[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2256-2257]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 2257]]

  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 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.

                          ____________________