HW4.6

REAGAN'S POLICIES OF DEREGULATION AND DEVOLUTION OF GOVERNMENT POWER FIT HIS BRAND, BUT INCREASING THE FEDERAL DEFICIT DID NOT.

Reagan's believed that “deregulation would make businesses more efficient and competitive” (HA 56.3), and his policies fit this brand. Reagan "replace[d] tough enforcement of environmental laws by a "voluntary" approach," so businesses could decide what they wanted to do for themselves (Zinn). Policies like these reduced governmental control of businesses, therefore fitting Reagan's 'brand.'

"Curb[ing] the size and influence of the Federal establishment" (Reagan's first inaugural address) was one of Reagan's 'brands' that his policies lived up to. Continuing Nixon's 'New Federalism' policy and establishing block grants, which were lump-sum payments to states, who could use it as they wished, lessened federal power and gave states more responsibilities, thus following his brand.

Reducing government spending was one of Reagan's 'brands', because the US "for decades... piled deficit upon deficit" (Reagan's first inaugural address), but his policies did not fit this brand. From 1982 to the end of Reagan's term, annual deficits exceeded $100 billion, due to tax cuts and military spending (HA 56.3). Clearly, high deficits did not fit his 'brand.'

HW4.5

REAGANS POLICIES OF DEREGULATION AND DEVOLUTION OF GOVERNMENT POWER FIT HIS BRAND, BUT INCREASING GOVERNMENT DEFICIT DID NOT.

Reagan's deregulation policies fit his 'brand.' According to Zinn, Reagan "replace[d] tough enforcement of environmental laws by a "voluntary" approach," so businesses could decide what they wanted to do for themselves. Also under Reagan, the EPA 'lower[ed] its federal standards of air and water quality' (HA 56.3). Policies like these reduced governmental control of businesses and promoted economic efficiency, therefore fitting Reagan's 'brand.'

"Cutting the size of government" (Schweikart) was one of Reagan's 'brands' that his policies lived up to. Reagan's policies that supported the devolution of government power includes the continuation of Nixon's 'New Federalism' policy through block grants, which were lump-sum payments to states, who could use it as they wished, without government interference.

Reducing government spending was one of Reagan's 'brands', because the US "for decades... piled deficit upon deficit" (Reagan's first inaugural address), but his policies did not fit this brand. During Reagan's term, annual deficits exceeded $100 billion, due to tax cuts and military spending (85% increase in Dept. of Defence's budget). Clearly, high deficits did not fit his 'brand.'

reagan revolution

What was Reagan's 'brand' of Conservatism in the US, 1980s?

Low taxes, free market, small government, cuts in social spending, return to traditional social values

Did Reagan's Policies fit that 'brand'?

For the most part, yes.

He expanded Nixons policy of 'New Federalism' by distributing tax revenues to states and handing them responsibility for many programs in health, education, and welfare (block grants).

To solve the economic problem of high inflation and high unemployment, Reagan proposed to lower taxes and increase private enterprise through supply side economics, which is a theory that states that economic growth depends on increasing the supply of goods and services through tax cuts.

Reagan pushed for deregulation, which is the removal of government regulations to promote free enterprise. These included getting rid of laws designed to curb pollution and ensure safety in the workplace.

He opposed social programs and ended many of Lyndon Johnson's anti poverty programs, including food stamps and aid to the elderly, poor, and disabled.

HW4.4

WEALTHY MIDDLE AGED MEN AND FEMINISTS WHO PUSHED FOR NO FAULT DIVORCE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIGH DIVORCE RATES

Wealthy middle aged men are partially responsible for high divorce rates because of their 'me' attitudes. According to Tom Wolfe, 'wife shucking' became 'normal behavior' during the 70s. When famous men left their wives for younger women, (e.g. Eugene McCarthy) it went largely unnoticed. This behavior contributed to high divorce rates.

Feminists who fought for no-fault divorce are partially responsible for the high divorce rate. According to Schweikart, feminists gave men 'a remarkable gift, pushing as they had for no-fault divorce', leading to new laws that allowed easy, 'inexpensive divorces'. This contributed to skyrocketing divorce rates, with 1.1 million in 1979.

Popular 70s TV shows show that society was changing and therefore feminists didn't have to push for no-fault divorce, which contributed to high divorce rates. In All In The Family, Gloria is portrayed as an educated, liberal woman with a job, and refutes her conservative father's sexist protests with "times have changed." This indicates that attitudes towards women in the 70s were already changing, making new divorce laws unnecessary.

HW4.3

WEALTHY MIDDLE AGED MEN AND FEMINISTS WHO PUSHED FOR NO FAULT DIVORCE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIGH DIVORCE RATES

Wealthy middle aged men are partially responsible for high divorce rates because of their 'me' attitudes. They often left their current wives for younger, more attractive women, leaving their ex-wives to fend for themselves. This irresponsible and reckless behavior ("Jennifer Fever") led to higher divorce rates.

Feminists who fought for no-fault divorce are partially responsible for the high divorce rate. Their advocacy of this policy caused divorce laws to change in the early 70s that allowed inexpensive, easy divorces. People could now obtain divorces without legal problems, causing divorce rates to skyrocket (1.1 million in 1979.)

HW4.2

"Who is to blame for America's trend toward high divorce rates, starting in the 1970s?"

The trend toward high divorce rates can be attributed to the actions of wealthy middle-aged men as well as the feminists who fought for no-fault divorce.

Middle-aged men who had the typical "Me" attitude of the 70s contributed to high divorce rates. They often left their current wives for younger, more attractive women, leaving their ex-wives to fend for themselves. This irresponsible and reckless behavior ("Jennifer Fever") resulted in the high divorce rate.

Also, men's inability to understand the 'problem that has no name' contributed to higher divorce rates. Women were delegated to the role of housewife, or stereotypically female jobs, and were expected to remain content. Naturally, women were dissatisfied with their restricted lives, and therefore this lead to higher divorce rates.

Feminists who fought for no-fault divorce are partially responsible for the high divorce rate. The passage of this law meant that men and women who were dissatisfied with their marriage now had an easy way out. Because of this, divorce rates rose greatly.

HW4.1

1. “Mr. Dash” is Sam Dash, an attorney for the Senate Watergate Committee. What does he hope to discover, overall from his questions of Mr. Kalmbach?

He is trying to see if the Watergate defendants received bribes from Nixon's people, in exchange for keeping quiet about this and past criminal activities.

2. Why do you suppose Mr. Dash makes Mr. Kalmbach recount his trip from the West Coast to Washington, DC?

Possibly to keep Kalmbach honest, and later his statements can be checked to make sure that all the times and dates are accurate and true.

3. What is the message of Doc C?

The intended audience of doc c was the senate, the message Dash was trying to convey to themwas that Nixon's people were undoubtedly paying off the burglars involved in Watergate in order for them to keep quiet about it.

4. What is the significance of the “$50,000 - $100,000”?

It is significant because $100000 is an extremely large amount of money and this could mean that it definitely could not have just been money for 'legal fees' and others but rather to bribe people with.

5. What is one value of this document for the historian investigating whether men working for President Nixon broke the law or not?

One value is that since it is an actual transcript of a hearing where the man who supplied the money could have his say on the matter, and he was under oath, so one could assume that he is telling the truth, or at least not blatantly lying about it.

6. Is that value based on origin or purpose?

Origin.