Rep. McDimwit advocates the common bad under the guise of the common good

On the May 21 broadcast of the PBS Nightly Business Report, Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) espoused the party line of the Democrat Party, which is identical to the party line of the Republican Party, except that Democrats use different burglary tools than Republicans and fence the loot through different dealers in stolen goods.

Reaching into his burglary kit of collectivist sophistry and platitudes, Rep. McDimwit, er, McDermott, laid out his specious case for an estate tax, saying that it would be a way for people to "give something back to the country" and do something for "the common good." No doubt, most of the viewing audience, having been "educated" in government schools, nodded their heads in agreement like bobble-headed dolls, not thinking any deeper about his fatuous comments than the depth of the bone-dry Salt River that runs through my hometown of Phoenix.

What the hell does "give back to the country" mean?

To answer the question, one would have to first define "country." Is it buildings in Washington? A land mass? Abstract values?

If yes, how does one give back to those things? Do we send a check to the Washington Monument? Do we put flowers on Thomas Jefferson's grave? Do we go to the National Archives and kiss the Constitution?

Maybe McDermott doesn't define "country" as inanimate objects but as the 300 million individuals known as Americans. If that's the case, he needs to specify who among the 300 million deserve to be given something back by the rest of us.

Since "giving back" implies that someone has received something of value from someone else, then it follows that those who have given each of us the most should get the most back from each of us.

In my case, that would be my mom and dad, who gave me life, who sacrificed dearly on their meager working-class pay to send me to private schools, and who taught me frugality, hard work, responsibility, and the best advice of all: to "keep my plunger in my pants" until after I got an education and a good job and could afford marriage and children.

I have repaid some of what they gave me by taking care of them in old age and promising that I would honor their wish to pass their small estate to their grandchild (my son) so that he might continue the Cantoni tradition of doing better than the previous generation.

Rep. McDermott, however, doesn't want me to honor their wish. Instead, he wants to take their money and give it to someone other than their grandson. But who?

Maybe he wants to give the money to Nancy Pelosi so she can fly in comfort across the country at no charge in a government jet. Or maybe he wants it for himself for the free health club and other perquisites that he gets from being a member of the House of Lords. Or maybe he wants to give it to his fellow Lords, the very same people who have bankrupted the country morally and fiscally with their addiction to spending other people's money.

But they can't be the ones who should be repaid. After all, they've personally given me nothing out of their own wallets but have taken plenty from my wallet. They owe me; I don't owe them.

Maybe McDermott wants to give money to a woman by the surname of Dramikha, who has had five kids by three different men, none of whom support their kids or seek steady work other than procreating. But she can't be the one who should be repaid. Nor can her boyfriends be the ones. Being on the receiving end of plunder all of their lives, they owe the rest of us money instead of us owing them.

Of course, McDermott doesn't see it this way when he speaks of giving back to the country. To the contrary, he wants to confiscate money from those who have given the most -- from entrepreneurs who have started businesses and created jobs, and from hard-working people who have saved all their lives, who have been taxed numerous times on the savings, and who, through their savings, have provided the capital necessary to create new businesses and jobs. He then wants to give the loot to non-producers who have not worked hard and saved money.

Being a dimwit in economics, McDermott doesn't understand that a lack of savings has brought the country to insolvency. Nor does he understand that the more that savings are confiscated, the less that people will save. However, being an expert in immorality and obfuscation, he does understand what all of the thieves of both political parties understand: that it's easier to confiscate money if both the victims of the crime and the recipients of the loot are depersonalized and not identified by name. That's why they speak in generalities about giving back to "the country" and about "the common good." All tyrants throughout history have done the same, whether on the right or the left.

The converse of "common good" is "common bad." People like McDermott who speak about the common good are actually part of the common bad.