[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 30 (Monday, February 27, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1036-S1037]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EARNED SUCCESS
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, President Obama has ignited a national debate
about the meaning of fairness and American values. In his campaign
narrative, ``fairness'' means greater redistribution of income by the
Federal Government, and expanding government control over the economy
represents what he calls a ``renewal of American values.'' He argues
that income inequality is the ``defining issue of our time''--his
words--and that it prevents many Americans from enjoying their right to
pursue happiness.
While the President cloaks his rhetoric in the language of liberty--
and often misconstrues quotations from Presidents Lincoln and Reagan in
the process--his interpretations of key American concepts and values
are shallow, materialistic, and distortive of the true American dream.
We don't need more government interventionist and redistributionist
policies, which reduce freedom, in order to achieve greater measures of
fairness and to pursue happiness. Having the government arbitrarily
decide how much money should be taken from person A and given to person
B is not fair in any sense of the word, nor does it make Americans
happier. Indeed, even though America has become a much wealthier
country during the last few decades and average income is higher,
studies show that happiness levels have remained unchanged. In 1972,
for example, 30 percent of Americans described themselves as happy. In
2004, 31 percent of Americans described themselves that way. That is
because, contrary to what President Obama suggests, the key determinant
of lasting happiness and satisfaction is not income; rather, it is what
American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks calls ``earned
success.'' People are happiest when they have earned their income,
whatever the level. When the government tries to take all of the
trouble out of life by taking care of our every need, it makes earned
success that much harder to achieve.
In his 2010 book ``The Battle,'' Brooks describes the connection
between earned success and happiness:
Earned success gives people a sense of meaning about their
lives. And meaning also is key to human flourishing. It
reassures us that what we do in life is of significance and
value, for ourselves and those around us. To truly flourish,
we need to know that the ways in which we occupy our waking
hours are not based on mere pursuit of pleasure or money or
any other superficial goal. We need to know that our
endeavors have a deeper purpose.
Earned success is attained not simply through one's vocation but also
through raising children, donating time to charitable or religious
causes, and cultivating strong relationships with friends and family.
That is why successful parents and more religious people tend to be
very happy.
The earned success that comes from doing a job also explains why
self-made millionaires and billionaires continue to work hard after
they have earned their fortunes. These people are driven by the
satisfaction that comes from creating, innovating, and solving
problems. In many cases, they are making products or providing services
that improve our quality of life. They are not content merely to rest
on their laurels and enjoy their wealth; they want to continue
experiencing the pride and satisfaction that comes from earned success.
The importance of earned success also explains why people who win the
lottery usually wind up depressed when they discover that the
excitement of being rich and buying things wears off fast. The same is
true of recipients of other sources of unearned income. Studies show
that welfare programs don't make people happier. We need them to help
some people to subsist, but they don't yield true happiness or
satisfaction because the money is not earned.
If earned success is the path to happiness, public policies should be
geared toward promoting opportunity and freedom for everyone. No
economic system does more to promote earned success and freedom than
free market capitalism. As social scientist Charles Murray writes in
his new book, ``Coming Apart'':
All the good things in life . . . require freedom in the
only way that freedom is meaningful: freedom to act in all
arenas of life, coupled with responsibility for the
consequences for those actions.
In a true free market system, everyone is guaranteed equal rights and
opportunities under the law, all individuals and institutions play by
the same rules, and the government acts primarily as a neutral umpire,
not a redistributor of income or a venture capitalist. Property rights
are upheld, contracts are enforced, and hard work is rewarded. As
Brooks points out, free enterprise is the only economic system that
addresses the root causes of poverty by enlarging the economic pie
rather than allowing government officials and bureaucrats to decide how
to slice the existing one.
The President's concept of fairness is different from what most
believe. I recently read an anecdote that helps illustrate the
fundamental disagreement about the difference between ``fair'' and
``earned.'' Two siblings are fighting about who gets the last cookie.
The brother says he should get it because his sister has already had
two and that is not fair. The sister responds that she helped make the
cookies, so she earned it. The brother believes it is fair to equalize
rewards, regardless of effort. The sister beliefs in meritocratic
fairness--that forced equality is unfair. Those of us who believe in
the ultimate fairness of the free market subscribe to the sister's view
of meritocratic fairness. She earned it.
Free market capitalism is the most fair system in the world--and the
most moral. It is premised on voluntary transactions that make both
sides happy by meeting their needs. Unfortunately, the past few years
have shown us what unfair economic policies look like.
When the government picks winners and losers in the marketplace, it
is being unfair. When it rewards certain
[[Page S1037]]
companies or industries for ideological reasons while effectively
punishing and demonizing others, it is being unfair. That is crony
capitalism. When it shapes a corporate bailout to favor organized labor
over secured debtholders, as the Obama administration did in the
Chrysler bailout, it is being unfair. When it plays venture capitalist
and gives a taxpayer-funded $545 million loan guarantee to a doomed
company such as Solyndra, it is being unfair. When it makes the Tax
Code even more complex and even more tilted in favor of special
interests, it is being unfair. When it adopts financial regulations
that institutionalize ``too big to fail,'' putting taxpayers on the
hook, it is being unfair. I could go on, but you get the point. Does
anyone really think America's economic system is ``fairer'' today than
in January 2009?
Is it fair that, after the first 3 years of the Obama administration,
the poor are poorer, the poverty rate is rising, the middle class is
losing income, and 5.5 million fewer Americans have jobs to do than in
2007? Is it fair that the three counties with the highest median family
income happen to be located in the Washington, DC, area? Finally, is it
fair that the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans are constantly being
attacked by the President even though they now pay nearly 40 percent of
all Federal income taxes and the richest 10 percent pay two-thirds of
all Federal taxes? These are some of the questions Stephen Moore
recently posed in the Wall Street Journal.
If the President wants to continue claiming that his policies are
fostering economic ``fairness'' and ignoring the virtues of the free
enterprise system, then let the debate begin.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________