The past several years have not been pleasant for those who believe in free market capitalism and individual liberty.   The election of 2000 brought to the office of the Presidency a committed free market conservative, right?  Well, that's how some of the rhetoric went, and what the Republican brand was supposed to represent:  lower taxes.  Smaller government.  Freer markets.  Less intrusion.

Based on the performance of the Republican Congress that was ushered into power in the election of 1994, it seemed a reasonable branding.  While not all of its "Contract With America" was enacted (notably:  term limits), the Congress cut taxes, passed trade agreements, reformed welfare, and reduced the size of government compared to the GDP to a point where the budget was actually in surplus.  All this, we were told, in spite of a Democratic President whom they had to fight along the way.  Ushering a Republican into the executive branch seemed like turning a key in a lock to open a door to an even more dramatic reduction in the size and scope of government, allowing families and individuals an even greater degree of self-determination.

Someone forgot to tell President George W. Bush this plan, and then the Congressional Republicans forgot about it altogether.

Over the 7 years of the Bush Presidency, only the past 2 of which with Democrats in control of the legislative branch, the opposite of a free market Golden Age has occurred, in spite of the conventional naming of Bush as some sort of "unfettered capitalist".  The federal government has grown as a percent of GDP from 18.4% in Clinton's last budget to 22.5%.  The federal budget has gone from a surplus of $128 billion to a predicted deficit of $732 billion for the coming fiscal year — this before the Obama health care plan and other proposed spending programs advocated by the President-Elect during his campaign.

As reported by the Washington Times, a conservative paper, "[t]The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform reviewed 700 projects and found $1.1 trillion in spending from 2002 to 2008 that was plagued by "significant waste, fraud, abuse or mismanagement."  Over more than $5 trillion was spent on wars abroad and anti-terrorism efforts at home; obviously, we all want to be safe from terrorist attacks and to win our wars, but $5 trillion?!? 

Along the way, Bush presided over the introduction of a new entitlement program, the Medicare Drug Benefit, that "redistributes wealth" from working taxpayers to senior citizens — regardless of their own income or assets — to pay for prescription medications.  He greatly expanded federal education spending (and intervention) with "No Child Left Behind", signed not one but two new expensive, statist farm bills, an "energy plan" (you guessed it:  also expensive and laden with government controls on the energy industry, particularly "alternative energy" sources).  While mostly a free trader, he nevertheless slapped a protectionist tariff on steel imports. 

Then came 2008; with the housing bubble bursting and the subprime contagion spreading, Bush found a way to make FDR look like a capitalist.  Over the past several months, he has orchestrated over $1 trillion in federal "bailouts" of financial and insurance firms, with the government taking a shareholder position in financial institutions.

As the deficits and the national debt pile up, critics like to point to the "Bush tax cuts" as the culprit.  Not so:  federal income tax receipts rose by 20% from 2001 to 2007 even as the average tax rate fell by 11% over that same period.  Capital gains tax receipts grew by 50%, even as the rate was cut.  The problem was not a lack of revenue, but rather spending restraint by Bush and his allies in Congress.

Now, as the Bush Administration is winding down, word comes that the bailout bug has caught on in Detroit:  the automakers see the cash that Wall Street has gotten, and they want a piece as well.  Never mind that while the "Big Three" automakers languish, other automakers — with factories in the US — have captured nearly 50% of the US market.  Whether its Toyotas being manufactured in Texas, Mercedes-Benz in Alabama, BMWs in Mississippi, or Nissans in Tennessee, other automakers have succeeded in producing cars that consumers want to buy.  But forget competition, Detroit wants to see the money.  Does anyone doubt but that Bush and Congress will provide it?

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, winner Barack Obama promised a government health care program, more government energy policy, further government intrusion into "alternative energy", and to "spread the wealth around".  He promised higher taxes on the rich, and more entitlements for the "workin' people".  He promised an overall expansion in the government intervention in the economy; rightly, the term "Socialism" began to be used to describe an agenda that would make the late French President Francois Mitterand proud.  But the term didn't catch, and it certainly didn't deter people from nearly every income and educational segment preferring Obama as there President:  he won handily, carrying even normally reliable Republican states like Indiana.

Why did the country not respond with fear when Obama called for a statist agenda of government intrusion that smacks of European social welfare states?  Because President George W. Bush paved the way.