Call the Sean Hannity Show:

800.941.7326  3-6 pm ET Mon-Fri



“Investing” is not “Spending”

"Investing" Is Not "Spending"
In a discussion over the impending sequestration, Obama's chief of staff Denis McDonough turned to tired, old Washington rhetoric in order to try and spin the liberal message. He told NBC's "Meet the Press" that "this isn't a spending fight for us. This is a fight about whether we're going to make the investments in middle class families in this country, in education, in science and technology, in food inspection, and those kinds of things." Don't be fooled.
What is required in order to "invest" in things like education and technology? Money! So if you want to "invest" in these things, you need to spend money. Therefore, this is a spending fight, and it is a spending battle that is quickly slipping through our hands. Liberals want to "invest" using money that they generate through new taxes - the same money that they also want to use to bring down the deficit. That's Washington math. For years, and particularly during his push for his stimulus plan in 2009, Barack Obama has been pushing the need for more investment in America. Have you ever asked yourself this question: When will Democrats ever feel as though they have finally invested enough in America? When is the Obama administration going to feel as though it has achieved its "investment" goals in America? The answer is that they never will, yet we can't continue to fund these promises.
While taking on debt and "investing" is one theory as to how to stimulate an economy after a recession, consider how successful it has been - 8 million fewer Americans with jobs, 7.9% unemployment, GDP shrank last quarter. Also consider the fact that these tactics are supposed to be temporary; economists agree that taking on debt and government spending is no way to sustain prolonged economic growth. Yet this has become the norm under Barack Obama.

To Tax Or Not To Tax?
Erica Payne, Founder of the Agenda Project and Katie Pavlich, author of Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's Bloodiest Scandal and Its Shameless Cover Up joined Sean in the show's second hour. Right out of the gate, Sean began to argue with Erica over taxes and what people should be paying in order to give what is considered their "fair share." Katie sided with Sean agreeing that giving $.60 of every dollar towards taxes is just too much. Erica countered by suggesting Sean and Katie move to Somalia where there is no income tax, arguing that after one year of living in an income tax free society both would be crying to come back to the United States. Sean and Katie argued that it is not how much you make, but how much you should pay, and at what point does it become too much for those making the most to carry those who are paying the least. There needs to be some sort of scale of pay to earn ratio. The trio also debated the national budget. Katie struck down Erica's opinion that we should cut back on defense spending, pointing out that defense and military spending is less than 20% of the total budget. Katie asked Erica if it is her responsibility to pay for Sandra Fluke's birth control? Erica responded by pointing out that people need to stop shirking their responsibilities and start addressing the issue that we should stop having so many children. Sean briefly went down the list of provisions that every day tax payers are currently responsible to provide to their fellow citizens. To listen to the entire lively radio debate please click here.

Outrageous Statement of the Day
Chris Matthews is at is again. In a discussion on NBC's "Meet the Press" over the Chuck Hagel hearings, Matthews was upset by the line of questioning posed by Republican Texas Senator Ted Cruz. He went as far as to say that Cruz's line of questioning echoed of McCarthyism. Chris Matthews: "I don't know the man's personality, I know he's got an interesting background, he's a brilliant guy in many ways, but the tactics, you know, I watched him in those hearings and I saw Joe McCarthy. I saw the way he was prosecuting the case, the way he was putting up evidence, innuendo, guilt by association." I for one am glad that someone in Washington is asking the tough questions, and they are questions which are based on facts which many in Washington are choosing to ignore. There's enough out there about Chuck Hagel to cause any rational person to pause. Too often in Washington we are letting people slip into positions of power without questioning whether or not this is really the right person for the job. Also notice that Chris Matthews is overly concerned about the tactics used by Ted Cruz, rather than the content of Cruz's concerns.