Where I stand

Politically.

I consider myself a social conservative and a fiscal libertarian. As for the defense leg of the famed Reagan coalition? I support spending on defense, but not as much as we've seen of late. (For example, included in Pres. Bush's recent budget was a large increase in military spending. The argument was made that it was in line with history as far as spending as a percentage of GDP. I see what their saying, that in relative terms it isn't that much. But, does it need to be somehow tied to the strength and growth of our economy? I don't necessarily believe it does. This explains it well.)

Anyway, recently I've felt very attached to the customary Republican position of limited government, ie lower spending, lower interference, lower taxes, etc, especially when it comes to the economy. This is my major issue with Pres. Bush. As a Republican, I want my Republican president to do three things: lower taxes (check), lower spending (____), and to get out of people's way (__eck).

He did lower taxes in 2001 (actually, that was a rebate, so I don't think it should really count) and in 2003. The 2003 cuts were especially important because they were the kind of tax cuts, besides marginal rates, that are most likely to spur growth. There is debate as to whether they had as much of a direct impact on the recovery as Republicans claim (more on my thoughts on how much Bush, or any president past or future, really has on the economy later), but they helped. While I don't buy all the arguments for the Laffer Curve, I do think taxes impact behavior, particularly investment, often with negative economic consequences.

He did not lower spending, in any way, shape, or form. He tried to reform Social Security entitlements, but that fell flat. I do think, though, that he could have done a lot more to reduce regular discretionary spending. He kept the veto pen in his pocket while his friends down the street wrote checks to themselves (to their districts). It's only been recently that he has shown even a little backbone. Also, for what its worth, Congress is finally starting to show a degree of restraint with respect to earmarks, which is long overdue. The only thing about that is I think its more of a minority party trying to regain control than a true return to fiscal conservatism. Time will tell.

As far as staying out of things, he's done OK. I didn't like the steel tariffs from 2001 (neither did a lot of others, which is why they were rescinded not long after they were passed), nor am I a fan of No Child Left Behind. Tariffs, quotas, subsidies and the like are a bad idea. So is more top-down regulation on an already messed up education system. (I support more school choice; more on that later.) I also don't like the emphasis on a weak-dollar policy in an effort to boost exports. He has helped push through some important free trade agreements recently and championed some others that would be important; although these agreements aren't perfect, they're a start. He has largely stood aside with respect to outsourcing and offshoring, refraining from adding to the protectionist rhetoric. He also tried to come up with a reasonable solution on immigration that didn't involve cracking down on a business owner who wanted to hire someone who wanted to work and he wanted to pay to do that work. (I'll get more into my beef with the Republican Party's stance on immigration later. For now, I'll just say that is my major point of divergence from the GOP.)

Who did I support in the Primaries? Romney. But he was far from my perfect candidate. If I could have cherry-picked the policies/qualifications of Romney, Paul, and McCain, I'd be fairly content. And I will be voting for McCain in November because a vote for a flawed conservative candidate is better than one for a perfect liberal candidate.