[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15566-15567]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 15567]]

     poor households saw their incomes double from 1991 to 2005, 
     and the percentage of that 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.

       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 . . .

  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?

                          ____________________