Sometimes when I discuss politics with other gay people, I learn that they share my fiscally conservative views.Â They too favor smaller government, less regulation, fewer federal (and state) intrusions into our lives and more freedom.Â But, they end up supporting the Democratic Party, often contributing to its coffers because, they claim, it’s better for gay people.Â (I happen to disagree with that assessment.)
I sometimes press these Democrats, asking how can they, while claiming to favor free enterprise, support a party which consistently pushes for an ever-increasing role for the state.Â Sometimes, they hem and they haw.Â Other times, they point to Bill Clinton’s accomplishments.Â Most times, they say it all boils down the the gay issue.
Those supposedly fiscally conservative Democrats should look at Nancy Pelosi’s latest proposal.Â With the government about to bail out financial institutions for about one trillion dollars and with deficits continuing to skyrocket, the Democratic House Speaker favors a “$150 billion economic stimulus plan . . .Â to help counteract a faltering economy.”Â When Democrats see a problem, they look to increased government spending as the solution.
Deficits wouldn’t be as high as they are now if recent Republican Congresses hadn’t abandoned their conservative principles and spent taxpayers’ money, in John McCain’s words, “like a drunken sailor.”Â Nancy Pelosi would not be Speaker today had Republicans held true to those principles.
It’s amazing that Democrats just can’t learn lessons that the average citizen learns when he overspends.Â When I balanced my checkbook and paid off the expenses for my trip to St. Paul, I discovered I was behind in my finances for the year, so I’ll have to cut back for a while.Â No new books or DVDs, no new clothes, fewer dinners out (and then at less expensive restaurants), all lunches at home, fewer dirty martinis.
If Nancy Pelosi were in my situation, instead of cutting expenses, she’d be increasing them.
Well, some of my fellows say the gay issue is paramount.Â I respond, fiscal responsibility as well as economic and personal freedom are more important.Â And national security.Â And judicial restraint.