Reagan on the $50 Bill?

As a collector of coins, I am especially concious of who has been on our nation's money over the years.  The last major change to currency came in 1964 when John F. Kennedy (one year since his assassination) was put on the half-dollar coin.  Before that, the last change was in 1946, when Franklin Roosevelt was put on the dime (also a year after death).  Our paper currency has been even more static, with no changes to the faces on the front since 1929, when bills became their current size.

This means that only 2 Presidents from the 20th century are on money, and that is only coin money.  All the individuals on our paper money served in the 18th and 19th centuries.  Now, I don't want to disrespect any of those who are on our money currently.  I mean, George Washington was the "Father of our Country", serving as first President, Commander-in-Chief during our Revolution, and president of the Constitutional Convention.  He certainly deserves any place on currency, although this shouldn't be the only way he is honored.  Abraham Lincoln also had such a profoundly positive effect on our nation that he was the first President to be placed on a standard coin (the cent in 1909).

But I wonder about some other individuals who are on our money.  For example, Andrew Jackson is on our $20 bill.   I'm not a huge fan of Andrew Jackson, seeing as he created the modern Democrat (not Democratic) party, rode on a wave of popular support to run a very anti-liberty administration, and he actually opposed paper money.  I see no problem in replacing Jackson with someone who has done more good for our nation, with such figures as Henry Clay and Calvin Coolidge coming to mind. 

In this mindset, a Republican Congressman, Patrick McHenry, is proposing putting Ronald Reagan on the $50 bill to replace Ulysses S. Grant.  This change would be major in a few ways, first since no change of personnel has occurred on paper money in almost a century, and also because no Republican President from the 20th century is on money at this point.

No offense to President Grant, without whom we may not have won the Civil War, but I believe this change would be a great way to honor President Reagan and to unify those citizens who have been inspired by "The Gipper".  Some Democrats are opposing this measure as being "partisan", but what about putting JFK and FDR on coins right after they died?  Was that not partisan?  Even those who might have disagreed with those Presidents did not want to fight against the national unity that a tragic death in that office always brings.  Adding JFK to the half-dollar and FDR to the dime might not have been unanimously supported, but it did indeed unite Americans who were upset over the loss of a leader. 

When FDR was put on the dime, he replaced the image of winged Liberty, commonly mistaken as Mercury (hency the name Mercury Dimes).  This was not unusual, since the trend had been going away from symbolic figures such as Lady Liberty and instead using the faces of influential Americans.  But when JFK was put on the half-dollar in 1964, he swiftly displaced Benjamin Franklin, one of most important Founding Fathers and inventor of electricity (I'm joking here, for those of you who think I'm an idiot).  Franklin served in public life for decades, living through the Colonial Era, the Revolution, and even participating in the Constitutional Convention.  JFK was a relative youngster, having accomplished much less, but it was not seen as dishonoring Franklin to remove him.

With this historical perspective, what is the huge problem in replacing Grant with Reagan?  Not only will the ratio of Democrats to Republicans on money stay the same, but maybe some of our school children will actually be able to name the person on the $50 bill.  Actually, since they were all born after Reagan, they probably have only been taught that he was evil like Bush...