[…] does Congress have the power to break contracts? The Department of Justice says no and that any contractual obligations between federal agencies and ACORN have to be met, regardless of Congress’ attempt to defund the controversial group
While I see the point here, I would find it more compelling if the federal government had a more general respect for contract law, rather just in cases which align ideologically with the MAL. See, for instance, the respect for contracts with regard to the GM bailout.
Speaking of bailing out GM, we have GM stating a realized gain of $80B based on forgiven loans, while GM has a market capitalization of roughly $2.5B. Puts Orrin Judd’s strange new respect for bailouts in perspective, doesn’t it?
But what should we expect? When government gets involved in things that can be handled by the private sector, it does much worse because it’s both player and referee and disregards any regulations it finds inconvenient. We can see this in the first item above, or this item from Instapundit, or helping the ethanol industry, or cash for clunkers. And these are just the ones I happened to have accumulated in my browser tabs since my last roundup.
In a similar vein, it is interesting to contrast the treatment of Major Hasan and SEALS who roughed up the target of a special ops grab. I find the latter ridiculous — if you’re sending in the SEALs, then it’s going to be rough. If you’re not willing to accept that, then the mistake is using SEALs.
Everything has its costs, and the ability to pretend state intervention doesn’t is what leads to things like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promising that POR care will eliminate disease and make people immortal..