[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 48 (Tuesday, April 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3407-S3408]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CRUMBS FOR THE MAJORITY

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I felt like starting these 
observations by saying three cheers for Mort Zuckerman.
  Recently, Mortimer B. Zuckerman, editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World 
Report, had a superb column called ``Crumbs for the Majority'', which I 
ask to be printed in the Congressional Record after my remarks.
  He talks about our income disparity, our growing problems with 
poverty, and the need to do something about it.
  He advocates a grant program similar to the old GI bill after World 
War II.
  It is interesting that if you were to add an inflation factor to the 
average grant made under the GI bill after World War II, it today would 
average $9,400 a year. The most anyone can receive today in a grant 
from the Federal Government is $2,400, and you have to meet strict 
standards of poverty to receive that.
  Even for a modest program like the Direct Loan Program, we have to 
struggle to see it survive.
  If you were to combine the kind of suggestion that Mort Zuckerman has 
with a WPA type of program that would say to people: You can stay on 
welfare 5 weeks, but after that you have to work 4 days a week at 
minimum wage, as in the old WPA, and the fifth day you should be out 
trying to find a job in the private sector, we would put to work 
hundreds of thousands--probably millions--of Americans who are now left 
out of our process and who can be made productive. The demand for 
unskilled labor is going down and to talk about welfare

[[Page S3408]]

reform without talking about creating jobs for people of limited skills 
is public relations and nothing more.
  Such a WPA program should tie in with the education recommendation of 
Mort Zuckerman. People who come into the program should be screened, 
and if they can't read and write, we should get them into the program. 
We have 23 million Americans who cannot fill out an employment form and 
who cannot read the newspaper. That is a huge drag on our productive 
capacity.
  Those who come into the WPA type of program who have a remarkable 
skill should be given an opportunity to enhance that skill, whether 
through an apprentice program or a technical school or community 
college.
  Mort Zuckerman ends his column by saying ``but it is hope that will 
sustain and enrich us.'' He is correct.
  The great division in our society is not between black and white or 
Hispanic and Anglo or many of the other divisions that people talk 
about. It is between those who have hope and those who have given up. 
We need programs that give people the spark of hope.
  We have shown very little creativity in dealing with the problems of 
poverty in our Nation. We have been pandering to those who make the big 
campaign contributions and who are politically articulate.
  It is about time we pay attention to those who make no campaign 
contributions and who are getting more and more disillusioned with our 
Government.
  The editorial follows:

             [From U.S. News & World Report, Feb. 26, 1996]

                        Crumbs for the Majority

                       (By Mortimer B. Zuckerman)

       The stock market is up over a trillion dollars in the past 
     14 months. The United States is five years into an economic 
     recovery. But the opinion polls reveal the public to be in a 
     foul mood and pessimistic about the future. What is going on?
       The cake has gotten bigger, but it is not being shared 
     equitably. The technological and educated aristocracy, and 
     the owners of financial assets, are sharing the cream with a 
     highly skilled and well-educated minority, a little more than 
     a third of the work force, who have full-time, full-benefits 
     jobs. But there are only crumbs for the majority of the 
     population who lack a college education or specialized 
     skills. Incomes have been falling or stagnating as this group 
     has remained mired for more than 20 years in what has been 
     called ``the silent depression.'' As social analyst Daniel 
     Yankelovich points out, we are in the midst of the erosion of 
     one of the greatest achievements of the post-World War II 
     era, in which not only people with a college degree could 
     make a good living but also people without one. This gave us 
     a middle class and a prosperous country with a sense of 
     fairness and hope.
       That optimism and faith in America have been eroded. Too 
     many Americans cannot afford health insurance; too many can 
     barely save; too many cannot afford to send their children to 
     college; and as 1995's Christmas sales indicate, too many 
     cannot afford gift buying. Both spouses have to work, and the 
     one-earner, middle-class family is becoming extinct. Parents 
     are now spending about 40 percent less time with their 
     children than they did 30 years ago. To support the children 
     who need ever more costly education for ever longer periods 
     of time, parents have to be willing to make larger and larger 
     sacrifices. What's more, too many men are bailing out of 
     these obligations.
       This erosion of family life has led to a widespread sense 
     of moral confusion and a breakdown in the shared norms that 
     hold our society together. No value has suffered more than 
     individual responsibility. A nation whose creed is 
     individualism courts disaster if it then proceeds to weaken 
     the moral responsibility of the individual by a philosophy of 
     entitlement. The social conservatism that has re-emerged in 
     response has found its political expression in a bipartisan 
     readiness to cut social services and other programs, which is 
     understandable. Americans ask, If we are spending so much, 
     why aren't we seeing better results? Many Americans see 
     themselves as subsidizing well-organized special-interest 
     groups that are excessively influential in shaping the 
     decisions of our rulers once they are in office.
       The voters are rebelling not just against big government--
     everyone's villain these days--but against bad government. 
     The government has proved inadequate in grappling with the 
     problems of corporate downsizing and declining incomes that 
     now affect tens of millions of workers. We have civil 
     servants who are not civil, public schools that do not teach 
     the public, a criminal justice system that neither reduces 
     crime nor produces justice and economic insecurity even in a 
     rapidly growing economy.
       Merely cutting this and that is hardly a sufficient 
     response. There are areas where only government can lead. 
     Higher education and continual learning are a place to start. 
     Higher education is an investment in the greatest strength a 
     country has, its people. We need a modern version of the GI 
     Bill, which provided mass higher education for more than 20 
     million veterans and dependents. Any student able to meet 
     minimum standards upon graduation from high school should 
     qualify for a scholarship for higher education for the 
     information age, providing family income does not exceed a 
     maximum amount of, say, $125,000. This would be a 
     constructive way to shrink the gap between the haves and the 
     have-nots--much better than doing it only by taxation.
       Such a program would cost billions of dollars. But 
     government must find a way to reorder its priorities, to 
     shift money from less valuable programs. Without positive 
     policies to arrest our national decay, the deep anxiety that 
     now seizes much of our society may well turn to fear, or even 
     panic. It is fear that has provided the political basis for 
     the success of Pat Buchanan. But it is hope that will sustain 
     and enrich us.

                          ____________________