That's not how the opposition is undoes something. The opposition reduces funding and scope and passes legislation that effectively nullifies previous laws.
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.
I was mostly focused on the policy part of their comment. A lot of the changes come based on a level or two removed. You generally don't see laws fully flip flopping. Instead it's quite common for someone to get appointed and then their decisions are the ones that change policies (especially internal policies at various agencies). SCOTUS, both now and in the past is a good example of the external law/policies changing based on interpretation. But yeah, actual repeal of laws is very rare.
Which ones specifically? I haven't followed how the individual elements have played out. Many of the elements seem minor, but I don't remember if the CBO broke down which portions would create the deficit. I assume it's the corporate pieces, but don't know which ones.
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.
I would give the example of the 2001 Bush tax cuts.
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
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.
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.
The great increase in illegal entry into the country through the southern border is a good recent example. Though, I suppose this is predicated upon it being "good policy" that illegal immigration be slowed.
I would love to see your sources; everything I've seen across the partisan spectrum shows a large increase from the 2010-2020 period to 2020 and onwards.
But the Democrats haven't made an¥ significant changes to immigration policy. In fact, they offered an bipartisan immigration bill that tilted significantly toward the Republicans' wishlist and the GOP rejected because Trump wants to run on immigration and giving Biden a political win in that area was unacceptable to thim (even though many on the left found the proposed legislation very disagreeable).
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.
