One of my favorite laws to champion? M'lord, I'm hardly a ghost around these parts anymore - not to mention I've no clue what laws I do like to champion. Personally, I think I'm more fond of bringing back the pre-Reagan federal tax rates.
I do think that it's fascinating the first thing you espouse is, earlier today, dispassionate examination of economics. You then follow that by citing recent examples that seem to suggest distaste with what is happening under Obama (TARP - well, okay, somewhat Bush, but I'm sure that's some nasty "big government intervention") - Solyndra, for instance. Nobody brings up Solyndra except for like Glenn Beck listeners.
But what you're decrying is private enterprise profiting off of government expenditures. That, my dear friend, is not the market cornered by any single party. For every "Solyndra," I could counter with a right-leaning private enterprise (KBR, baby!) that profits to the hundreds of millions, if not billions, in annual revenue. So it is either that you find distaste with the way government is not a fully sufficient public enterprise (i.e., that we should have more public goods, assets, and jobs - not less); or, that you simply disagree with the way the United States economy works - but you use your ideological perspective to cherry pick the kind of profit you find distasteful. Green energy receives scorn, while prison loaf is conveniently ignored.
I've experienced the kind of specificity you're speaking of in federal announcements. 100%. RFPs, job calls, etc. They're pretty bureaucratically inflexible (which is, it seems, the result of what direction you want your corruption coming from - hyperspecificity leading to accusations that it was written with one person in mind, or such a broad degree of "well, we don't *really* have to meet this qualification" that Joe from down the block (think Billy Carter, Roger Clinton) is now the head data scientist in charge of the NIJ's report writing squad. Pick your poison. I had it out with someone a few months ago b/c I told them they were being so specific in the field they were requiring for education that they were overlooking other very very capable degrees/backgrounds for the job. They were rigid. Their loss, I told them - but also their choice. They don't have to accept a PhD in dance if they don't want to. But I've seen plenty that were fine - job calls and RFPs. Luck of the draw.
The same is the case in private enterprise. If you look at job calls, you've surely seen job calls in your field that you KNOW were drafted and written by someone who doesn't understand your field in the *slightest*. Yet they're the ones who first view your resume, and therefore who first cut you: not for not being qualified, but because you didn't meet this silly contradictory/nonsensical clause in the job call.
That's life, man. "People shit up" is a rule of this world. Singling out government for bad calls and misuse of funds is a moralistic judgment, and you're conveniently ignoring that while trying to tell us to take emotion out of the equation.
Which makes me think you're a Libertarian. Only Libertarians treat their economic philosophy like an unassailable religion, to be highly regarded, overprotected, and incapable of being critiqued. The irony being that only Libertarians fail to see how irrational and emotional they sound in trying to assert the points of what they think are clear, objective tenets of their philosophy.
"...as long as there's true competition..." lollllllllllll. No True Scotsman, my friend.