With reference to what can be laid at the feet of Democratic presidents and specifically Bubba, in January '95, Republicans took control of both houses after the '94 midterm gains of 58 seats House and 7 seats Senate. Sometimes called the Republican Revolution, or as my wife would put it: Gingrich's "Contract ON [sic] America". So whatever economic and social trial balloons were being launched, they owe their "success" not simply to bipartisan "complicity" but to the express will of the party holding a majority of legislative seats.
jack
Jack: As I said above, you got it right. The republicans were not effective to check Bill Clinton's agenda. In theory a majority can pass legislation, but in practice a minority can filibuster things to a stand-still. There was a republican effort to regulate the Government Sponsored Entities (F-Mae & F-Mac) in 1995, by republican senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, but a democratic party-line vote kept the bill from reaching the senate floor for a vote. Meanwhile, the relaxing of credit criteria by Bill Clinton needed no legislative approval, but was strictly administrative rule making. The only overt complicity was within the Clinton administration.
Keep in mind that it takes a super-majority to squelch a minority party-line voting block backed up by the threat of a filibuster. The republicans may or may not have supported Hagel's bill 100%, but we'll never know. However, all Clinton had to do if it passed both houses was to veto it as being contrary to his administrative policy, and the republican majority was short of the super-majority necessary to over-ride the veto. Checkmate!
It remains to be seen if a republican minority in the next congress will be equally effective to reign in BHO's agenda.
