Congress should not be free to demand arbitrary changes to laws as a condition of funding unrelated activities or as a condition of not blowing up the world's financial system (the debt ceiling, in two weeks).
Do you really see these two options as equivalent?
Do you have any idea how legislation is made and enforced? I'd argue north of 80% of laws currently int he books aren't being adequately applied or enforced, all because of political considerations, either by Congress or the President. That's the way it should be,at least with Congress, because you can't do everything. With the president, it's a different story, as his job is specifically to carry out the law, not interpret it. But even then, the legal system is such a clusterfuck that we've had to create these special "signing statements" where the executive tries his best to explain why he's constrained to do inertial things one way or the other.
We passed the point of expecting all laws to magically become reality a long time ago. Like over 200 years or more.