Politicians such as Robert Dole, former U.S. Senator, has generally favored any increase in taxes that did not affect upper income people. He is a big business politician, a trait his party is well known for.

Plus, he and his party seldom favored any increases in incomes for minimum wage earners. Guess they figure if people don't have much of an income, they won't have much of a tax liability.

And, yet, minimum wage, or just above, wage earners form the backbone of most small businesses, businesses that it would be very difficult for most communities to do without. Picture any small town, 2,500 to 25,000 in population without the many small businesses that make up the town.

Most of the people who work in the businesses qualify for welfare, although many have too much pride to apply, an example being one of the writer's nieces. Let's examine for a minute those that do apply and qualify for assistance, what a great deal it is for business owners.

Let's assume an empoloyee must seek welfare benefits in order to provide adequate family support. What the current system does for the employee is the employee is the difference in what it takes to live made up by the tax payers who support the welfare system through their taxes.

But, there is another way to look at this. What the current system also does is relieve the owner of having to pay a wage that his employees can live on. In other words, the tax payers pay the difference between the minimum or near minimum wage the employees are receiving and a living wage.

Thus, rather than the employer putting out more of the money his business brings in, the middle-income tax payers' burden has historically increased in order to support the welfare system. That means, in essence, increased profits for the business at the tax payers' expense.

There are also thousands of businesses across the nation that employ from a few to dozens to thousands of employees with profits that are in the six, seven, eight, nine, and even higher, figure ranges. And, yet, these business still only pay minimum or just above minimum.

Many of these businesses that employ thousands, still pay less than seven dollars and hour. An example is Wal-Mart Corporation. Less than $7.74 per hour qualifies a person for poverty. Thus, these businesses, although wealthy and getting wealthier every minute of every day, pay their employees poverty wages.

If in poverty wage limits, which most are, then the employees are qualified for welfare assistance. And, they are probable to qualify for earned income credit. It's not much but every little bit helps when you are extremely poor.

What this means is, again, the tax payers' are providing the difference between what is required in reaching slightly above poverty level and what the employer is paying.

Logically, when a corporation or business has tremendous profits for the owners, (in the case of Wal-Mart, so many billions per year that if they dropped several billion on the way to the bank, it wouldn't even be missed) support of the employees should be provided by the business owners', not by additional tax burdens to the tax payers. Afterall, it is the employees making the money for the owners.

What this writer finds rather pathetic is that high-profit businesses squeal like stuck pigs when increasing employees' pay is brought up. Why? How many excess thousands, millions, or billions does it take for the owners to live comfortably on?

Sam Walton, the founder of the Wal-Mart Corporation, became one of the richest men in the world. He did it, in part, on the backs of his employees, the working poor, and his family continues the tradition today. Many others, before and after unions, have done nearly as well.

Philosphically speaking, shouldn't the majority of the tax burden fall on these businesses? Shouldn't they have to pay more in taxes percentage wise? Afterall, if it weren't for this country and the people they employ, would they be making the tremendous incomes they now enjoy. Increased taxation for them would support the system they now take advantage of.

Or, they could lower their tax burdens by paying a fairer share to the employees that are providing their support. This would, of course, be the best as it would relieve other tax payers of much of their burdens. Plus, it would help employees by increasing self-pride and pride in the firm they work for.

Unions help their employees by organized efforts in getting benefits, including livable incomes, but who helps the non-union employees? It seems we must force employers to behave in a compassionate way rather than, "If anyone doesn't like what I pay, he can leave and I'll just hire another person that is desperate to work."

What an attitude. And, sadly, it is the prevailing attitude of far too many employers, including those that are million- aires or billionaires several times over.

The government could exempt anyone making $30,000 a year or less from any tax liability and make it up through business owners. But, it's the big business owners who control the politicians.

So, where does that leave the everyday person trying to get by on shameful wages? Right where he is, living from paycheck to paycheck and, if he can swallow his pride, relying on welfare for his family's support.

That, Ladies and Gentlemen, is an American abomination, an America that would rather support large businesses than the majority of the population. It is Washington at its worst, politicians falling prey to big business interests rather than providing benefits for the working class.

It is also a part of this country that the writer is ashamed of. No employee, especially those wanting to work and do a good job, should have to live in poverty.