George W. Bush warns about too much government without naming gee-who-could-it-possibly-be?
Speaking of politicians' books, it looks like we'll have to wait for next fall to discover what exactly former President George W. Bush meant Thursday when he spoke, seemingly regretfully, about the $700-billion Wall Street bailout decision he made near the end of his term. He said:
I went against my free-market instincts and approved a temporary government intervention to unfreeze the credit markets so that we could avoid a major global depression.
Bush was speaking in Dallas at the formal unveiling of plans for a $300-million presidential library and think tank at Southern Methodist University, his wife's alma mater. Sources said fundraisers have already assembled more than $200 million in donations to begin construction next year.
Besides housing his presidential archives and memorabilia such as the bullhorn the 43rd president used atop the World Trade Center rubble after 9/11, the presidential center will focus, he said, on four policy areas: education, global health, political freedoms and economic growth.
Appearing refreshed and energized before a friendly crowd of about 1,000, the 63-year-old said he was retired, not tired. He covered a broad array of subjects in his remarks.
But Bush kept to his promise from earlier this year not to comment on specific policies or decisions of his successor, something his former vice president, Dick Cheney, has not felt obliged to do. Oh, and he's writing a book too. Who isn't these days?
In fact, Bush did not mention Barack Obama's name, nor the Democrat's policy moves into the banking, financial, automobile, healthcare and insurance industries.
But some might interpret an oblique warning when Bush said:
The role of government is not to create wealth but to create the conditions that allow entrepreneurs and innovators to thrive.
As the world recovers, we will face a temptation to replace the risk-and-reward model of the private sector with the blunt instruments of government spending and control. History shows that the greater threat to prosperity is not too little government involvement, but too much.
Whomever could he possibly be talking about?
-- Andrew Malcolm
Click here to get Twitter alerts of each new Ticket item. Or follow us @latimestot. And we're also over here on Facebook.Photo credit: ABC News








BUSH? W??? TOO much government?
Oh Mr. Homeland Security and Decider, we hardly knew thee.
Now go and shut up again for the next year.
- Dana Kincaid, Indianapolis, IN
PS - The King is a fink! Galoop galoop galoop
Posted by: Dana Kincaid | November 13, 2009 at 03:54 AM
One may wonder if the recent financial collapse is an example of President Bush's right amount of government. And even more profoundly, how would he have managed World War II? Would tax dollars have poured into Republican corporate contributors?
Posted by: John E McCue | November 13, 2009 at 04:28 AM
The role of government is to do what the people vote/tell it to do -- or not do. Why can't these ideologues get it? Ayn Rand is for teenagers, not leaders of this country. Pleeeeze.
Posted by: Jim H | November 13, 2009 at 05:12 AM
George mentioned at a recent commencement in Artesia that it was quite a come-down: the former commander-in-chief having to baggie his dog's messes while on walks in Dallas. But if he had stuck to such tasks more in line with his abilities, then he would have done no harm.
Posted by: David | November 13, 2009 at 05:48 AM
Now it can be told, with genuine proof from the horses mouth, George W. Bush is a stooge !!! Dumb as a rock...
Posted by: Ron shapley | November 13, 2009 at 05:48 AM
I'm glad to see he's doing well and that he's following presidential protocol by not casting stones against Obama, not unlike his Cheney who is proving to be one of the most influential and dangerous men in the history of the US.
But after approving Paulson's and his den of thieves request for a 700 Billion (with a B) lifeline and basically playing matador defense and not even a peep of resistance from the office of the President of the United States, you Sir, have no credibility when it comes to telling telling someone else about limiting government. Where were you when the country needed you, Sir?
Posted by: Islander | November 13, 2009 at 06:16 AM
and W's stimulus package?
2 wars & wall street bailout
and who did they benefit?
those people he laughingly referred to as "my base."
mothers tell your children to watch out for: drunks and dry drunks; rich boys through inheritance; and people whose arrogance dwarfs their intelligence
I pray America survives oil, Texas, and people who voted for this man and Dick Cheney
Posted by: thom | November 13, 2009 at 06:18 AM
"... the presidential center will focus, he said, on four policy areas: education, global health, political freedoms and economic growth."
What? No mention of international diplomacy and relations? Or would that be stretching credulity just too far?
Posted by: Bren Tierney | November 13, 2009 at 06:19 AM
Enough from President Dummy, OK?
Posted by: jeff finney | November 13, 2009 at 08:52 AM
It is encouraging that Mr. Bush realizes the mistakes he made while in office. No doubt he made the decisions he made with what knew at the time, relying on the advise of his Secretary of the Treasury (Henry Paulson) and others. It is true that President Obama has used that as a launching point for much more spending and government involvement. Hopefully these government officials will get the message that this insanity has to stop. At least former President Bush is willing to address this problem, however late he may be.
Posted by: Bryan | November 13, 2009 at 11:46 AM
One word: Katrina
Posted by: Connie Boyd | November 13, 2009 at 12:36 PM
How a dullard, along with Satan's spawn brought the United States to it's knees and then critiqued the reconstruction is a story for diminishing Republican party to write.
Posted by: R.I.P. GOP | November 13, 2009 at 12:42 PM
I'll stand up for Bush against the liberal posters on this thread all day long. Though not perfect, Bush was principled and loved his country. Not so much can be said for the spineless, cowardly, apologetic, socialist we have already had enough of after just 10 months in office.
Posted by: Dan W. | November 13, 2009 at 05:11 PM
News flash folks...
Mr. Bush is an intellectual giant compared to the socialist/appeaser/community organizer/moron now occupying the White House.
You dullards voted this empty suit into office...now live with the results of radical 1960s government intervention and social engineering.
Me? I miss Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney more and more with each passing day.
Posted by: Sam H | November 13, 2009 at 09:43 PM
Hating Bush is old news people, get with the current "I'm politically aware" program.
Posted by: Scott | November 14, 2009 at 05:28 AM
W looks better all of the time............we all made fun of his speaking gaffes. But, umm, umm, umm, umm ,ummm we can't make fun of H because is so smart. PRESENT
Posted by: randro | November 14, 2009 at 07:00 AM
Obama's downfall does not equal "Bush's success."
And it is not too late to criticize Bush for trashing this country.
I can't take any conservative seriously who thinks Bush was an exceptional leader.
Posted by: Morgan | November 15, 2009 at 01:57 AM
Get over President Bush, you liberal idiots. Bush and Cheney have more brains and common sense than what's in office now. You know the guy, who couldn't even go to Texas when the soldiers were shot. Don't remember anyone condemming him for that. He doesn't care about the soldiers anywhere, just about his and michelle's Hollywood appearances.
Posted by: karen | November 15, 2009 at 09:06 PM
It appears that you are taking advise from the man that single handedly destroyed the Republican party, and with help, destroyed the US economy!
Posted by: Gerald Mark Causey | November 18, 2009 at 05:08 PM
Thank you W for being so classy and real!
Posted by: Juls Hillery Chambers | November 19, 2009 at 01:10 PM
Karen:
Idiots?
I'll just bet you voted for Bush - twice.
Hollywood?
I don't know if you're from California; but I guessing you'd have voted for Arnold without a thought; after all he's a republican.
But keep typing,
;)
Posted by: Morgan | November 20, 2009 at 07:00 PM