The Texas Rangers have a new name for their owner's suite: "President George W. Bush Owner's Suite", in honor of the 43rd President who bought an $800,000 stake in the team in April of 1989. After serving as general managing partner for five years, he sold the stake in 1998 for more than $15 million.

"I've looked this up, and in the 133-year history of Major League Baseball, never has a president been an owner except President Bush," Rangers owner Tom Hicks told MLB.com. "I'm glad he's home and can reconnect with this place. We thought it would be fitting to have the suite named after him."

"I was actually thinking of my time in baseball driving up here on the turnpike," Bush said. "Baseball is a great sport, and the Rangers are a great organization. Tom is a wonderful owner and has built this team up, hopefully guiding it to an American League pennant."

"I'm thrilled to accept it," Bush said. "I used to [sit in the crowd during the game], but my life changed in January 2001. I have a little less anonymity now."

I would love to see President Bush come to Fenway Park and try to take in a game from the bleachers.

In one of my previous blogs: Is the stock market spring loaded? I coined the phrase Lightspeed Inflation in reference to the rate at which the government was able to dilute our currency. It is time we stopped referring to the government's over spending as "running the printing presses".

We have reached a point, given our maximum note size of $100, that we would actually be better off if the government did have to print the money. Now they can just add whatever amount they want to the balance sheet electronically.

We've all been wondering what President Bush would do after leaving office with the lowest approval ratings in history and now we have our answer: He's writing a book.

"I want people to understand the environment in which I was making decisions. I want people to get a sense of how decisions were made and I want people to understand the options that were placed before me," he told the Associated Press.

A note on economic polls: when evaluating them, subtract 15-20%. Case in point: U.S. public opinion toward outgoing President George W. Bush.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll taken in December 2008 found the following:

Despite the worst U.S. recession in decades, rising unemployment, declining median incomes, unprecedented home foreclosures, massive U.S. government borrowing to bailout / rescue the bank sector, and the lowest job creation of any eight-year president in the modern era, the poll found that:

• 23% of the American people said they would miss Bush, 25% said Bush managed government effectively, and about a third said he would go down in history as a good president.

Roughly a third of Americans viewing Bush as a good president?, with 25% saying he managed the government effectively? What's going on here?

Who are these people? Upper-income Americans or strong Republicans?

Exactly: either, or possibly both, which is why you need to deduct 15-20% when reading a poll, to gauge a president's support, particularly on economic issues.

The 2001-2009 presidency of George W. Bush ends in less than a week, so it's appropriate to evaluate the Bush years and his economic legacy.

Two foreign policy notes (which also affected economic conditions): History will determine whether the Iraq War did/did not further American interests of democracy and an enduring peace in the Middle East.

Also, President Bush effectively maintained the safety of the United States at home: there has not been another terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001.

**
As the Clinton administration ended, the United States entered the new century and decade with the strongest, most-resilient, most-adaptable, and technologically advanced economy on the face of the earth, according to an analysis by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Job growth had been enormous in the 'Roaring 90s' -- with more than 22 million jobs created in eight years. Median incomes were rising, poverty rates were at their lowest levels in decades. Business investment and new business formation were strong. The stock market was booming, capital markets were sound, and driven by the promise of new technologies, the United States was poised to enter a new phase of growth and development, with the benefits spread across its society.

**
The Bush administration began in 2001 with the passage of a $1.35 trillion tax cut -- a cut many economists and analysts felt was not necessary, given that the U.S. economy was already recovering from the mini 2001 recession.

Tax cut favored the rich

But the biggest problem with the tax cut was that it was tilted too much toward the rich and upper-income citizens -- Bush's political base -- and it almost guaranteed that, over time, broad-based demand would remain soft, and probably fail, in a few years.

Flying shoe-dodger, President George W. Bush, has a track record of rewarding the guilty. After the faked intelligence that gave him the ammunition he needed to invade Iraq in 2004, Bush awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom to CIA Director George "Slam Dunk" Tenet. And to reward the banks that got us into the current financial catastrophe, Bush rammed through Congress a bill that uses $700 billion of our tax dollars to pay bonuses to the executives who run those banks.

How did he do that? As usual, he did it secretively. The law that created the bailout bill includes provisions that limit executive compensation for banks that get bailout money. Specifically, the bill requires that banks report to the IRS any compensation above $500,000 paid to their top five executives. If that reporting does not occur, the IRS can impose tax penalties. Not only that, but there is no limit to what people below the top five can get paid -- so there never was any way to keep taxpayer money from paying millions to the traders and investment bankers who often get more than the CEO.

The elections are upon us with less than 24 hours before the polls open. Our current president George W. Bush has sat by as the economy went from good to bad to worse and his reputation and political standing went with it.

I have voted Republican and I have voted Democrat. I vote for the person, not the party. As the nation ponders who will be sitting in the Oval Office in 2009 I am quite confident that I am not alone. From day one I have felt that Dubya was in the White House because of dear old dad, the senior being far more qualified than junior. Junior became the front man for ideologues more intent on forcing their will upon others after a very dubious election result than all else.

From what I have seen and read, GWB has never been a great success at anything but politics, and now that reputation is toast too. While history has been kind to some past presidents allowing at least partial redemption -- Truman as direct, honest and a strong leader, Nixon on foreign policy issues, and most recently Carter as a humanitarian -- our current president has little to show for his eight years.

We have finally reached a point where all denial is gone and we are ready to admit the error of our ways. Sure, there were plenty of folks ringing the alarm bells years ago, but universal acceptance of the fundamental economic calamity that faces us from every corner of the world, and every person with two cents to rub together, has just now taken hold.

I wrote quite some time ago that the turning point in the economy cannot come about until President Bush admits there is a problem and that he will be the last person to do so. While I do not have a high opinion of President Bush, the facts speak for themselves as I wrote one year ago. (See Is Bush giving the country away without knowing it?)

The storm is not over, but we are coming to grips with it at very great expense. Admitting our errors is only the start; now we will have to spend years fixing problems and making many compromises. Unfortunately many people may lose their homes, jobs or both before we see significant growth.

Readers of this space know that economist David H. Wang, a colleague and friend of yours truly, approaches the economic scene from a unique perspective.

Wang was born and raised in Communist China for 22 years, before moving permanently to the United States in 1989 for graduate school, completing his Ph.D. in economics in 1995.

Of course Wang still talks with family and friends in China, and right now there's this joke making the rounds in the great centers in Beijing and Shanghai.

Question: What's the difference between U.S. President George W. Bush and Chairman Mao?

Answer: Chairman Mao actually put some bankers in jail.

**

As officials and citizens in China, India, Russia, Brazil, and many other developing nations look on, the United States is attempting to end a financial crisis that threatens to severely damage economies worldwide.

In the process, Wang and other economists agree, a number of myths and misnomers -- some promoted by the current U.S. administration, are being dispelled, and we'll review each in the months ahead.

This is my 800th post, so I thought I would have to mark the occasion with something very serious, and R. P. Overmyer once again supplied the kindling for my fire.

Many comments we receive ask why George W. Bush should be blamed for the dire state of the economy; that the President is just one more victim of circumstance. Others think the legislature should take the blame, or that it's a Democratic vs. Republican dilemma.

As I have tried to do in each of my posts that stray into politics, I will try my best to focus on the financial issues. If anyone cares, I tend to vote independent of party affiliation and tend to follow a moderate path. Interestingly each party tries to paint the other as more extremist in an attempt to get my vote.

The easy things first; the Republicans controlled the executive and legislative branches of government for the majority of GWB's term. It is true that the Democrats were less than cooperative these last 20 months and all too eager to watch Bush boil in his own stew, but for half that time everyone has been cooperating to make sure the financial markets do not collapse. All the blame should not fall on Bush or the Republicans, but I think it is not a hard case to make that the leadership and opportunity was theirs this go round and they screwed up -- he screwed up!

There are many ironies in the fact that President George W. Bush will throw the first pitch at Major League Baseball's All-Star Game in New York. For one, President Bush is the first managing general partner of a Major League team (the Texas Rangers) to become President of the United States.

President Franklin Roosevelt was the first to attend an All-Star Game and throw out the first pitch, starting the tradition. He too had to deal with a poor economy and by the time he threw out that first ball the groundwork was being laid for World War II. President Bush has had to contend with his own war.

While there are differing views as to whether we should have gone into Iraq and whether we should stay or get out, this will always be viewed as George's war, fair or not. And the state of our economy in 2008 will also be viewed as George's economy, fair or not.

The ultimate irony for me is that Yankee Stadium is scheduled to be torn apart at the end of the season. This is YANKEE Stadium and the last president to set foot in it will be George W. Bush. The stadium with the greatest heritage in baseball, the 'House That Ruth Built', is going to be torn apart while our economy is also being torn apart. It is being torn out at its roots.

Despite excellent earnings from Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA) yesterday, a bit of a shadow still hangs over the company. That's because in February the Air Force awarded a $100 billion contract for in-flight refueling craft -- known as tankers -- to EADS's Airbus and Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC). Boeing is currently challenging this award. But an interview I did for my book on Boeing suggests that Boeing will not win this contract because George W. Bush and John McCain want to award the contract to Bush's new friends: France's Nicolas Sarkozy and Germany's Angela Merkel.

I got this theory from a veteran Wall Street analyst who covers the aircraft industry. He suggested that Boeing lost the Tanker bid because John McCain -- who is ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee -- had the Air Force change the specifications for the tanker bid so Airbus and Northrop would be able to field a competitive bid. My source noted that the one problem with the change was that the Air Force did not inform Boeing about it.

After the bid was awarded to Airbus, it became clear that the original specifications had changed from a small, 767-sized craft to a medium-sized 777 one. During the review process, my source contends that Boeing asked the Air Force if the 767-sized craft was what it wanted. Boeing also told the Air Force that it would be happy to bid with a different model if the Air Force wanted. But the Air Force told Boeing that it still wanted the 767-sized craft.

Whatever your political ideology happens to be, I think we can all agree on one thing: Given the complex economic issues currently facing our country -- many of which will continue to be important for the foreseeable future -- our next president must be someone who understand economics.

To that end, the latest issue of Barron's looks at the backgrounds of each candidate (subscription required), showing something troubling: McCain's financial expertise is pretty much limited to having married a rich woman. That's a good strategy to be sure, but not necessarily the best background for someone charged with dealing with the current mess. Advising struggling homeowners to scan the obituaries in search of newly widowed socialites might not go over well.

Then there's Barack Obama whose experience in the market is, according to Barron's, pretty much limited to having once lost $13 thousand on stocks acquired through a blind trust. Barron's writes that "Small wonder he's giddy to raise taxes on interest and dividends. Obama has little skin in the game ... He's as insulated from his own dividend and capital gains proposals as a penguin is from the cold."

Hillary Clinton's net worth is very high, but she owns little stock. Her experience on the board of directors at Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) is intriguing but, looking at the available information, one thing is clear: None of these candidates can be considered an economics expert, something that we badly need, although George W. Bush's MBA from Harvard did little to avert the current mess.

Perhaps we'll get our economics expert from the other half of the presidential ticket. Private equity titan Mitt Romney is rumored to be a possible pick for John McCain, and there is some speculation that Barack Obama could pair up with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

In describing the results of last night's Iowa caucuses, The Washington Post's David Broder minced no words: "Eight years after Iowa voters did the conventional -- sending George W. Bush and Al Gore on to meet in the election of 2000, they shook up the status quo in both parties as never before. The victories of Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee jolted the expectations of establishment candidates with far stronger conventional credentials."

The New York Times' David Brooks was similarly thunderstruck. "I've been through election nights that brought a political earthquake to the country. I've never been through an election night that brought two."

While I admit the results were exciting, there is something that people often forget that the Philadelphia Inquirer's Dick Polman argues they need to remember: "Incumbents aside, exactly one victorious Iowa candidate -- George W. Bush in 2000 -- has ever gone on to win the presidency in the same year. Even though (Jimmy) Carter got an historic boost in Iowa, on the way to his November election, he actually finished second in Iowa -- behind 'Uncommitted.'"

Oh, so all of the hot air that's been expounded in the past 24 hours over this antiquated political system is that one of the least representative states in the country may not actually mean much in the long term. That's unbelievable, but what's worse is that we are about to go through this whole exercise yet again in an equally non-representative state, New Hampshire.

I have been wondering lately if the sagging value of the dollar is actually going down through economic gyrations or being pushed down by design.

There are many repercussions. No one less than Rodrigo Rato, head of the International Monetary Fund, warned Monday of a potential "abrupt fall" in the US dollar that could roil the global economy. "There are risks that an abrupt fall in the dollar could either be triggered by, or itself trigger, a loss of confidence in dollar assets," Rato said at the close of annual meetings here of the IMF and the World Bank, according to news reports.

Here is what is really on his mind: Europe may take steps to temper the strong appreciation of the Euro, which is weighing on exports from the 13-nation bloc. "There is a risk that exchange rate appreciation in countries with flexible exchange rates -- including the Euro area -- could hurt their growth prospects, and that in these circumstances protectionist pressures could worsen," he said.

From my perspective I have wondered if the Bush administration is at least applauding the weak dollar as it improves U.S. trade imbalances, helps prop up the stock market and worried investment bankers, and strengthens American companies in many regards.