Hamer falls short

Waddell Hamer’s opinion article on the legacy of Ronald Reagan is one of the stupider things I’ve seen in the news in some time. He leads with a blow against Reaganomics. There are arguments against Reagan’s economic spending policies; Hamer fails to address a single one of them. First, he attributes the theory of “trickle-down economics” to “Reaganomics.” “Trickle-down” was a label given by opponents of Reagan’s tax cuts and defense spending. Hamer then exercises his journalistic prowess by asserting that, “somehow the money never trickled down ... though I’m sure even that can be debated.” Really? There are still poor people in America? And we can debate qualitative statements about economics? Thanks Woodward! Next, Hamer steers his article straight off a cliff with the concluding paragraph. He criticizes Reagan for being the first president to wage war on drugs. Why? “It’s a policy that has put more urban African Americans in jail than any I can think of.” What?\nHamer argues that because urban (read: poor) African Americans have been put in jail for dealing drugs, creating stiff policies against drug dealing is wrong. Good point. I think we should also stop prosecuting theft and breaking an entering. It’s just not fair to all those poor people. Hamer would do well to look up Bill Cosby’s speech at a NAACP event on May 17, 2004. He might find some more useful ideas on why so many urban African Americans are in jail.\nHamer’s parting shot against Reagan is that he thought he single-handedly ended the Cold War. I doubt Reagan thought that; however, his defense spending to end MAD (Mutual Assured Distruction) did launch the Soviet Union into an arms race it couldn’t afford. If you think this didn’t have a large contribution to the USSR collapse, you are a moron. The only intelligent argument Hamer made was about supporting the future Taliban. But why write an argument against Reagan without mentioning the debt his defense spending caused? Did he even look up Reagan’s policies, or did he just take an edgy view against one of this nation’s most respected presidents?