First he narrates commercials for Ford — the only one of the Big Three to pass on a bailout opportunity. Then he writes this on his official website. It’s his response to a question on how Barack Obama could address “inequality” — meaning financial inequality — in society without waging class warfare.

Ok, I’ll give it a shot.

(cough cough)

“My fellow Americans. I know that many of you are suffering. And I know that many of you look around and see a country where not all things appear to be equal. Well, guess what? They aren’t. They never have been, and I can assure you, as long as liberty and freedom remain supreme, they never will be. Let’s be honest – looking for equality is a democracy is like looking for love in a wh0re house. You might see something that comes close, but in the end, that dog don’t hunt.

No, my fellow Americans, I believe our best hope for a true recovery will come not from a temptation to make all things more equal, but rather, to make all things more possible. To do that, we must rethink everything we currently hold dear in our modern economy, beginning with our obscene relationship with Debt and Spending. These are the true enemies of prosperity – not your neighbor. Our problems today were not caused by the success of others. They were caused by the mistaken belief that we could have some things we wanted – but in fact, could simply not afford.

I look now to the wealthiest among us. To the ones who have in the past, provided the jobs we need so desperately today. To the innovators and risk takers that truly drive our economy. We need your help. Even though just 1% of you pay nearly 30% of all the Federal Taxes we collect, I must now ask you to pay even more. It pains me to ask those of you who have already given so much because as any fool can plainly see – it simply isn’t fair. Alas, I believe that I must. Our country is suffering, and we need you.”

Asked why Obama demonizes hard-working people who become successful:

 Isn’t it obvious? If you’re right – and I think you are – there is but one logical explanation. He wants people to see “the rich” as the problem – not him, not spending, not debt, and not some other failed policy. He wants the Rich to be the scapegoat.

Responding to the insistence that Obama isn’t talking about rich people like Rowe, but rather super-rich people like politically-connected oil tycoons (read: rich Republicans):

As we discussed with Clem, if an unemployed carpenter wanted to, he could probably feel pretty envious about the Longshoreman who works 4 hours a day for $125K a year. It’s relative, and it’s really not about the amount. It’s about the suggestion that some pull their weight and some do not.

And finally, the clincher:

What you are proposing Meg, would result in a MASSIVE tax cut for the richest people in the world. If the government asks me to “do my part” in the same way that teachers, public sector workers, policeman and fireman “do their part, then my federal tax rate will drop from 36% to 28%. So will lots of others. This will cost the government hundreds of billions in tax revenue.

The truth is simple, but really hard for people to say. It goes like this. “We don’t really want the rich to pay their fair share. We want them to pay an unfair share. We just don’t like to say it that way because it makes us sound kind of unreasonable.”

A-freaking-men.

The “rich” are far less likely to rely on government programs, far less likely to get “free” stuff from the government, and no more likely to use basic government services than anyone else. Yet “fair share” for them is defined as paying many times more than someone far more likely to end up on the government dole and getting subsidized stuff from the government.

Mike Rowe has managed to put into relatively few words what so many of us have been frustrated about for a very long time. Fantastic job. He now has a fan for life. And Ford? They have a new customer.