…you get stuff like this. First, the N&O says:
The Bush era has been for businesses of all kinds sort of like a rebirth of the "free love" movement of the 1960s. Anything goes.
But is this true?
The slightest investigation into regulations would reveal that it is a non-partisan phenomenon and the regulatory state expandes with pretty much any administration. If anything, the Bush Administration has been as reg-crazy as any other, so to characterize it as "free love," means they were more interested in evoking the cute analogy than actually looking into the expansion of the federal register.
The less-than-informed commenters at the N&O would also do well to think outside the regulatory box when it comes to achieving regulatory outcomes. The common law, which is more distributed, precise, and less likely to bring about unintended consequences, is preferable than letting college-grad hill staffers craft legs that uninformed pols simply sign off on for political reasons.
In any case, is the Bush Administration anti-regulation? If anything, they – via the OMB- have made cost-benefit analysis and scrutiny of regs a higher priority, but they have not slowed the growth of the regulatory state to any appreciable degree. A shred of investigation would reveal that regulators regulate — D or R. More investigation would reveal that regulations have very high social costs that these articles are pretty flippant about. Facts straight, please.