Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 95 (Wednesday, June 13, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 13, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7579-S7580]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

THE ECONOMY

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I listened to the conversation that has gone
on this morning. I have to say I am a little bit disappointed in some
of the negative comments about our country. I always thought you had to
be an ultimate optimist to serve in this body. Things go slowly, which
is probably fortunate, but we just can't keep trying to make ourselves
look better by running down our country. I often remind people that I
am not aware of anybody trying to get out of our country, but from the
past 2 weeks' discussion, I know there are a lot of people trying to
get in.
I will cite an article from the Wall Street Journal of Wednesday, May
23, 2007, that says, ``The Poor Get Richer.'' It reads:

It's been a rough week for John Edwards, and now comes more
bad news for his ``two Americas'' campaign theme. A new study
by the Congressional Budget Office says the poor have been
getting less poor. On average, CBO found that low-wage
households with children had incomes after inflation that
were more than one-third higher in 2005 than in 1991.

I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Wall Street Journal, May 23, 2007]

The Poor Get Richer

It's been a rough week for John Edwards, and now come more
bad news for his ``two Americas'' campaign theme. A new study
by the Congressional Budget Office says the poor have been
getting less poor. On average, CBO found that low-wage
households with children had incomes after inflation that
were more than one-third higher in 2005 than in 1991.
The CBO results don't fit the prevailing media stereotype
of the U.S. economy as a richer take all affair--which may
explain why you haven't read about them. Among all families
with children, the poorest fifth had the fastest overall
earnings growth over the 15 years measured. (See the nearby
chart.) The poorest even had higher earnings growth than the
richest 20%. The earnings of these poor households are about
80% higher today than in the early 1990s.
What happened? CBO says the main causes of this low-income
earnings surge have been a combination of welfare reform,
expansion of the earned income tax credit and wage gains from
a tight labor market, especially in the late stages of the
1990s expansion. Though cash welfare fell as a share of
overall income (which includes government benefits), earnings
from work climbed sharply as the 1996 welfare reform pushed
at least one family breadwinner into the job market.
Earnings growth tapered off as the economy slowed in the
early part of this decade, but earnings for low-income
families have still nearly doubled in the years since welfare
reform became law. Some two million welfare mothers have left
the dole for jobs since the mid-1990s. Far from being a
disaster for the poor, as most on the left claimed when it
was debated, welfare reform has proven to be a boon.
The report also rebuts the claim, fashionable in some
precincts on CNN, that the middle class is losing ground. The
median family with children saw an 18% rise in earnings from
the early 1990s through 2005. That's $8,500 more purchasing
power after inflation. The wealthiest fifth made a 55% gain
in earnings, but the key point is that every class saw
significant gains in income.
There's a lot of income mobility in America, so comparing
poor families today with the poor families of l0 years ago
can be misleading because they're not the same families.
Every year hundreds of thousands of new immigrants and the
young enter the workforce at ``poor'' income levels. But the
CBO study found that, with the exception of chronically poor
families who have no breadwinner, low-income job holders are
climbing the income ladder.
When CBO examined surveys of the same poor families over a
two year period, 2001-2003, it found that ``the average
income for those households increased by nearly 45%.'' That's
especially impressive considering that those were two of the
weakest years for economic growth across the 15 years of the
larger study.
One argument was whether welfare reform would help or hurt
households headed by women. Well, CBO finds that female-
headed poor households saw their incomes double from 1991 to
2005, and the percentage of that

[[Page S7580]]

income coming from a paycheck rose to more than a half from
one-third. The percentage coming from traditional cash
welfare fell to 7% from 42%. Poor households get more money
from the earned income tax credit, but the advantage of that
income-supplement program is that recipients have to work to
get the benefit.
The poor took an earnings dip when the economy went into
recession at the end of the Clinton era, but data from other
government reports indicate that incomes are again starting
to rise faster than inflation as labor markets tighten and
the current economic expansion rolls forward.
It's probably asking way too much for this dose of economic
reality to slow down the class envy lobby in Washington. But
it's worth a try.

Mr. ENZI. Another article I refer to is from Denver's Rocky Mountain
News for April 9, 2007, ``Not bad for a much-maligned economy.'' We
keep talking about how bad the economy is. Well, it isn't bad.

The article goes on to read:

But after six years of fairly steady economic growth
despite a costly war, Katrina, a housing slump and other body
blows, fair-minded people should at least entertain the
possibility that current policies must be getting something
right.

It ends by saying:

After all, what exactly is it about the March economic
figures that [you] don't like?

I ask unanimous consent that that article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Rocky Mountain News, Apr. 9, 2007]

Not Bad for a Much-Maligned Economy

Just when your mind may have been grappling with the
disturbing news that Circuit City stores had fired 3,400 of
their highest-paid hourly salespeople--not to trim the
workforce, as you might expect, but to replace those let go
with lower-paid workers--along comes the Labor Department
with equally startling news, but of a positive bent.
In March, the U.S. economy added 180,000 jobs; the
unemployment rate declined again, to 4.4 percent; and average
hourly and weekly earnings advanced, with weekly income up
4.4 percent on an annual basis.
In other words, amid all of the economic anxiety fueled by
globalization, immigration and the relentless rhetoric about
a growing class divide in the United States, the actual
performance of the American economy remains fairly
remarkable.
We're not suggesting that the popular worries are baseless.
Globalization involves winners and losers; immigration puts
pressure on wages (at least on the lower end); and the rich
have indeed been getting richer at a faster rate than the
rest of us.
Even some of the popular resentments--such as over the
steep trajectory of CEO pay--are hardly without merit.
But after six years of fairly steady economic growth
despite a costly war, Katrina, a housing slump and other body
blows, fair-minded people should at least entertain the
possibility that current policies must be getting something
right.
The burden of proof, indeed, should be on those who want to
raise taxes, reverse advances in free trade, and micromanage
businesses with a slew of new regulations affecting
compensation, benefits and employment conditions.
After all, what exactly is it about the March economic
figures that they don't like?

____________________