The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THE ECONOMY” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Labor was published in the Senate section on pages S7579-S7580 on June 13, 2007.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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:
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 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:
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?
____________________
