The following commentary comes from an independent investor or market observer as part of TheStreet's guest contributor program, which is separate from the company's news coverage.NEW YORK ( TheStreet) -- It is an article of faith among Democrats that the administration of George Bush caused plagues, pestilence and the nation's economic woes -- and by derivation the political morass that bests Washington. The New York Times asserts huge budget deficits have resulted from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and Bush tax cuts -- which by the way lowered tax burdens for all Americans not just millionaires and billionaires. Consider, in 2007 -- the last fiscal year before the Great Recession and the Democrats took control of Congress -- the deficit stood at $161 billion -- about one-tenth its present size. Two wars were at full tilt, and the Bush tax cuts and prescription drug benefits, which congressional democrats are always inclined to cite, were in place -- all for several years. Hmm, how can that be? If Mr. Bush's policies caused the current big deficits, why did those require a change in party control, in Congress and then the presidency, to happen? Simple observation indicates those policies were not the cause, and huge deficits, like a lot of ills, were caused by the economic collapse of 2008, which was motivated by bad economic policies that political parties had a hand in creating. Mr. Bush, like Mr. Obama, inherited a country with deep economic troubles -- granted Mr. Obama's situation was much worse, because the nation's structural problems have been cascading through cycles of expansion and recession for several decades. Mr. Bush did pursue pro-growth policies and got unemployment down to about 5% before the Great Recession.