We've all seen liberals who head foundations or Washington lobbies appear on television and condemn greed and selfishness. They like to pose as people with pure motives, who are completely uninterested in money. I help people, they say, I don't do this for myself. Well, come on.

I've talked with them at cocktail parties and such. Here's how the conversation goes:

Liberal Do-Gooder: I'm working with poor people in the inner city. Of course, I'm not doing it for the money.

Rush: Are you getting paid?

Liberal: Yeah . . .

Rush: Do you think you're getting paid enough?

Liberal: I could use more. But I'm satisfied with what I'm getting. Unlike greedy businessmen and others who are just out for themselves.

Rush: Where do you get your money or operating funds?

Liberal: Well, from a government grant.

Rush: I bet you're out there trying to get more money every year for your operation, aren't you? Money drives what you do. You couldn't do what you do without money, right?

Liberal: Well, I'm doing this from my heart.

Rush: You may be, and everybody may be doing what they do from the heart, but you can't do it without money, right?

Liberal: Yes, but I'm doing good things with it.

Rush: Well, so are other people. People who make money and build businesses create jobs for people. Those people pay the taxes that enable the government to afford giving you a grant.

Liberal: Those people will always be around.

Rush: Not if you tell them it's immoral to want more, to strive for a higher standard of living.

Liberal: But . . .

Rush: Just be quiet a minute. Not if you build disincentives to investment in the tax code under the pretense of fairness. To tell people it is immoral to want more money for themselves is the height of arrogance and will lead to less for everyone eventually.

Liberal: But . . .

Rush: The reason you don't like the eighties is that you didn't get enough for your concerns. You're not against the accumulation of money, just that not enough of it comes your way.

The difference between my liberal do-gooder friend and people who work in the private sector is simple. The liberals who run these foundations and liberal lobbying groups aren't like the readers of this book. They don't work in the sense that most people do. They live off the contributions of others or government grants. They say they are doing their jobs because they care. But they need money just as much as anyone else. The difference is that they often go to greater lengths than you and I in hiding or denying it.

A survey of obscure government records found that of the 117 largest nonprofit organizations, more than 1 out of 4 pay their top executives $250,000 a year or more. You see, it isn't just evil corporate executives who get high salaries or keep them when the rest of their company is hurting. Many of these non-profit groups don't even do charitable work. They are political agitators lobbying the government for money and regulations they can twist to their benefit. Unlike corporate executives, they don't create anything of value. All they do is raise money and trouble. What galls me is that these people would love to make you think they are pure philanthropists, that they are indifferent to money. They talk about their lives as if they are driven only by a sense of duty and social responsibility. But often they earn just as much money as do the people they criticize for being greedy. They don't want you to know that, but it's true.

People should know that the people on television berating them for wanting to keep more of their income probably make five times more than they do. Fay Wattleton of Planned Parenthood made $180,000 a year. She quit to earn even more money doing a television show. Forbes magazine found that Ralph Nader doesn't lead the monklike existence that he pretends to. He stays at his sister's place, a very fancy townhouse in a Washington neighborhood. Money motivates everyone. It's just that liberals deny it so they can make the rest of us feel guilty.