Bush the Ultra-Conservative! Whaaaa?

Watching coverage of the DNC last week, I learned that Bush is an ultra-conservative and that is bad.

Sorry, Bush is no ultra-conservative. In fact, when reviewing spending, trade policy, and his pet projects like his "faith-based" garbage. He may even be qualified to be called a progressive or liberal. A new report (thanks to Carrie Conko of the Center for getting it to me early) from the Mercatus Center proves it again. There will be 242,500 federal employees regulating us at a projected cost of $39.1 billion (a 5.5% increase).

Ok, it's not all bad. From the report:

After adjusting for inflation, the 2004 Budget is likely to be 5.9 percent less than in 2003. The Regulator's Budget for both 2005 and 2004 represents 1.6 percent of the total outlays estimated in the President's Budget. This is less than in 2003, when the Regulator's Budget was 1.8 percent of the total Budget.

So in real terms, I don't think The Pure Investor would be too unhappy. But that's alot of people telling me how to live, what I can buy, how to serve my clients, what I can eat and smoke etc, etc, etc. It's important to keep in mind what I wrote in my book (have you bought it yet?):

Each of these requirements is another hidden tax that once again raises the Pure
Investor's costs and lowers his return....The more regulations that are imposed, the less likely the Pure Investor will risk his capital.

Or as the slightly more reputable economist John Stuart Mill wrote:

Every departure from (laissez-faire), unless required by some great good, is a certain evil.

Bush is no conservative. In fact, if you really want to make a Republican's head explode argue that Clinton's accomplishments may actually be more conservative. I can argue this point in a later post.