The prevailing myth is that conservatives are rich titans of industry, the upper crust, while liberals are the poor, suffering proletariat, crawling the streets, happy for work of any sort, but sadly unable to find income without the largess of the state.

In reality, it seems to me that the "upper crust", the rich in society, tend to be liberals. I don't deny that there are certain people at the bottom of society's ladder who find state-controlled handouts appealing. Nonetheless, it seems many if not most of the really wealthy people today espouse "liberal" views: Bill Gates. Steven Jobs. Madonna. Geoge Soros. Ted Turner. Oracle's Larry Ellison. Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer. Donald Trump. Michael Bloomberg, despite his recent "conversion", still appears to walk and quack liberalism. And that's not even scraping the tip of the Hollywood and New York "liberal elite" iceberg.

We're also familliar with how Madonna recently casitigated American soccer moms, schoolteachers, software developers and shopkeepers for their overwhelming greed and materialism, a pronouncement delivered from her own wealthy perch on high.

I was reminded of these things anew when reading this National Review article, detailing some of Arianna "SUVs are evil" Huffington's current wealth and former excesses:

When she married oil scion Michael Huffington in 1986, her wedding dress cost more than most college grads’ starting salaries; the reception was a P-word [prosperous, a word Arianna derides] affair that cost upwards of a hundred grand. It’s traditional in Huffington profiles to quote Henry Kissinger: The reception, he said, had everything but “an Aztec sacrificial fire dance.” Barbara Walters was a bridesmaid.

I can't help but wonder, what is going on here? These people have scathes of money, and all they want to do is raise my taxes. Actually, not mine, since I currently live below the poverty line -- but taxes of the family where both Mom and Dad work full time -- he, a marketing communications specialist, she, a dental hygenist -- in order to put bread on the table, go to Disneyworld every other year, afford bicycles and braces, and send all three of their kids to a decent college.

Are these people ashamed of their wealth? Are they secretly guilty about being so wealthy? If so, their support of liberalism sounds like a cheap way out to me. I'm sooo danged wealthy, I don't care if the government raises taxes on me. I can afford to lose another 3% or 5% or whatever. I support a worldview. Don't ask me to feed the poor directly, with my own money.

That's easy to say when you make more than $2 million each year, and 87% of your income is disposable. It not the same for Bob, who's already paying 30% or more in taxes and has 10% of his income as disposable. That extra 3-5% tax cuts into that remaining sliver.

It's being generous with other people's money. And not taking direct responsiblity for the inefficient governmental programs and rules which are created. If Bob gives $50 to CARE, he tries to make sure CARE does a good job. If he hears about scandal there, the stops giving and instead sends his money to Christian Children's Fund. Or gives it to a local homeless shelter.

When Barbra Streisand wants to expand welfare, and it ends up keeping people poorer, or ends up being wasted on the way, it's not Barbra's fault. No, it's someone else's fault. And Bob can't take his $50 (or much more) away from welfare and spend it on a different charity.

Liberals: Answer this for me: If people are basicly good, then why do you want to mandate a governmental program to redistribute their wealth? If they are good, you should let them decide, because they will do the right thing -- correct? You are contradicting yourself.

I can understand how poor people would want to be generous (or wasteful) with other people's money. This is not a shocker. But when I see some star living luxuriously while talking about how "selfish" conservatives are for not wanting to start more inefficient governmental boondoggles, it gets me angry.

If Barbra cares so much about the "oppressed", why doesn't she sell her expensive Hollywood mansion, move into something more modest, and use the money to feed the poor and house the homeless?

At least George Soros does things like that!

Update: Via Josh Claybourne, this also:

Tell me, Arianna, how much public housing will that $385.50 you paid in taxes each of the last two years buy? How many rooms in that $7 million mansion do you offer up to the "working poor?"

Update 2: Reason Online: Hit & Run documents an amazing inconsistency.