However, the Republicans controlled the Senate all through Reagan's 2 terms--every one who knows anything about how our government functions also knows that the Senate leads and the House follows. Was the sequestration a new idea. No, republicans pushed it through in 1985 . "So they passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act, which did just that, as U.S. News explained at the time:<quoted text>
Perhaps you just don't know the facts. I'll assume through no fault of your own.
97th Congress (1981-1983)
Senate: 53(R); 46(D); 1(other)
House: 242(D); 189(R)
98th Congress (1983-1985)
Senate: 54(R); 46(D)
House: 268(D); 167(R)
99th Congress (1985-1987)
Senate: 53(R); 47 (D)
House: 253 (D); 182(R)
100th Congress (1987-1989)
Senate: 55(D); 45(R)
House: 258 (D); 177 (R)
In fact, Democrats controlled the house from 1981 to 1989 throughout the entire Reagan administration.
So no more excuses.
"Under the law, enacted in the final days of the 1985 session, Congress and the President must agree on a budget that meets annual deficit-reduction targets, or spending will be cut automatically under a complex system called "sequestration." Sound familiar?
Then, as now, the cuts were evenly divided among defense and nondefense programs. Then, as now, onlookers warned the cuts would leave food and drugs uninspected, airport runways unwatched, and soldiers unequipped.
[READ: 10 Industries That Will Be Hurt Most by the Sequester]
"All of us, and that includes the President and his advisers, will have to give a little if we are to avoid the wreckage," said Pete Domenici, the Senate's budget chairman at the time, sounding very much like current House Speaker John Boehner.
So what happened? It didn't work. The Supreme Court declared the automatic cuts unconstitutional, and when a revised version of the bill passed in 1987, Congress mostly evaded the cuts, and the deficit continued to grow. " Check this out: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/press-past/2... Thus, Reaganomics was a failure in the 1980's and un-Constitutional and the plan to revive it by Paul Ryan and John Boehner has also been proved to be a failure --so why do republicans stick to failed , impoverished ideas? They must really hate American across the board prosperity equally shared by all.