Hypocrisy in the Age of "Sacrifice"

Of all all these rich liberals who support Obama and his ilk, why is it none of them ever offers additional money to the government, and I would suspect, tend to engage in every tactic possible to avoid, at least legally, paying taxes?

Many of these liberals support charitable causes and are generous with their money, often doing many admirable things to help others. However, they are never more generous to the government they vocally adore, or the President whom they treat, sometimes literally, as a deity, than they need to be. We can be sure of this because no self-respecting liberal in the public eye would contribute in such a way without using it as an example, or even as a means of self-aggrandizement, especially if the person is a politician.

And yet, in a time when the President and Congress are growing our government at a rate faster than any time except perhaps World War II, why are none of the supporters of these overreaching statists setting a good example and demonstrating their obvious faith in the government by making contributions to it? Why don't they put their money where there mouths are? If it's good enough for Joe the Plumber, why isn't it good enough for Barbra Streisand? Can't you imagine the fanfare of some great would-be philoanthropist personally handing a giant check for, say, one million dollars to a Senator or Congressman, or (gasp!) even the President himself, to be deposited into the general treasury? What a photo op that would be!

Is it because, they, like every good American, know that it's largely a waste? Is it possible that even in their minds, sodden as they are with visions of the Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent State, they acknowledge the universal truth that the Federal government is largely incompetent, wasteful and even corrupt?

I respect the idea of people of any political mien sharing their money with any cause they deem appropriate, because that is their right, even duty. Many liberals support causes such as the environment, education, and eliminating poverty, causes that transcend politics and support of which does much good. But none of them, so far as I've ever heard, are willing to turn over their largesse to the coffers of government. Why do these folks get to pick how their money is spent, but want everyone else, especially the rich, to have no say? Sure, they might contribute to building a playground, or a clinic, or a nature preserve, all admirable causes, but isn't the government also an admirable cause? And if not, why not?

Of course, charity is not always prevalent among these kinds of people. Why are people like the Obamas and the Bidens, who, though rich, contributing almost nothing to charity, while constantly lecturing us, even preaching to us, about how we must sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice, for the good of others?

Hasn't anyone in Washington ever learned one of the most basic lessons of life that you sway more people by actions than words? I mean even if the likes of President George W. Bush, who contributes far more than any recent Democrat president, are giving charity solely for appearance's sake, they're still doing it. Appearance is everything in politics, we are led to believe, so wouldn't even the appearance of caring for others be worth enough to contribute generously, regardless of the actual effect or intent?

Are these politicians really that dense? Do they really not care? Are they truly the hypocrites they appear to be? Is there any other conceivable explanation?