Laissez Who?

Recently the Environmental Protection Agency issued tough new regulations for airborne lead particulates. The old standard, 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter of air, has been revised sharply downward to 0.15.

Environmentalists cheered the news, which one called "a great step." Representatives of industry were not so thrilled. The changes were made by the Bush administration -- an administration routinely denounced as the mortal enemy of the environment, children, and other living things.

The announcement follows a study by researchers at George Mason University examining the spending patterns of presidents since Lyndon Johnson. Those, too, might surprise.

Every president has increased spending on regulation. Only once did regulatory spending fall -- during Ronald Reagan's first term. But Reagan more than made up for his 1.2-percent cut by jacking up spending in his second term by 23.7 percent. Richard Nixon increased regulatory spending the most, by 82 percent. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton (in his first term) raised regulatory spending the least, by about 8 percent each. During Clinton's second term he increased regulatory spending more than 20 percent.

The current president has hiked regulatory spending a lot, too -- by more than 31 percent in his first term and 22 percent in his second. Some of the gains went to Homeland Security. Some activists who might prefer to see more spent on the environment, OSHA, and food inspection might be tempted to discount spending on Homeland Security as something other than "real" regulation. But its goal is the same: keeping people safe.

The numbers should take some wind out of the sails on both sides of the political aisle. Despite the rhetoric, Republican presidents have been just as much a friend of the regulatory state as Democratic ones, if not more so. Conservatives might tend to preach about laissez-faire -- but they almost never practice it.