maybe the Gipper doesn’t care who wins anymore
The Super Bowl today coincides with Ronald Reagan’s 100th birthday, but I don’t
know if that will be as big a crowd pleaser as Janet Jackson’s right nipple. I have
n0 clue why so many Americans canonize the Gipper. He was certainly a pivotal
president, but he didn’t walk on water. He only trickled down.
If people are going to laud Reagan for the 5.5% unemployment rate when he left
office, let’s remember that it hit 10.8% one month during his first term. He’s
known for lowering taxes, yet raised them every year from ’81 to ’87. The savings
and loan crisis happened on his watch and the Dow dropped 508 points one day
late in his stay. He added $1.7 trillion to the national debt. That was big bucks
back then.
Dutch was key to ending the Cold War, but launched the unwinnable War on Drugs.
He negotiated with Gorbachev over nukes, but invaded Grenada and bombed Libya.
He bi-gendered the Supreme Court with Sandra Day O’Connor, but cut Medicaid and
food stamps. He shrank the EPA and removed the solar panels Jimmy Carter put on
the White House. And then there was the Iran-Contra scandal.
My personal beef with him is that he tried to cut a measly $21 million in funding
for 91 storefront counseling centres for Vietnam Veterans. It was a successful
program, serving more than 50,000 of us. Public outcry quashed his efforts.
Also, he was lukewarm toward a program to help VietVets exposed to Agent
Orange.
My bigger beef is with those who cherry pick his legacy to sweeten his chances for
sainthood. Sean Hannity nearly wets himself when he talks about Reagan. Some
conservatives want the Gipper’s image on Mount Rushmore. Please. Remember
there’s a man under that myth. When he died in 2004 the hyperbole could be seen
from space. The only way I could cope with the flags displayed everywhere was by
pretending they were for Ray Charles, who died five days later.
