[acdha]

I’d also add that doing all of this by breaking laws/contracts makes it likely that the net cost will be greater than the advertised savings. Every one of the contractors they stiffed has pretty straight forward grounds for a breach of contract suit and every government employee they said was fired for poor performance has grounds and a strong incentive to sue to clear their name.

All of this makes everything more expensive in the future: new contracts are going to have higher overhead to account for new legal and accounting costs, and unless the government will never hire anyone again they’re going to struggle to get skilled employees at all, much less at the same salary, when it’s clear that they’d be signing up to be treated like this. The direct cost is bad but the productivity cost will be even greater and last for decades.

[jfengel]

The government has a fair bit of flexibility to cancel contracts without penalty. They usually don't, and of course nobody has ever seen it as this scale.

You're probably correct about the employment law. That will take more legal finesse to keep them from having to pay a ton of money. Fortunately for them they also own the judiciary. It's not 100% reliable, but they've for 4 out of 5 needed votes locked in at the top level

[ethbr1]

Most contract or employment disputes aren't going to the Supreme Court.

And expecting lower federal courts packed with conservative judges to vote in favor of ignoring contracts?

We'll see, but I wouldn't take that bet...

[jfengel]

They aren't packed with conservatives. They are packed with Republicans.