Dear Mr. Hannity,
had the opportunity to call your radio show and, fortunately, I
I started off
by telling you that I would be sitting out the coming election.
I wanted to give the reasons why I have taken this position but
you immediately interrupted me by, first, accusing me of being a
liberal and that you didn't believe me. You then launched into a
series of questions designed, I presume, to determine whether I
was, indeed, a true conservative (and you would only allow me to
respond to, you said, with either a "yes" or "no").
Your 6 or 7 questions included: did I agreed with Bush tax cuts,
Republican Enemy Intercept programs, border fences, etc.
When you were
finished with your litany, I started to give my reasons but
you cut me off. Yes, I understand it was the end of the hour and
it was time for news. But you asked me to "hold on" with
the promise that you'd get back to me later in the show.
I waited on
line for two hours and you never did get back to me. And then you
hung up on me.
By the good
graces of LewRockwell.com, I have the opportunity for equal time.
Now I can tell you why I believe it is in the interests of conservatives
and free-marketers to, at the most, sit out this election, and,
at the least, not vote Republican.
I also want
to tell you why you’re not the Great American that you claim to
trillion federal budget
We have a Republican
Senate, Republican House, and a Republican President. This has been
the situation for the past 6 years.
Yet this year
the federal budget is projected at more than $2.6 trillion. In the
last year of the Clinton Administration, the budget was just under
$2 trillion; that's a 30% increase under the party that is supposed
to stand for less government. He also balanced the budget…without
any $400 billion deficits, either.
Sean, if I
wanted to live in Sweden, I'd move to Sweden.
shouldn't vote for tax-and-spend-Republicans.
2) Tax cuts
On a daily
basis, Sean, you blather on and on about how great the Bush/Republican
tax cut has been and how this is a reason why we should get out
the vote so that we don't lose this great benefit.
I'm a single,
self-employed taxpayer in the state of Arizona. Under Bush and the
Republican Congress, I've seen my marginal tax rate go down from
47% to 44%: a measly 3 points.
for a single, self-employed taxpayer at $30,650 in taxable income
in the state of Arizona for the year 2006:
FICA federal tax
Arizona marginal rate
not a big income tax state. If you live in California or New York,
you can see the rate being much closer to 50%.
I think you’ll
agree, Sean, that $30,650 in taxable income is not a lot
of money…yet at this level I am paying 44 cents out of every dollar
I earn to various governments. Under Clinton I was paying 47 cents.
And you expect
me to cheer for the Republicans for a lousy 3-cent reduction?
the flat tax rate that you and your Republican brothers have been
promising me for 6 years?
shouldn't vote for Republicans who can't keep their promises about
significantly reducing taxes.
of Social Security
80% — 12.4 cents of the 15.3 cents — I pay in FICA taxes (see above)
are Social Security contributions. Money I'll never see. A rip-off
if I've ever seen one.
Bush and the
Republicans have been promising us real, fair changes to the Social
Security system; they ran on a promise of privatization.
Yet the Republican/Bush
privatization plan for Social Security reform proposed that less
than 30% of those 12.4 cents in contributions could be put into
a private account…and that, even with this meager amount,
there would be great restrictions on the kind of investments they
could be put in: only blue-chip bonds, government bonds, etc.
This was the
most wimpy, weak-kneed set of proposals that one could possibly
put forth, short of supporting the status quo. After the first week
of its introduction and the chorus of protests against it (much
of it from Republicans, by the way, who thought it went too far!),
we've never heard of privatization since.
ever intended to privatize Social Security and the Republication
Congress never intended to push him on it. What Bush and the Republican
Congress intended was to pay lip service to a campaign promise so
they could say: "well, we tried!"
What your party
does intend on doing, Sean, is to continue to tax and spend
me to my grave. And this is the party you want to get out the vote
Hannity's Buy American program
Sean, you are
fond of saying "you're a great American". Most callers
tell you that and you inevitably respond to them in kind. You repeat
this phrase, day in and day out, to celebrity guests and politicians
who are fellow travelers that come on your show. It has become your
tagline, your motto.
ago, you came out with the Sean Hannity You're a Great American
Car Giveaway contest in which lucky listeners can register to
win an American-made car from GM. This contest is an obvious extension
of your oft-repeated mantra in which you encourage your listeners
to only buy American cars made by the Detroit Big Three. You've
told us you've only bought American cars throughout your life and
are proud of it.
Sean, I can't
think of anything less American and less patriotic.
To me, being
a great American means being a practitioner and supporter of the
free market. That means that you don't buy products and services
based upon the racial, ethnic or national origin of the owners of
a company or where a corporation's head office may be situated.
No, being a
great American means practicing what you yourself, Sean, preach
on a daily basis on your show: the free market. And that means buying
products and services based upon quality and price.
And if bloated
SUV-manufacturing, Hummer-producing gas-guzzling Detroit can't compete
with the more efficient, less expensive Japanese and Korean models,
then so be it.
Being a great
American means putting your money where your mouth is.
buy-only-American-cars diatribe puts you in the same camp as he
who is most reviled by Sean Hannity listeners: the much-hated Michael
Moore, whose first film Roger and me put forward that very
same premise. Moore, too, is against the free market. Like you,
he also wants inefficient American plants ear-marked for closure
to stay open so that they can continue to churn out more expensive,
lower-quality models that Americans should be required to purchase
under a misguided obligation to reward inefficient enterprises simply
because of their nationality.
of your un-Americanism, Sean, I encourage all conservative and free-marketers
to sit out this election.
Sean, you have
betrayed the conservative cause. After 6 years of a Republican Congress
and a Republican President, a long line of conservative policies
have been abandoned and spat upon. Instead of being a shill for
Republicans, you should join those of us who refuse to vote, once
again, for candidates from a party that have abandoned the very
values upon which they ran.
Republicans with your vote when doing so would be interpreted —
and rightly so — as tacit approval of their voting record?
Six years of
Clinton's presidency were coupled with a Republican House and Senate.
In those six years, we witnessed a hat-trick of free market ideals
becoming law: Free-Trade (NAFTA), Welfare Reform, and a balance
budget. It took a so-called liberal — Bill Clinton — in order
to see this come to pass.
I suggest it
was this creative tension — this diversified balance between a Democratic
Executive and a Republican Congress — that was responsible. A Republican
Congress and Republican President has only resulted in more and
that gives us a Democratic majority in both the Senate and House
will result in a lot of hair-pulling and teeth-gnashing on the part
of Republican operatives. Studies will be done and demographic polls
taken as to the cause of the defeat.
And what they
will discover is that the Democrats won because a lot of disgruntled
conservatives and Republicans stayed home. And that will
result in Republicans taking stock of their voting record and the
conclusion that the base can't be taken advantage of.
message, Sean, to send during a non-Presidential election year?