It's going to be hard to argue with people on the basis of what was "good". That's subjective, and the very basis for why there are separate parties.
I'd expand this to examples of either party undoing legislation the other championed and passed. It's exceedingly rare, in large part by design.
The reason Republicans are mentioned above is that they have a well documented public history of endorsing and carrying out these kinds of shenanigans. Democrats, though cut from the same cloth, somehow manage to be one step above on an imaginary decency scale.
We didn't even allow the 2001 Bush tax cuts to automatically expire at the end of 2010, despite control of the House, Senate, and White House passing from the Republicans to the Democrats during the intervening years.
Since the Republicans lacked 60 votes in the Senate and zero Democrats supported the Bush tax cuts, The law enacting them was passed using budget reconciliation rules.
> Budget reconciliation is a special parliamentary procedure of the United States Congress set up to expedite the passage of certain federal budget legislation in the Senate. The procedure overrides the Senate's filibuster rules, which may otherwise require a 60-vote supermajority for passage. Bills described as reconciliation bills can pass the Senate by a simple majority of 51 votes or 50 votes plus the vice president's as the tie-breaker
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States...
Using budget reconciliation rules automatically set a sunset date for the tax cuts, after which they would automatically expire.
When the tax cuts should have automatically expired at the end of 2010, the Democrats controlled the House, Senate and White House. Despite frequent claims over the decade that tax cuts for the rich were morally reprehensible, the Democrats did not allow the tax cuts to automatically expire, extending them for two years in the lame duck session of Congress, and then most were made permanent two years later before they should have expired again.
Isn't that the opposite of "undoing legislation"?
The main change at the border is a larger number of migrants. Migration trends are up globally, for a variety of reasons including climate change.
It's so easy for people to hyper-focus on "my side good" that they lose sight of the overall picture. Resisting an administration's agenda is pretty normal and expected... the people who voted for Mitch simply do not agree with the Biden agenda. Mitch (and other R's) are there to enact the agenda their constituents want. What a shocker...
Why is this surprising to you? Have you pondered, even for a few moments, what Democrats do when there's a Republican administration in office?
The president may be all we have, but he is constitutionally forbidden from acting like a king. Though, of course, that hasn't stopped presidents from trying.
This fails to realize Congress works entirely the way it was designed. As you said, inaction == lack of consensus.
Imaging running a country where significant ways of life (influenced by laws) change willy-nilly depending on the flavor of the day? The legal whiplash would be absurd.
So, people often look to the president as some sort of king analog, and demand action via Executive Order - then cry foul when the next president undoes the previous one's EO's... it's lunacy and not a good way to run a society.
Don't really think so.
The 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act subverted the intentions of the founders and clearly swayed the power balance back towards rural areas, even though they have equal representation in the senate.
I don’t think that’s correct. There is way too much propaganda coming from the parties to think that voters have made up their minds based on the facts. It’s actually quite hard to get the facts because the media is mostly reporting politics like they report a football match.
Of course these were not complete elimination of programs, but adjustments. And you could argue that there were other reasons besides partisanship, like the end of the Cold War and budgetary issues.
...you mean when the USSR collapsed, and Cold War ended?
The GOP has controlled the government mulitple times since ACA passed. That nothing was done shows it's a talking point.
Legislation is hard to overturn. Executive actions, less so.
But yeah a lot of things end up being campaign talking points. Like Obama saying they'd enshrine abortion rights into law and uh didn't.
[1]: https://www.npr.org/2017/07/27/539907467/senate-careens-towa...
[2]: https://ballotpedia.org/Timeline_of_ACA_repeal_and_replace_e...
The ACA is a classical example. Instead of improving it or proposing a real replacement, they campaign for repealing it and some incantations of "free market" without explaining how patients won't get screwed over even more than now.