Ignore the moon bats: it's time to move, quickly, into the post Reagan era

There was an interesting piece by David Leohardt in the March 23 New York Times in which he outlines how the passage of the healthcare bill has allowed President Obama to begin to attack the wealth inequity of our nation that was begun under Ronald Reagan.

It’s about time.

The economic policies that began under Reagan led to the collapse of our economy just two years ago. His policies, and all republican policies since, have been monumental failures because they were built on a false premise. "Trickle down" economics does not exist, and it never did. It is simply the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich. David Stockman, Reagan's budget manager, admitted it was not just a flawed theory, but a fraudulent one, designed to line the pockets of Reagan's rich friends . . . and Reagan and everyone else knew it. They wrapped it in a pretty package, and despite seeing their own incomes and benefits devastated as a result, many people continued (and continue today) to vote against their economic self interests, and the economic self interests of our nation.

Reagan is equally responsible for laying every problem our nation faces at the feet of our government. In his first address to Congress, he famously declared that “government is the problem.” He attacked government, as comedian Lewis Black put it, as though it were a gigantic building walking around destroying the country side.

Here’s the predicament: in the United States, the citizens are the government. Effectively, Reagan was claiming that we, the people, are the problem. That’s a hell of a thing for a president to say, and it was also completely wrong. For years U.S. citizens were encouraged to serve their communities and countries as public servants. The idea was for our best and brightest to dedicate some time to the public good before going out and finding their fortune in the private sector. The men and women who answered this call took us to the moon; planned some of the world’s greatest cities; saved us from an extended time in the Pacific during World War II that likely would have cost millions of lives; designed and constructed our interstate transportation system; established and built the information super highway; were the teachers who inspired millions of us to be more than we ever thought we could be; and so much more.

It’s time to end the myth that our government is the problem. When funded and managed properly, our government provides great service to its citizens, and it makes our communities and our nation stronger. Strong government programs do not take away from the free market, but enhances it by assuring there is a level playing field for all participants. A strong government comes to the aid of its citizens, as it did in 1992 following Hurricane Andrew (as opposed to what happened in 2005 under a weak and incompetent government with Hurricane Katrina).

The legacy of Ronald Reagan — less government and tax cuts for the rich — is 30 years of punishment for the great American middle class, 30 years of the rich getting richer, 30 years of severely weakening our national economy (and thus our security) and 30 years of across the board failure in every respect. There is not a single example that policies hatched during the Reagan administration have ever worked, or ever could.

It is long past time for our conservative friends to man up, admit the great damage they have done to our nation and own their collective failure.

Duke ruins the NCAA tournament . . . again

So, how bad are your brackets after the first weekend of this year’s NCAA basketball tournament? It certainly has been interesting — unless you’re, you know, a Kansas fan.

I, for one, would have been really thrilled with Cornell’s first victory in the Big Dance in 50 years provided, of course, it hadn’t come at the hands of my beloved Temple Owls. The fact that the Big Red went on to beat that other Big Red, Wisconsin, sort of made it better, but not by much.

The Temple-Cornell matchup, as pointed out by ESPN’s Chris Low, was the result of poor seeding by the selection committee, and he’s right. The Owls, who spent much of this season in the top 15, were a fifth seed. Based on their record, RPI and all the other stuff the NCAA committee considers, Temple should have been no worse than a four seed, and in many pre-tournament brackets were a three seed. While you can certainly make a case for three seeds Pitt and Baylor, it’s harder to make the case for offering a three seed to Georgetown or New Mexico. Harder still is making a case for either Maryland or Vanderbilt as four seeds. While both teams had nice seasons, neither spent much time in the top 20, let alone the top 15. In a stretch you might argue that Vandy got there based on the strength of conference. You can’t say the same of Maryland, who didn’t even make it to the finals of a weak ACC this year.

This, of course, brings us to Duke. The Blue Devils started the season on the lower end of the top 25, and steadily made their way up the rankings ladder to number five . . . which means for the better part of the season there were at least four teams better than Duke. So, why, then, do the Blue Devils not only get such a cushy seeding, but, arguably, top seeding in the weakest bracket (seriously, Villanova a number two seed?)? That spot is usually reserved for the overall number one seed, in this case Kansas, who has actually played their way into it. If I lived in Lawrence, Kan., I would be planning now for an all-out assault on the NCAA offices, not to mention Raleigh-Durham.

There are theories on why this happened, and count me among the conspirators who have come to firmly believe that CBS, ESPN and the national college basketball media have simply become Duke’s volunteer assistant coach in charge of recruiting, with Dick Vitale leading the pack.

No need to take my word for it, of course.  Here’s a great column from Jason Whitlock of the Sacramento Bee that pretty much sums up the whole sleazy plot.

Thank you Mr. Lincoln

First a quick note: if you feel the need for a dose of patriotism, Washington, D.C. is a great place to be. If we do nothing else as a country, we do monuments really well. There is nothing as inspiring as a visit to the Jefferson or FDR memorials along the Tidal Basin, or hitting the war memorials along the National Mall. But there may be no more awe-inspiring place in all of Washington than the Lincoln Memorial.

Which leads me to wonder: what would Lincoln make of his republican party today?

Here's a guess: he wouldn't recognize it. What made Lincoln one of our greatest presidents was his willingness to do things that were best for our nation, but not necessarily for him. Case in point: the Civil War.

Lincoln had hoped to avoid civil war, but, because of circumstances not of his making, and the political rancor they inspired, it was practically a faint accompli by the time he was sworn in. He also knew there was no other way to save the Union but to go war. It's easy to forget that the Civil War was opposed by most Americans above the Mason Dixon line. Lincoln was treated particularly harshly by the media of his time, and found as much opposition from the members of his own party as he did from the Democrats. Fortunately for us, his calls for common sense, and the Union, prevailed. Lincoln paid the ultimate price for those decisions. Based on what we know of him, chances are pretty good that, even if he knew of his fate, Lincoln would have made the same decisions anyway. Why? Because he always put his country before himself and his party.

You'll find no republican willing to do that today. From health care to tax policy, from education to the social safety net, modern republicans have simply abandoned their countrymen. Party is first, individuals are second and country runs a distant third.

And none of that is patriotic.