They Aren't Crumbs! Business Owner Sets Pelosi Straight at CNN Town Hall (WATCH)

Nancy Pelosi talks to John, a small business owner who benefited from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, about her crumbs comments.

This is great. Nancy Pelosi's "crumbs" comment has rightly followed her around since she first uttered it.

After the GOP tax cuts, it was raining bonuses out there. Nancy described those bonuses that were being bragged about at family dinners and being used to pay bills or buy necessities as "the crumbs that they are giving to workers." She (and Democrats in general) has been paying for it ever since.

Which includes last night at a CNN Town Hall, as a small business owner named John Anfinson went after her. Watch:

We are a small business of seven full-time employees that provide fertilizer and seed products to our farm customers. When the tax and jobs bill was passed, I gave my employees a $1,000 bonus, plus a 5 percent pay increase that they appreciated very much. Add to that the reduced withholding from their paychecks and it turned into a noticeable increase in income. This certainly was not crumbs to them. My question is, what can you add to this legislation that would also contribute to the growth of jobs and wages in our country?

This is a powerful commentary, though the media will surely attempt to diminish it. No doubt, as they did with every average person who posed a challenging question to Obama, they are already investigating this man and his business. But his argument is above reproach.

This concept seems impossible to get into the skulls of liberals. It's not merely that they are too partisan to admit that the Republican plan helped average people, but because they are incapable of seeing anything as a benefit if someone else somewhere got more. Ice cream isn't ice cream unless nobody else got more ice cream than you.

Pelosi's crumbs comment rests entirely on that premise. A noticeable increase in income is worse than nothing if the CEO or the company itself saw larger real numbers. (Don't bother to argue "as a percent of income," because they aren't even that subtle. Literally comparing millions for a company worth billions to thousands for a worker worth thousands.) It's actually amazing to watch them.

Take Nancy's answer, for example. She begins by saying, "Only a small percentage of businesses shared their tax advantage with their employees. So let us thank John for that." That's backhanded praise if ever there was any. She's not really thanking him, she's arguing with him. "Most companies didn't do that so you and your point are irrelevant." That's what she's really saying.

But it takes only a moment to get to the crux. "Why should 83 percent of the benefits go to the top 1 percent? We should start with small business," she says. See? Billy got more.

She never once says to him, "you're right, those aren't crumbs. Not if they helped you and your employees. Not if you got raises and kept more of your own money. Those aren't crumbs. My mistake."

Because she doesn't care about what his employees do get. Like most Democrats, she only cares what rich people don't.