Leading Democrats in Congress want to give tax breaks and regulatory relief to firms that boost spending on their workers, in terms of wages and benefits, and insulate themselves from their own shareholders and other investors.
Under one proposal, a company could qualify for favorable tax treatment if it:
Also, to ease perceived Wall Street pressures for short-term results, a sliding transaction tax would be imposed on sales of securities held less than two years.
Critics say companies are already doing all they can to keep good workers -- including expanded health benefits, child care and profit sharing -- and forcing them to change their practices would skew the market away from the most productive uses of capital and labor. Some have even called one such proposal a "preposterous piece of social engineering" motivated by "ignorance or malice."
While politicians harangue against record corporate profits and supposedly low wages, the data do not back them up.
Source: James M. Pethokoukis, "Do Corporations Care Enough?" Investor's Business Daily, April 1, 1996.
In some political circles, it is fashionable to deride -- or, more accurately, ignore -- the multiple economic successes of the Reagan 1980s.
So here are some facts:
On the matter of stagnant family income, median family income last year was $38,782 -- 5.2 percent below the 1989 figure when adjusted for inflation. That reverses an 11 percent real gain from 1981 to 1989. Clinton's policies have slowed the economy in other ways.
Source: Editorial, "Clintonomics: The Real Record," Investor's Business Daily, April 1, 1996.
Economic equality in a free society is neither obtainable nor desirable. Attempts to produce equality through redistribution of wealth usually backfire.
A classic case is the 1990 hike in federal excise taxes on boats, aircraft and jewelry. Its sponsors in Congress presumed that only rich people buy these luxury goods, and taking more from them would help narrow the gap between the so-called "haves" and "have-nots" by raising a projected $31 million for the U.S. Treasury in 1991.
What happened? According to a subsequent study from the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, the rich did not flock to be sheared.
Thus Congress succeeded in nothing more than making almost all of us a little bit poorer.
Source: Lawrence W. Reed, "The Quackery of Equality," Viewpoint on Public Issues, No. 96-06, February 5, 1996, Mackinac Center for Public Policy, P.O. Box 568, 119 Ashman Street., Midland, MI 48640, (517) 631-0900.
Several states have long had a state-mandated minimum wage above the federal level. In a new twist, some state legislatures and city councils have passed or are considering measures to require government contractors to pay workers more than the minimum wage.
Advocates call the concept a "living wage," but critics wonder how many employers will remain in business once such laws go into effect. They say it will have a chilling effect on business, and will skew and disrupt markets.
Critics also raise these considerations:
Source: Carl Horowitz, "Can Government Ensure a 'Living Wage'?" Investor's Business Daily, April 3, 1996.
The evidence is in and the results are clear: family incomes increase when government lowers taxes and reduces the regulatory burden, according to economic experts.
Reagan's abundantly successful policies were simple: cut marginal tax rates to reward work, investment, savings and risk-taking. Force Washington to join the productivity revolution by aggressively chopping away at the federal budget and regulations. But these policies were reversed in the Bush-Clinton years through tax increases and a new era of government regulation, highlighted by such measures as the Americans With Disabilities Act, amendments to the Clear Air Act, and Clinton's record tax hike which boosted the marginal tax rate from 28 to 40 percent.
In the Reagan era, low-earner households improved their lot. Households headed by blacks, for example, saw their income grow 14 percent -- versus 10 percent for those headed by whites. And the incomes of women grew faster than those of men.
Source: Stephen Moore (Cato Institute) and John Silva (Zurich Kemper Investments), "Middle-Class Blues," Investor's Business Daily, April 4, 1996.
Surprisingly, a higher minimum wage actually makes it less likely that welfare mothers will go back to work. That is the conclusion of a new study by Peter Brandon, a researcher at the University of Wisconsin's Institute for Research on Poverty.
Most minimum-wage workers are not the sole supporters of their families. Only about 11 percent of minimum-wage workers are either single parents or married in a one-earner family. And more than one-third of them live with their parents, according to a study from the Employment Policies Institute.
Unions are pushing an increase in the minimum wage because they stand to benefit indirectly -- since it would push up wages in the entire labor market. And higher labor costs inevitably get passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Source: Perspective, "Minimum Wage Mistake," Investor's Business Daily, April 4, 1996.
President Clinton wants to raise the minimum wage to $5.15 an hour. The idea, he says, is "to make sure the minimum wage is a living wage." Critics suggest looking at the effects of raising the minimum wage, rather than at supporters' good intentions.
President Clinton views raising the minimum wage as a poverty-fighting tool. However, the statistics suggest this isn't likely to happen.
When the minimum wage is raised too high, critics contend, the very people who need a job - any job, at any wage - are hurt the most. These are often poor children from pathological environments and bad schools for whom a job will increase the chances that they will learn about the world of work.
Source: Walter Williams (George Mason University), "Minimum Wage, Maximum Folly," Washington Times, April 5, 1996.
There is a great deal of talk about "economic angst," brought on, some say, by growing class warfare. However, economists who look at the numbers argue this is not a conclusion borne out by the numbers.
The poor are not losing ground, researchers say. They are falling behind because the center of the pack is pulling ahead.
Why are some falling behind, and what can be done about it? Two things are important, but they're harder to fix: education and family structure.
It's possible to improve the schools, but serious improvement will only come with parental participation, which brings us to the second stumbling block: family structure.
While some single mothers do better than married couples and others are better off without the father in the house, having only one parent in the home is the surest indicator that a family will have a low income and other problems. Government can't make up the financial or, more importantly, the emotional commitments of fathers who live with their families.
But even when both parents work there is no guarantee of equality. At the extreme it doubles the gap in family incomes because people tend to marry their peers (so that one household gets two professional incomes, another gets that of two minimum wage earners). There is no fair way to reverse this trend.
Another factor is at work which causes inequality:
Economic policy still matters, but income inequality has as many if not more roots in society (the schools) as in the workplace.
Source: Editorial, "The Roots Of Inequality," Investor's Business Daily, April 5, 1996.
Two recent studies, while using slightly different methodologies, have come up with the same conclusion: economic freedom is necessary for economic prosperity, and even the freest and wealthiest nations can become more wealthy if they become more free.
A Heritage Foundation study uses 10 unweighted factors (including trade policy, taxation, regulation, monetary policy and government consumption of total output) to measure economic freedom in 142 countries.
The Fraser Institute study measures levels of freedomin 102 countries using 17 weighted factors in four major areas; monetary policy and inflation, government operations and regulations, takings and discriminatory taxation, and restrictions on international exchange.
In both studies, lower taxes, lower inflation and less government regulation equal more freedom. Both demonstrated that there are no economically free countries that aren't wealthy, and no unfree countries that are. High marginal tax rates not only reduce economic freedom, they act as a disincentive to work and to produce, which in turn stifles growth.
Included in the findings:
More impressive were the results of countries which improved freedom. Seventeen countries that most improved economic free during the rating period saw real per capita GDP growth by 2.7 percent from 1980 to 1994.
Source: Charles Oliver, "Does Freedom Make Economies Grow Faster?" Investor's Business Daily, April 5, 1996.
Those advocating increasing the minimum wage, primarily Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass),contend that it is necessary to protect women and children. But statistical data portray a different story.
These women are not likely to be the sole supporters of families.
As other liberals concede, the principal effect of raising the minimum wage is to reduce the number of jobs available, mainly those for minorities.
Source: Bruce Bartlett (National Center for Policy Analysis), "Playing Minimum Wage Politics," Washington Times, April 8, 1996.
Experts are now trying to explain today's sluggish wage growth and other economic conditions. While targets chosen for political motives, such as foreign competition and greedy corporations, get much of the blame, two other items deserve special scrutiny: the sharp increases in Social Security and Medicare spending.
As a result, workers are not able to save as much, which means a lower investment rate. This, in turn, leads to fewer jobs -- particularly low-wage jobs since these "labor taxes" raise the cost of hiring workers. All these costs distort the economy.
Others point out that senior Americans are spending and consuming more now than in the past, relying on Social Security and Medicare to protect them financially. In 1960, about 16 percent of older Americans' wealth was made up of annuities. Today it's more than half. According to one economist, "We are taking from young savers and giving to old spenders." Unfortunately, the 12.4 percent of income taken from workers isn't invested as wisely in Social Security as it could be in the private sector.
Source: John Merline, "One Way Government Stifles Growth," Investor's Business Daily, April 9, 1996.
Political observers point out that President Clinton has done a complete about-face on the minimum wage issue. Back in 1994, he called an increase "the wrong way to raise the incomes of low-wage earners." Now he is backing a 90 cent increase.
Even some of the President's staunchest economic allies disagree with him. Of the 22,000 economists belonging to the American Economics Association, fully 77 percent say raising the minimum wage would cost jobs.
Here are some of the considerations:
A reliable study of the impact on fast-food employment in New Jersey following an increase in the state's minimum wage (which is above the national minimum) revealed that the number of available jobs shrank from 1 to 3 percent for every 10 percent increase in the minimum.
Source: Editorial, "Minimum-Wage Hypocrisy," Investor's Business Daily, April 9, 1996.
Some economists and politicians are advocating replacing the Consumer Price Index, as a measure of inflation, with a more accurate measurement known as the "chain-weighted GDP price index."
Both the Congressional Budget Office and the administration's Office of Management and Budget already agree that the GDP measure more accurately reflects inflationary trends, since it takes into account all cost-of-living components.
The GDP indicator is already used to adjust discretionary appropriations caps in the budget. If this simple technical substitution were applied to all programs, a large number of differences between congressional and White House budget negotiators would presumably vanish.
Experts estimate that the chain-weighted GDP price index has averaged close to 0.4 percent less than the CPI in recent years. So shifting to the former would remove more than $75 billion from the deficit over the next six years before we had to worry about "cutting" a penny.
Source: Sen. Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyoming), "The Best Way to Measure Inflation," Washington Post, April 10, 1996.
President Clinton claims that two million new jobs were created per year during his watch. But when analysts measure it in terms of creating full-time jobs, the Clinton administration's record is that of an also-ran.
Further, job growth should be judged relative to the number of workers. And the working-age population is now almost 9 percent larger than it was in the Reagan years.
Moreover, the economic expansion began before Clinton assumed office. And even some Democrats agree with economists who point to the dampening effects of the Clinton income-tax rate hikes targeted at the key job producing sector of the American economy: small business.
In 1993, the Democrat-controlled Joint Economic Committee of Congress -- seeking to justify the so-called "economic stimulus package" -- warned that Clinton's fiscal policy would "continue to exert downward pressure on economic activity throughout the next five years." The committee was unanimous, and included such liberal notables as Ted Kennedy.
Source: Editorial, "It's Clintonomics, Stupid," Investor's Business Daily, April 11, 1996.
A new study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas contends that growth rates for wages cannot be relied upon as an early warning of inflation, as some economists believe.
The theory has been that firms whose costs for labor or other inputs go up will try to pass them along to consumers in higher prices. The study, however, contends that inflation occurs before wage growth.
Some say wages have lost their predictive power because of fundamental and far-reaching changes in labor markets -- such as the decline of union power.
Other traditional inflation gauges are also seen as less useful -- including commodity indexes, M2 money supply and capacity utilization rates. Experts note that inflation gyrated wildly in the 1970s and early '80s, then began to calm as policymakers successfully sought for a cure. They suspect that the leading inflation indicators are not as useful as they were previously because it is simply harder to predict changes in a variable that is not moving very much.
Source: Perspective, "Do Wages Forecast CPI?" Investor's Business Daily, April 12, 1996.
U.S. capital expenditures are far greater than Western European nations, if investment in human capital is included, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary S. Becker. The productivity of modern economies depends heavily on knowledge and skills, but government statistics don't report such expenditures as savings and investment.
Spending on education, training on the job and in specialized institutes, and expenditures to improve health all contribute to human capital. When these investments are added to the usual type of capital investment, total capital spending in the U.S. amounts to about 30 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).
Even these figures understate the amount of human capital investment, since they do not include more than 3 percent of GDP in earnings forgone while students gain additional training or even high school education.
Source: Gary S. Becker, "Human Capital: One Investment Where America Is Way Ahead," Business Week, March 11, 1996.
We've met him in books, movies and on television: the rich businessman or plutocrat of inherited wealth who counts his assets and milks the poor. But new research puts this myth to rest.
A recent study from Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy reveals that households in the highest fifth of income give almost half of all charitable contributions. And households on the bottom fifth of the income ladder provide less than 10 percent. The study compared each income group's share of giving to its share of national income.
Some of the findings:
When the researchers looked at giving in relation to household wealth, they found that the percentage of households giving to charity grows as wealth increases.
How much do they give?
So the rationale for much of the welfare state is invalid. On their own, individuals provide for the unfortunate -- provided they think that charity works and is truly needed.
Source: Perspective, "Charity Begins With the Rich," Investor's Business Daily, April 18, 1996.
The usual description of downsizing by corporations confuses change with contraction and slow growth with economic decline -- which could lead to perverse governmental policy decisions.
So what are the real and current economic conditions facing American workers?
Experts suggest we focus attention, not on numbers of jobs, but on the real value of U.S. industrial output.
Job growth has slowed in recent years. But so has U.S. population growth.
Those looking for the cause of slow growth in compensation might consider the accelerated rate of government transfer payments. Adjusted for inflation, real transfers have increased to $930 billion, in 1992 prices, from $158 billion 30 years ago -- a sixfold increase.
Source: H. Erich Heinemann (Heinemann Economic Research) Washington Times, April 18, 1996.
Just as ancient Rome taxed an empire to support its citizens' splendid lifestyle, state capitals and Washington, D.C. redistribute income from other areas to their residents. The evidence comes from the greater wealth and higher pay of residents of capital cities compared to the rest of the country.
Of course, capitals have a high proportion of government employees -- who are paid more than private-sector workers. Civilian federal workers earn 26 percent more in wage income than private-sector workers. Add generous federal benefits, and federal workers receive total compensation more than 45 percent above the national average.
Employment opportunities are also greater in capitals. Unemployment in counties containing state capitals averages about 20 percent lower than in other counties. And in the Washington metropolitan area, unemployment was about 40 percent less than the national average from 1970 to 1990.
The population of the metropolitan areas surrounding capital cities is swelling. In the Washington, D.C. area, for example, population grew at twice the national average from 1980 to 1990.
Source: Richard K. Vedder, "Capital Crimes: Political Centers as Parasite Economies," Policy Analysis No. 250, February 28, 1996, Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001, (202) 842-0200.
In a report issued today, the National Association of Manufacturers says problems with measurements of inflation have caused government statistics to report that average wages have stagnated, when they have actually improved somewhat.
The report suggests the two main causes of worker anxiety are slow economic growth and high taxes.
Source: Richard W. Stevenson, "Group Says U.S. Workers Are Better Off Than Thought," New York Times, April 19, 1996.
Critics charge that top executives at large firms are making too much money. Others contend that executive pay is not a public issue, but a matter to be decided by shareholders, who, after all, own the companies that pay the executives.
Nevertheless, such questions have been much in the news recently, and recent studies show that CEO pay is being more tightly tied to performance.
In 1992, the Securities and Exchange Commission revised its rules on the disclosure of executive compensation.
Another study examined executive pay at 33 Orange County, California, public companies for fiscal years 1991-92 through 1994-95.
The study also established that base pay plus bonus payments rose and fell roughly in line with company net income.
Source: Dennis J. Aigner (University of California, Irvine), "CEO Pay for Performance," Investor's Business Daily, April 22, 1996.
In this election year, expect to hear the economic record of President Reagan misstated and trashed. The evidence shows that during the Reagan Administration, a dismal economic situation turned around.
Interest rates also plummeted and the trend of rising unemployment was turned around:
Despite critics railing against the Reagan tax cuts, federal tax revenues during the 1980s virtually doubled -- from $517.1 billion in 1980 to $990.7 billion in 1989. And the federal deficit was down to $152 billion in 1989, compared to $164 billion in 1995.
When the full Reagan tax cuts took effect in 1983, virtually all major economic statistics were reversed from a negative trend to a positive one; probably the first time in U.S. history so many trends have been reversed so quickly.
Finally, a precipitous decline in family income begun in 1979 was reversed in 1983 -- climbing almost 13 percent through 1989. Tax and regulation increases by the Bush and Clinton administrations reversed that trend.
Source: Peter Ferrara (Americans for Tax Reform), "Carville's Follies and the Real World," Washington Times, April 23, 1996.
For more than 30 years, the federal government has based part of its social and economic policy on at least one very badly flawed statistical tool, the so-called 'poverty rate.'
Simply put, it is an estimate of the proportion of the population whose reported annual income falls below a stipulated 'poverty threshold,' which is officially established and varies by household type and size.
The index was cobbled together in an admittedly 'fast and dirty' process by a researcher at the Social Security Administration in the 1960s to satisfy President Johnson's need for statistics to sell his War on Poverty programs.
Over the years, critics have had many complaints about the index, contending that:
Also, critics charge that it does not include the value of the imputed rent that American's tens of millions of homeowners obtain from their houses.
While the Census Bureau has attempted to respond to these flaws, statisticians say a more fundamental problem is that poverty is not defined by income levels, but by consumption levels -- purchasing power, in other words.
According to the Labor Department's Annual Consumer Survey -- which does look at household spending patterns -- households at the bottom end of the income spectrum report spending much more money than they report earning.
Experts suggest that to smooth out year-to-year variations in income, households draw on savings, sell assets, take out loans or get help from friends and family -- all of which help explain the discrepancy.
Official estimates claim the U.S. poverty rate has been gradually rising since the early 1970s. But when estimates are based on consumption, rather than income, one observes progressive and dramatic reductions over the postwar period.
Source: Nicholas Eberstadt (American Enterprise Institute), "A Poor Measurement," Wall Street Journal, April 22, 1996.
Virtually every respected study on the impact of minimum wage laws has found that they significantly reduce employment. A 1983 study of research in this area found "virtually total agreement that employment is lower than it would have been if no minimum wage existed."
Yet President Clinton is demanding that Congress increase the national minimum wage by 90 cents an hour over two years to $5.15 an hour -- a 21 percent jump.
Unlike the president, those who have tracked the economic effects of minimum wage legislation over the years know that:
The unemployment rate for black teenage males has tended to rise and fall with changes in the real minimum wage.
A number of studies have also shown that increases in the minimum wage lead employers to cut back on both work hours and training -- preventing many youths, especially minorities, from reaching the critical first rung on the ladder of success.
The latest research shows that increases in the minimum wage encourage high school students to drop out, thus reducing their lifetime earning power while displacing lower-skilled older workers.
Minimum wage hikes directly affect only a small percentage of workers and those who support families.
A great many economists say the case against the minimum wage is so strong that it should be abolished.
Source: Bruce Bartlett (National Center for Policy Analysis), "The Minimum Wage Trap," Wall Street Journal, April 16, 1996.
As nearly every economist will attest, minimum wage laws destroy jobs. Yet GOP lawmakers are hopping on the minimum wage political bandwagon in droves -- apparently fearful of losing votes in November.
Raising the minimum wage will turn workers now earning between $4.25 and $5.15 into minimum wage earners -- an additional 8 million workers -- but it won't necessarily improve their economic condition and will result in job losses. Virtually the only study said to disprove this has been discounted by most economists due to its sloppy data collection and design flaws. Only its authors and Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who is pushing the increase, believe it.
Political observers have termed "cynical" the move by 24 House Republicans who say they want the minimum increased 10 cents more than even Clinton has requested. Most of these Members come from high-wage states in the Northeast with tight labor markets where it is almost impossible to hire someone at the minimum wage. These states have also been losing jobs to lower-wages states in the South and West for years.
Source: Linda Chavez, "Minimum Wage: Bad Idea GOP Fears to Fight," USA Today, April 24, 1996.
A debate is underway concerning the fundamental purposes of the Federal Reserve. The Humphrey-Hawkins Act directs the Fed to aim for "maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates."
Senator Connie Mack (R-Fla), chairman of Congress' Joint Economic Committee, contends that the Fed should have only one goal: price stability.
Fed Governor Janet Yellen's statements, on the other hand, suggest she believes the Fed should have a hand in running the economy, smoothing-out economic fluctuations, and stabilizing output and employment.
Sen. Mack and others interested in economic growth disagree.
Those who would have the Fed focus on price stability argue that the Fed governors should have the leeway to act when the market tells them to -- rather than try to manage the entire economy. They challenge the concept that central bankers can outdo the market in maximizing output or employment.
Source: Victor Canto (Laffer, Canto & Associates), "The Fed: Mission Impossible?" Investor's Business Daily, April 24, 1996.
Some say workers are not feeling very good these days, worried about stagnating wages, corporate downsizing and inequality of incomes. But is it justified? Economists have come up with some explanations that rely on facts, not just feelings.
Take wages first:
What about corporate downsizing?
Inequality of income is also said to be a worry.
Economists believe the real panacea for economic anxiety lies in tax cuts, and educational and welfare reform.
Source: Perspective, "America's Angst," Investor's Business Daily, April 25, 1996.
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a commonly-used government statistic that measures changes in the level of prices for goods and services. The accuracy of the CPI is important because it is used to calculate federal benefits and to project revenue and spending However, economists generally agree that it overstates the extent of price rises, and that these errors are compounded over time.
Last year, experts who studied the CPI for the Senate Finance Committee reported this upward bias has been between 1.3 percent and 1.7 percent for several years. The Advisory Commission to Study the CPI reported five ways in which it overstates prices. Based on evidence from research, it is possible to estimate the amount of overstatement.
Interest in the Consumer Price Index has grown due to debate over the federal budget and the growth in entitlements; but it is significant for other reasons. If government indexes overstate rising prices, it implies they understate growth in consumption, output, productivity and real wages -- meaning recent U.S. economic performance has been better than official statistics indicate.
Source: W. Erwin Diewert, "Comment on CPI Biases," Business Economics, April 1996.
Raising the federal minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 would result in an estimated 508,000 to 677,000 jobs lost for teenagers and young adults, according to economists David Neumark of Michigan State University and William Wascher of the Federal Reserve.
According to the Employment Policy Institute Foundation:
Only 17 percent of the increased wages from the last federal minimum wage increase went to families in poverty, according to a study by Richard Burkauser of Syracuse University and economist Andrew Glenn of Vanderbilt University. They found that 36 percent of the benefit went to households with incomes at least three times the poverty level.
Source: John S. Tottie, "Minimum Wage Means Minimum Jobs," Capitol Comment No. 140, March 22, 1996, Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, 1250 H Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 783-3870.
Some experts believe Western aid and agrarian land reform have hurt rather than helped Third World countries. Yet the same formula has been applied to America's Third World economies: the Indian Reservations run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
The problem is that the Indian nations don't have secure property rights. For example, a survey of 39 large western reservations found that only 47 percent of the acreage was owned in "fee simple" -- meaning the tribes or individual owners can lease or sell it -- while the BIA holds 53 percent in trust.
The BIA must approve leases, capital improvements or transfers for a tangle of trusts benefiting individuals and tribes. Allotments to tribes lead to political control of land use decisions, while individuals are stuck with uneconomic tracts of land.
The trusts makes it difficult to get bank loans or attract private investment, although many tribes have vast mineral resources. For example, the Crow tribe has coal reserves valued at more than $3 million per capita, yet the assets earn an annual rate of return of 0.01 percent.
Despite federal spending on Indian programs totaling a projected $6.4 billion in 1996 -- up $500 million from 1995 -- many Indians live in poverty. The 1990 census data show that:
Thus bureaucratic control and a lack of self-determination cause Indians' physical and human capital to be unproductive, and the Indians to live in poverty.
Source: Terry L. Anderson, "Sovereignty or Poverty?" Fraser Forum, March 1996, Fraser Institute, 626 Bute Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6E 3M1, (604) 688-0221.
The U.S. economy under President Clinton is weaker than it would have been without his initiatives, according to a study from the Heritage Foundation. It used Washington University's Macro Model -- a mainstream econometric model with a first rate track record -- to compare the economy over the past three years with how it would otherwise have performed without Clinton's 1993 personal and corporate income tax hikes.
Here are some of the findings:
In addition, personal savings were $138 billion less than it would have been without the tax increase.
Overall, Clinton's tax increases have delivered only 49 percent of the revenue that the Congressional Budget Office said they would -- despite an economy that Clinton claims is the strongest in 30 years.
Source: Editorial, "Dole Makes His Move," Investor's Business Daily, April 30, 1996.