Which is scarier?

Today Kos sites an article from CATO (supposedly a libertarian think-tank, in my opinon more a collection of whackos) that has some fairly aggressive criticism of the Bush budgets.

President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn't cut enough spending to change his place in history, either.

Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush's first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton's last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush's first term.

Which prompts Kos to state:

CATO is a libertarian anti-government think tank, so as far as they are concerned, just about all government spending is bad. But in truth, much of Bush's spending is not necessarily a bad thing.

Now, I don't know which is scarier: 1)Me agreeing with a crazy organization like CATO. or 2)The host of one of the most extremely liberal blogs defending Bush.

As an ironic twist, Kos supporting Bush probably causes more political damage than if he'd said something nasty.