Imagine a nonpartisan presidential candidate who lives in a modest house, walks or bicycles around town, mows his own lawn, travels in a 1990s motorhome, and does without air conditioning and TV. Meet "Average Joe" Schriner. Joe explains that his age (52), his height (5'10"), his weight (180 pounds), his yearly income (five digits), his home state (Ohio) and his overall political outlook represent the average American.

Justin Soutar

(NOTE: This article currently appears as the cover story in the inaugural issue of U. S. Politics [April 2008].)

An increase in the minimum wage is once again hovering around the Congressional docket, as Democrats try to wedge it into various bills while Republicans try to sink it.

And once again, as reliable as clockwork, defenders and opponents are snapping into action, dusting off briefs and arguments, updating the analysis for inflation and generally doing the same dance we always do (I'm a defender).

There's got to be a better way.

Facts matter, so I'm not for a second saying that progressives should ignore the superior research, summarized below, that supports an increase. But I think we should also fight this one on basic fairness. It's simply shameful, in an era of sharply increasing economic inequality, for Congress to incessantly cut rich people's taxes yet refuse to help low-wage workers.

This past week, much to everyone's surprise, Democrats in the House of Representatives managed to slip a proposal to increase the minimum wage into a bill funding the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services.

Faced with the specter of having to vote against increasing the wage floor from its current embarrassing level of $5.15 to $7.25 by Jan. 1, 2009, Congressional Republicans snapped into action and pulled the bill.

This is what these brave souls do in election season when they don't want to have to go back to their districts and answer questions as to why it's ok to cut hundreds of billions in rich people's taxes but deny the working poor a boost.

Well, I say: "Not so fast, guys.  Let's chat about this for a few minutes."

Not let me get this straight.  Last month, you passed $70 billion worth of new tax cuts, mostly by extending earlier Bush cuts on dividends and capital gains.  When tax cuts target investment income, the benefits flow to the wealthy, and these cuts are exhibit A: they reduce millionaire's tax payments by $43,000, and those of middle-income families by $20.  Sorry, that's not a typo.  It's what you get when you put the YOYOs in charge of fiscal policy.

Wait a second, where you going?  I'm not done.  Set a spell...

President Bush released his 2007 budget with less fanfare than usual, and in an unprecedented move, with less forward-looking detail than ever. The beast-starving cut-tax and budget slashers must be partying in the streets.

Knowing that most Democrats and many Republicans would lambaste the cuts to domestic spending, especially in an election year, President Bush certainly wouldn't have wanted them to know how much more draconian his plans were for 2008 and beyond. That's why the president didn't release the details of his plans for the next five years, perhaps hoping to keep that information under wraps until after the mid-term elections.

The Republicans made a monumental political blunder when they passed the $100 billion tax cut bill on a vote that was almost totally split among party lines. They handed us a perfect opportunity for us to brand us and brand them as well. By this vote, we have shown that we are the party that puts the money in, while the GOP has shown that they are the party that keeps the money out.

The Republicans ignore a basic fact of life year in and year out -- it costs money to run this country effectively. Therefore, they can never be credible again when talking about the sanctity of human life, because upholding the sanctity of human life involves quality of life. And they can never be credible again when talking about jobs, the economy, health care, or education, because it costs money to fund them. On the other hand, we have always fought to put money into the economy so people can have a better quality of life.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money)- The president's tax-reform advisory panel submitted two final proposals Tuesday morning to the Treasury Department, both of which offer significant changes to the tax breaks people have come to expect ....

In the panel's first proposal, focused on simplifying the tax code, dividends from domestic earnings would be tax-free ....

So let me get this straight. If I inherit enough Exxon stock to live off the dividends, I will pay no federal taxes.

But if I actually roll my ass out of bed every morning to show up to drive a school bus or teach America's children or patrol America's streets or ring up groceries or wait on tables, my work-my-ass-off, earned income is taxed?

Why aren't Democrats ALL over this?

Looks like another dead-end plan:

WASHINGTON - Chosen to find a simpler way to tax the nation, a presidential panel is set to recommend two designs that would rewrite virtually every tax law for individuals and businesses.

Under the plan, most deductions, credits and other tax breaks would be eliminated along with much of the paperwork and equations that baffle taxpayers under a drastically simplified income tax.

But many have wondered whether the key recommendations may be too unpopular to ever be enacted by Congress.