The Hell You Say!

|

Three years into his presidency, the New York Times notices that Bush is not, in fact, an unstoppable deregulating machine.

NEXT: A billion here, a billion there

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Mr. Gattusso sees no decline in overall government regulation in the Bush years ? he counts 75,000 pages of the Federal Register filled with new rules this year.

    For at least one term of the Reagan administration the Federal Register actually got smaller!

    Does anyone know of a rating service that monitors
    congress person’s votes on regulation the way that the NTU.org does on spending?

    Happy New Year everyone!

  2. At the least you’d think Bush would want to get some economy from consolidation. For example, shouldn’t mad cow prevention come udder (hehe) Homeland Security instead of that so yesterday Agriculture Department?

  3. Gallup did their (more of less) monthly Voter Concerns poll this week. If “excessive red-tape”, “too much beureaucracy” and “over-regulation” were among them, I can’t say I noticed.
    There was rather a lot of foreign policy, terrorism, war…that sort of thing.

  4. As bad as President Bush’s record has been on this issue — every other candidate with a realistic chance of winning the 2004 election is significantly worse.

    We are choosing the least of twelve evils.

    What does it say about the job of the American President that we cannot seem to attract candidates with talent, initiative, experience, and character to the position?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.