George Bush talks a good game, but isn’t a true fiscal conservative

Since leaving office, former President George W. Bush has been quiet. Recently, he broke his silence and discussed the role of government, and how excessive government interference can be a threat to freedom. The President made many good points. It’s too bad he isn’t credible.

One of the major problems with the Obama administration can be summed up by this Bush quote:

“the role of government is not to create wealth, but to create the conditions that allow entrepreneurs and innovators to thrive.”

I couldn’t agree more. Government should take care of the basics, then get out of the way. Some will succeed and some will fail, but it isn’t the government’s job to pick winners and losers, only to make sure the playing field is level. From listening to Barack Obama and following his actions, he thinks government is the solution to all our problems. George Bush seems to say the right things, but let’s not forget that he’s the one who helped open the flood gates.

Barack Obama spends money like there’s no tomorrow. He has no equal. With that said, George W. Bush was far from a fiscal conservative. A true conservative wouldn’t have run up deficits, and would have paid down a substantial portion of the National Debt during his eight year presidency. He would have made sure prescription drug coverage and wars were properly financed. Most importantly, he would have slashed the size of government.

George W. Bush opened the flood gates and made Barack Obama’s exorbitant spending and ideas acceptable. This is where the term “too big to fail” began to gain traction. In 2008, TARP was created, a $750 billion price-tag was announced, and no one seemed to know where the amoun came from or how the money would be used. We had the Big Three car companies begin the process of looking for handouts, along with AIG, which turned into a financial vacuum sucking up every dollar in sight.

Many people, both Democrats and Republicans, will argue that TARP, and other bail-outs were necessary to avoid economic conditions even worse than those we are currently experiencing. To some extent, they may be correct. Things might have been worse if the government hadn’t bailed out the dregs of corporate America. We’ll never know for certain. What we do know for certain is that a precedent has been set. If you have a poorly run business, you might end up needing to file for bankruptcy, but if you’re “too big to fail,” the taxpayers will be there to give you a hand. I might be wrong, but that doesn’t seem like a free market approach to me.

When voters begin learning about new congressional candidates in 2010 and Presidential candidates in 2012, I hope they can look past the buzz words used by neoconservatives like George W. Bush, and seek out true fiscal conservatives who can bring order to the economy. Our economic future depends on it.