Congressman Alan Grayson really likes taxes when he doesn’t have to pay them.

That’s the lesson I learned after discovering that Grayson, a real moonbat even by the standards of his party, is sheltering millions of dollars in the Cayman Islands. His tax shelters are entirely legal, of course, which makes Grayson more of a tax-dodger than a tax-cheater. The distinction is noted.

But if the congressman isn’t guilty of cheating on his taxes, isn’t he at least guilty of hypocrisy? This is a man who was critical of Mitt Romney’s Cayman Islands accounts and who urged the IRS to audit every Fortune 500 company because he suspected that many of them were “evading taxes through…offshore tax havens.”

Rich people really should pay their fair share; starting with Alan Grayson, whose net worth approaches $100 million. Disadvantaged children need to eat, congressman.

Grayson isn’t alone in his tax-shirking or in his hypocrisy. A list of tax cheats—real tax cheats—reads like a who’s who of the Democratic elite. Left-wing sugar daddy George Soros, without whom the Left would probably wither and die, owes the IRS an unimaginable sum of $6.7 billion dollars. Nearly the entire lineup of MSNBC owes back taxes, including the good reverend, Al Sharpton, who is delinquent to the tune of $1.5 million. Then there’s the Tim Geithner, former Secretary of the Treasury, the department under which the IRS falls, who somehow forgot to pay his taxes.

The Clintons don’t like paying taxes either, though they, like Grayson, prefer to deposit their money in the Caymans. This hasn’t stopped Bill from bragging about all the taxes they pay. Speaking at Georgetown University, the former president advocated higher taxes on the rich, arguing that it would result in shared prosperity. There’s little evidence of that, but Clinton didn’t stop there. “Hillary and I and some of our friends in this audience who live in New York probably pay the highest aggregate tax rates in America, and I thank God every April 15th that I’m able to do it.” This from a guy who once wrote his underwear off as a charitable donation on his tax return; as if anyone down at the Goodwill wanted his nasty draws.

One difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives see taxes as a necessary evil, while liberals see taxes as a positive good that should serve as a tool to “spread the wealth around,” in the words of Barack Obama. Yet it’s always the other guy’s money that needs spreading, and not just because the other guy happens to be rich. Plenty of liberals are rich too. The other guy’s money needs spreading because he’s the other guy.

Another difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals seem obsessed with the sin of hypocrisy, a common human frailty that we’re all guilt of, to a greater or lesser extent. On the surface it might seem that they really don’t care what you do—cheat on your wife, use drugs, dodge the draft—just as long as you don’t get preachy about it. From their perspective, only those who espouse standards should be held to them. If, on the other hand, you don’t pretend to be anything other than a dirt ball, welcome to the (Democratic) Party!

That’s why you can’t oppose same-sex marriage if you’ve ever been unfaithful to your spouse, or had a divorce, or simply never been married, because you obviously don’t believe in that “sanctity of marriage” crap. They can do all of those things, of course, and many same-sex marriage supporters have catted around on their wives—Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton, and Gavin Newsome to name a few. But you can’t, because that would be hypocritical. Philandering is forgivable, opposing their agenda isn’t.

You can almost see the glee in their eyes whenever they find a conservative who has fallen short of his professed values. Recall Stephen Glass, the young reporter for The New Republic, a liberal magazine, who, in 1998, was embroiled in a scandal after he was caught fabricating juicy details for his stories and even creating some stories out of whole cloth. One of Glass’s more sensational pieces was “Spring Breakdown,” a story about drunken debauchery at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

The not-so-subtle angle of Mr. Glass’s story was the rank hypocrisy on display at the conference. He encountered CPACers who smoked pot and raided the minibar while complaining about feminism and homosexuals. There was a “get-naked room” which was basically a non-stop orgy. At one point, a trio of rowdy college guys ventured out to a local pub in hopes of finding a fat girl to bring back to the hotel and torment. They found her, of course. In another room, a man and a woman were passionately kissing and apparently, the woman was smoking a cigarette! “When the two come up for air, the woman tucks her cigarette-free hand into the man’s front pocket,” wrote Glass. “She is, it turns out, a 22-year-old Marylander, and a big fan of the Republicans’ chief moralizer, Bill Bennett. ‘He has some good morals to impart, and I really like his book,’ she says.”

Despite the fact that every iota of the article sprung forth from Glass’s imagination, “Spring Breakdown” may still have some redeeming value as a case study on the liberal thought process. Glass probably believed that all of these hijinks were really going on at CPAC, so sure in fact that he didn’t even need to be there. His editors believed it too. The hypocrisy was just too delicious.

While it may seem that liberals can’t be brought up on the same charges of hypocrisy because they aren’t a bunch of finger-wagging scolds like the rest of us, that’s not entirely true. Liberals do have an unwritten code of conduct based on a common set of principles. The fact that those principles are truly bizarre makes them no less real.

Taxes are an illustrative example of their hypocrisy. If there’s anything they hate more than a one-percenter, it’s a one-percenter who doesn’t pay his taxes. Don’t these people want roads and schools? Geez, I don’t know. If rich people just say that taxes suck, does that mean that they can cheat on them and no one can say boo? If I’ve learned anything from adultery scandals, the answer is yes. Only those who claim to have principles can be held accountable for violating them.

This whole hypocrisy shtick is a one way street. Liberals are in fact deeply hypocritical about hypocrisy. It’s not that they’re tolerant of a few peccadillos so long as you’re not self-righteous, they’re tolerant of pretty much anything as long as you’re on their team.