I don’t agree with all the points in this column from Real Clear Markets, but I fully agree with the overall theme that the GOP would be wise to cut Bush out of the Party’s history. Like Nixon, he was a failed, big-government statist.
The sour economy is presenting Republicans with a golden opportunity to retake both houses of Congress. The Democrats will try to defend their seats by attacking Bush’s record on the economy. Republican candidates should counter this move by acknowledging the economic errors made during the Bush years. This will help restore the credibility of the Republican brand with respect to the economy and free up the candidates to move on to what really matters-the future. …Was Bush 43 the worst post-1952 president in terms of the economy? No, he was the second-worst. Jimmy Carter managed to drive the Real Dow down by 78% in just four years, 1976-1980. If considered as one presidency, Nixon/Ford was the third-worst… So, what were the mistakes that made Bush 43 the second-worst president since 1952 with respect to the economy? The biggest single economic error Bush made was his “weak dollar” policy. While the president has no direct control over monetary policy, it is said that a president always gets the monetary policy he wants. Bush (and his Treasury Secretaries) wanted a weak dollar, and they got one. The dollar lost 69% of its value against gold during the Bush years. This accounted for almost 80% of the decline in the Real Dow during his presidency. The unstable dollar during the Bush years was the root cause of the financial crisis of 2008. The dollar fell almost continuously during the first seven years of his term. By February 2008, it had lost 72% of its value. …The third biggest economic error under Bush was the design of the 2001 tax cuts, which phased in the reductions in the top income tax rate over 5 years. As we learned in 1981-1982, phased-in tax cuts guarantee economic sluggishness, because people defer income until the lower rates take effect. The result was a “jobless recovery”, slow growth, and escalating deficits. The 2001 tax cuts also wasted $58 billion on futile Keynesian “stimulus”, an error that Bush was to repeat in 2008. If Bush had gotten his 2001 tax cuts right, and economic growth in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 had averaged 3.5% instead of 1.6%, the “Bush deficits” would have peaked at 2.5% of GDP in FY2004, rather than at 3.5%. A continuation of 3.5% real growth would have put the budget in surplus by FY2007, despite the massive spending. …Because the Democrats have “doubled down” on Bush’s economic errors, Democrat-held House and Senate seats are ripe for the picking. During the first 18 months of the Obama administration (i.e., through June, 2010), the Real Dow fell by another 11% to 7.86, which was the level of June 1952. After 16 months of massive government “stimulus”, total employment in June 2010 was 6.0 million below what the administration predicted it would be if the stimulus bill passed, and 3.2 million lower than they said it would be if the stimulus bill didn’t pass. If the labor force participation rate had not unexpectedly declined, June’s unemployment rate would have been reported at 11%.
[…] Bushies – the establishment crowd that often supports a bigger burden of government […]
[…] Bushies – the establishment crowd that often supports a bigger burden of government […]
[…] Bushies – the establishment crowd that often supports a bigger burden of government […]
[…] the case of Bush, for what it’s worth, I think he does deserve blame. None of the bad laws I listed were […]
[…] on the other hand, is repeating all of Bush’s mistakes and making government an even bigger burden, and then compounding his error by pursuing class […]
[…] on the other hand, is repeating all of Bush’s mistakes and making government an even bigger burden, and then compounding his error by pursuing class […]
[…] on the other hand, is repeating all of Bush’s mistakes and making government an even bigger burden, and then compounding his error by pursuing class […]
[…] honest aspect of the video is its non-partisan tone. It explains, in a neutral fashion, that Bush undermined prosperity by making government bigger and that Obama is undermining prosperity by increasing the burden of […]
[…] on the other hand, is repeating all of Bush’s mistakes and making government an even bigger burden, and then compounding his error by pursuing class […]
[…] honest aspect of the video is its non-partisan tone. It explains, in a neutral fashion, that Bush undermined prosperity by making government bigger and that Obama is undermining prosperity by increasing the burden of […]
[…] haven’t expunged the philosophical corruption of the Bush years and they still think big government is good even though they are telling voters they learned their […]
[…] honest aspect of the video is its non-partisan tone. It explains, in a neutral fashion, that Bush undermined prosperity by making government bigger and that Obama is undermining prosperity by increasing the burden of […]
[…] Republicans haven’t expunged the philosophical corruption of the Bush years and they still think big government is good even though they are telling voters they learned their […]
[…] Republicans haven’t expunged the philosophical corruption of the Bush years and they still think big government is good even though they are telling voters they learned their […]
[…] Keynesian stimulus didn’t work for Hoover and Roosevelt in the 1930s, Japan in the 1990s, or Bush in 2001 or […]
[…] Obamanomics already has failed. It didn’t work for Hoover and Roosevelt. It didn’t work for Bush. It isn’t working in Europe. And now it’s failing for […]
[…] Well, maybe we’d be able to had he not so run up the federal credit card during his first two years in the White House. In the campaign, he promised a “net spending cut,” but delivered instead a dramatic spending increase, raising the rate of growth of the federal government far beyond the accelerated pace of the Bush years. […]
[…] P.S. It should be noted that America’s anemic economic performance in recent years is not solely Obama’s fault. As the White House repeatedly points out, he inherited a downturn. That is completely accurate. My complaint, however, is that Obama promised hope and change but instead has exacerbated the big government policies of his predecessor. […]
[…] My complaint, however, is that Obama promised hope and change but instead has exacerbated the big government policies of his predecessor. jQuery('#lazyload_post_0 img').lazyload({placeholder: […]
[…] P.S. It should be noted that America’s anemic economic performance in recent years is not solely Obama’s fault. As the White House repeatedly points out, he inherited a downturn. That is completely accurate. My complaint, however, is that Obama promised hope and change but instead has exacerbated the big government policies of his predecessor. […]
[…] that Bush was a statist rather than a conservative, and you can find additional commentary from me here, here, here, and […]
[…] that Bush was a statist rather than a conservative, and you can find additional commentary from me here, here, here, and […]
[…] President Bush deserves a lot of the blame thanks to the no-bureaucrat-left-behind bill that bloated the Department of Education, the corrupt farm bills, the pork-filled transportation bills, the new prescription drug entitlement, and bailouts for banks and auto companies. […]
[…] President Bush deserves a lot of the blame thanks to the no-bureaucrat-left-behind bill that bloated the Department of Education, the corrupt farm bills, the pork-filled transportation bills, the new prescription drug entitlement, and bailouts for banks and auto companies. […]
[…] President Bush deserves a lot of the blame thanks to the no-bureaucrat-left-behind bill that bloated the Department of Education, the corrupt farm bills, the pork-filled transportation bills, the new prescription drug entitlement, and bailouts for banks and auto companies. […]
[…] readers of this blog know that I’m waging a one-man crusade to discredit and ostracize George W. Bush and Karl […]
[…] policies with the failure of Barack Obama's policies (which are basically a continuation of George W. Bush's policies, so this is not a partisan […]
[…] policies with the failure of Barack Obama’s policies (which are basically a continuation of George W. Bush’s policies, so this is not a partisan […]
[…] policies with the failure of Barack Obama’s policies (which are basically a continuation of George W. Bush’s policies, so this is not a partisan […]
[…] policies with the failure of Barack Obama’s policies (which are basically a continuation of George W. Bush’s policies, so this is not a partisan […]
[…] policies with the failure of Barack Obama’s policies (which are basically a continuation of George W. Bush’s policies, so this is not a partisan […]
[…] not really sure how to analyze this passage. Let’s just say it is akin to George W. Bush talking about the need for small government and fiscal […]
[…] not really sure how to analyze this passage. Let’s just say it is akin to George W. Bush talking about the need for small government and fiscal […]
[…] is generally accurate. Principled conservatives (as opposed to the Bush/Rove variety) believe in limited government and free enterprise, so there is agreement on the economic […]
[…] is generally accurate. Principled conservatives (as opposed to the Bush/Rove variety) believe in limited government and free enterprise, so there is agreement on the economic […]
[…] I’m mystified that some conservatives and libertarians are sympathetic to the idea that Mitch Daniels, the governor of Indiana, might be a good candidate in 2012. The main challenge for our nation is the growing burden of government, so it seems that this would disqualify anybody who served as Budget Director for President George W. Bush. […]
[…] I’m mystified that some conservatives and libertarians are sympathetic to the idea that Mitch Daniels, the governor of Indiana, might be a good candidate in 2012. The main challenge for our nation is the growing burden of government, so it seems that this would disqualify anybody who served as Budget Director for President George W. Bush. […]
Should we disavow his call for partial privatization of Social Security, which was based on a study from the Cato Institute?
Should we disavow the fact that he appointed more Libertarians to his administration, than all other previous modern administrations combined, including a former Libertarian Party State Chair to Interior Secretary?
Should we disavow the fact that he liberated more human beings from dictatorial tyranny than anyone since Reagan and the Cold War – Iraq and Afghanistan total 70 million people?
I’d say George Bush’s record as a Liberty Advocate is pretty damned good. And pointy-headed Ivory Tower types need to stick to their policy papers and give the Bush-bashing a rest already.