I noticed that CNBC (via MSN) is running a poll to get “our” opinion about taking Alexander Hamilton off the $10 bill and replacing him with Ronald Reagan. I figure 90% of the readers that didn’t say “Who cares?” just said “who’s this hammy guy?”

Now is the time to make a change, if you ask me. The $20 bill was just completely reworked to add multiple colors and security features. The $50 is next and after that, surely the $10 will follow. In addition to that, the whole nation is Reagan-happy, what with his passing this week.

Yet, why change it? After all, if you look at our cash notes, we’ve got Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Jackson, and Franklin, on the $1, $2, $10, $20, and $100 bills. Washington and Jefferson were the first and third presidents; John Adams is missing from this line up, but he’s always been sorta the “invisible” President, honestly. Hamilton started the treasury and Franklin was a beloved statesman. And then, what about the $5 and $50, with Presidents Lincoln and Grant? Those are the most recent changes: we’ve got a group that centers around 1776 and another couple of guys from the 1860-1880 era.

The coins have had a similar history. Lincoln, Jefferson, and Washington on the penny, nickel, and quarter. The dime and the half-dollar? Roosevelt and Kennedy, both from the mid-1900’s (well, within 10 years of 1950 anyway) – the dollar coin used to have Ike [I think] but since it’s used as often as the $2 bill, so it’s changed often in both picture and shape, so I’ll ignore that entirely.

At any rate, we have made changes to our currency before, but just not too recently. We’re due, and I can’t think of anyone I’d rather see on a note. Look at the choices of recent Presidents: Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr… Kennedy is still loved by the Baby-Boomers, but as we get further away from his era, the nation is forgetting about him (except for his ever growing list of dirty dealings). Johnson was bland, Nixon is still surrounded by the stigma of a scandal, Ford is still branded a klutz, and Carter a peanut-growing pacifist. Bush and his Sequel both seem to be turning into a bridge between dynasties. Clinton’s sole contribution to the nation, aside from the embarrassing scandals, was allowing people to sell houses under $250K in cost without having to pay capital gains tax.

And then there was Reagan. A man that played the role of President well in a time of prosperity. He had a sense of humor that he didn’t hide. You had to have seen the recap of the “open mike” incident, where Ronnie announces that the Soviet Union was now illegal and the bombing would start in five minutes. If Dubya had done this, the current batch of media reporters would have fried him in butter; Reagan was first admonished and then labeled a humorous man. Ronnie also caused the Soviet Union to overspend itself into a collapse. He tripled our deficit, but those prosperous 80’s he made us feel good about it. Was he a good President? I don’t know, but he made us feel good that we voted him in there, twice. I think we all slept better when we knew Ronnie (and more importantly, his “second in command,” in the form of Nancy) was in the White House.

Of course, aside from the $10 bill question, the bigger question is why did we so enjoy having an actor play the role of President, letting his cabinet and staff have control, rather than having a consummate politician in there? Given that it is the general consensus that Nancy had the reigns for about half of the 84-88 term, I can honestly say that I would have voted for Nancy, just as easily as I would have voted for Ronnie, and she was an actress in her pre-government life. And Clinton used a similar approach, trying to act in the role of President. He was very slick and smooth, but Billy hurt himself with his well oiled zipper and document shredder, but maybe there is something to this actor-playing-politician notion.

Nothing against the men, but I often find myself praying that neither Martin Sheen or Michael Douglass decide to run for the White House – I know nothing about their political beliefs, but they have had strong performances in the role of President, and for Americans, that might be enough. Hell, someone should run a poll and see if more people think that West Wing’s Sheen is the real life President, rather than W. Bush.

Of course, worse than that would be if all of this currency conversation helps to spark a movement to mess around with the “In God We Trust” logo, although I’m convinced that that can’t be far behind, either.