Let us ponder for a moment the national and moral dilemma before us as a nation of hard working citizens:

The federal Minimum Hourly Wage of $5.15, or $10, 700 per year based upon a 40-hour workweek, has not been raised since 1996, despite inflation and rapidly escalating costs of day to day living for the average wage earner.

When a recent bill was brought before the Congress to raise that wage level to $7.25 over a two-year period, it failed in the Republican controlled Congress by a vote of 52-46. The vote was 8 short of the 60 needed to pass, because the plan was proposed as an amendment to an unrelated defense bill.

The federal poverty limit for a family of three is $16, 400 per year, and this proposal would have delivered approximately $15, 080 per year; an improvement but, nevertheless, 8 percent below the established poverty limit. Are you following me so far?

On June 20, 2006 the House of Representatives, for the sixth consecutive year, voted itself a pay raise of $3,300. Unless changed by the Senate, rank and file members of Congress will make $168, 500 a year as of January 2007. This was possible because in 1989 Congress amended the law to gain automatic yearly - cost of living allowance pay increases (cola), unless there was a specific vote taken to cancel it.

Last year, Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) introduced a bipartisan bill (H.R.4494) that would have eliminated the automatic pay increases. This marks the sixth straight year his proposals to eliminate this congressional cola have been defeated, and it should be noted that he was the only member of the House to speak on the issue.

Going back in time, on June 7, 2001, President Bush signed into law the largest tax cut in American history. The burning question is, however, what group did the tax cut benefit most? President Bush touted the bill as being "a long awaited tax relief package for the American taxpayer." But which tax paying group was he really referring to?

The passage of that bill was the successful end of a long term effort by the Republicans starting back in June 29, 1999, when they tried to pass a similar massive tax cut of 792 billion dollars over 10 years; an amount equivalent to the Clinton presidency's surplus at that time. So let's cut to the chase and answer that question: which group profited most from this, undeniably, massive tax cut?

The top economic 1.0 percent of the country reaped the greatest benefit. Therefore, if you were a multi millionaire or billionaire, you were jumping with joy. (see following graph)

If, however, you were a Middle Economic Class citizen or family, or an Upper level Lower Economic Class citizen or family, you received $300 to $1200 respectively, which was not even the down payment on a quality 'used' car. So I ask, as you too should ask, where was the equality in this lop-sided deliberate dispersal of wealth?

In May of 2003, President Bush signed a second tax cut of $360 billion dollars (right smack in the middle of a two- front war in Iraq and Afghanistan), indicating that the measure would boost the faltering U.S. economy and spur the creation of new jobs.

On a nationwide scale that tax cut would deliver to the wealthiest 1.0 percent, over a four-year period, an average of $96, 634 in tax cuts. This averages out to a high of $213, 514 in Connecticut to a low of $33,775 in West Virginia.

President Bush also stated the following:

"By insuring that Americans have more to spend, to save and invest, this legislation is adding fuel to an economic recovery," said the President. "We have taken aggressive action to strengthen the foundation of our economy, so that every American who wants work will be able to find a job."

"When people have more money they can spend it on goods and services, "said President Bush. "And in our society, when they demand an additional good or service, somebody will produce the good or service. And when somebody produces that good or a service, it means somebody is more likely to be able to find a job."

Is it possible that this man, Bush, and this Congress, are both totally unaware that the average Middle Income household "has" to have two working breadwinners to maintain it? Or that at the lower end of the Middle Class, more and more individuals find it 'absolutely' necessary to work, on average, two and sometimes three Minimum Wage jobs- just to run in place financially? And are they remotely aware that most Middle Class households, on a mean average, are just one paycheck away from financial disaster?

Then to add insult to injury, on May 17th, 2006 President Bush, with his Republican and corporate cohorts gleefully surrounding him, signed into legislation a $70 billion tax package bill, allowing for a two year extension of the 15 percent tax rate for capital gains and dividends, which were set to expire at the end of 2008.

In fairness, the bill also preserves recent changes to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which was established in 1969 to ensure that all taxpayers paid at least some tax, but was not indexed for inflation, The changes were enacted to prevent the AMT from impacting more upper middle income families. However, this crumb tossed to the masses (though admittedly is the most expensive part of this tax bill), does not provide enough of a saving grace for this election year giveaway to the already wealthy.

"The bill I sign today is a victory for the American taxpayers and is a strong lift for our economy," said President Bush. "Our pro-growth policies stand in stark contrast to those in Washington who believe you grow your economy by raising taxes and centralizing power."

What the President didn't detail in any of those statements, in any way shape or form, was the kind of jobs that would be made available by the elite and corporate chief beneficiaries of his tax cuts: namely - Minimum Wage jobs.

The truth of the matter is that there should be no Minimum Wage positions in this incredibly wealthy country. What should be in place are Minimum Living Wage (MLW) jobs. And to make this possible, the present Minimum Wage should be raised to that equal to the federally established Poverty Limit for a family of three and, in my opinion, here is how it can and should be established:

To live at a decent and respectable social level, a family of three (2 adults and 1 child) should really be earning about $33,333 a year - based on both adults being employed full time at 40 hours a week. This would mean that each adult earns a MLW of $7.90 per hour. This way, each adult in the family unit earns $16, 432 a year. Without doubt, there would be a distinct financial advantage to the country by such a 'humane' wage system.

Should one of the adult family members economic capability be disrupted due to loss of employment, illness or even possibly death, the family then drops to the federally established poverty limit. At which point, depending on the factors that caused the slashing of family income, other established government funded forces come to bear on their behalf.

If the job loss was the result of a legitimate employer action, such as a layoff or redistribution or elimination of positions, Unemployment Compensation will come into play. If the loss was due to a verifiable illness or job related injury, a combination of Unemployment Compensation and possibly Medicaid and or Social Security Disability would take over.

Therefore, at no time does that family unit actually fall into the category of 'Poverty.' Instead, they remain where they should be which is, at worst, at the lower economic end of the Middle Class. Such a system would actually reduce poverty as an unavoidable economic state. And as any economist will tell you, it is far less costly to 'maintain' a productive income state than to repair it upon disintegration.

This proposal leads us to the inevitable query, how would such a system be funded? The inevitable answer is obvious: industry will have to pay for it. And when one considers it with a clear non-partisan mind, why shouldn't they?

After all, if a company like petroleum giant Exxon-Mobil (earning a record 36 billion in profits in 2005) that can pay its retiring Chairman, Lee Raymond, over half a billion dollars ($545 million plus millions in add on perks), or Walt Disney Enterprises payout to its Chairman, Michael Eisner, of $550 million, most certainly these corporations can afford to kick in at least half those amounts to such a system.

Such a contribution from just those two companies alone would be in the neighborhood of $475 million dollars. Ten companies in the contribution pot would come to almost five billion, and I think America is home to more than ten such mega-corporate concerns. Think about it and simply do the math. That's right, they can afford it and the goal can be accomplished.

At the same time, I would the hue and cry of large concerns like the oil industry, that paying such wages and supporting such a social system, will cripple their efforts to finance research and development. It should be noted that in 2005, the total investment by "all" of the oil companies toward finding alternative fuels and energy systems came to a whopping $10 million dollars. That amount is just barely 2.0 percent of the half billion plus retirement package paid to Exxon-Mobil's Chairman Lee Raymond.

Unfortunately, this made to order miracle of MLW benevolence, via national will, is not likely to ever take place. The reason being that working against such legislation, is the long held and congressionally supported myth that proclaims; if we give the wealthy elite and corporate concerns more money (by not forcing them to pay taxes at a rate commensurate to their stratospheric wealth), in the long run such a policy is better for the economic well being of the average working citizen.

Some of you may remember this myth when it was heralded under the banner of - Reganomics, and its theoretical foundation referred to as - the 'trickle-down' theory. So does anyone down there in the Middle Class feel wet as yet? No? Well, I'm not surprised.

There hasn't been any 'downpour' of economic gain on the world of the average working American man and woman since the last years of the Clinton administration. And before my comrades on the Conservative Right jump all over me for that statement, beware, the numbers are there to prove assertion - irrefutably.

Nor is it acceptable that American labor, both skilled and unskilled, be forced to work at below Minimum Wage pay levels, in multiple jobs, so that highly profitable U.S. corporations can attain parity with low paid foreign labor.

Such an unwritten requirement by industry is equivalent to telling Americans that they are of no value economically to industry and the country, unless they accept pay equality with a Chinese, Mexican or Indian peasant. Americans don't live in those countries. They live here in the United States, and their sons and daughters are spilling their life's blood on foreign soil for the privilege. And simply put, that right should not be valued at or bought and sold at Minimum Wage.

Also, while speaking of the Clintons, I was delighted to see the stand taken by Senator Hillary Clinton (D- NY), when she proposed a bill that would tie Congressional cola's to increases in the Minimum Wage. After all, if members of Congress making over $160, 000 per year are feeling the pinch of inflation (with full health care and iron clad pension benefits tacked on - for life), surely so too the people they represent and govern.

In the light of this despicable and morally bankrupt handling of the wage crisis in this country, the wealthiest in the world, it is the U.S. Congress itself, Democrats and Republicans alike, that should be receiving - Minimum Wage.