues of our economic system, 
     one conclusion is certain: Our fatter paychecks have not gone 
     to the poor.
     

                          ____________________