Last year, the Bush administration argued in front of the Supreme Court that it should not have to enforce the laws it doesn't want to. Specifically, the Bush administration argued that (1) carbon dioxide emissions are not a "greenhouse gas" as defined by the Clean Air Act; and (2) even if carbon dioxide were a greenhouse gas, the EPA should not be required to enforce emissions standards on carbon dioxide. This year, in the 5-4 Massachusetts v. EPA case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Administration does have to enforce the nation's laws, regardless of whether or not it agrees with them.

Now, Daily Kos reports that the Bush administration does not want to enforce broader testing of cows for mad cow disease:

The Bush administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease.

The Agriculture Department tests fewer than 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. A beef producer in the western state of Kansas, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, wants to test all of its cows.

Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone should test its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive tests on their larger herds as well.

The Agriculture Department regulates the test and argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry.

Of course, the administration refuses to enforce its laws for the same reason it did before: its constituency. I'm not speaking of the American people to whom the Administration is ultimately responsible; I'm referring to the big business donors whose bidding the Administration does. Do you think President Bush didn't want to enforce the Clean Air Act just for funsies? No; energy company and auto-manufacturing friends would have objected to those standards, because they don't want to spend the money to innovate. Likewise, large meat-packing companies don't want to have to change their business models, because it's expensive and, as Daily Kos points out, it could actually benefit small meat-packers who don't have as many cattle to test.

Why is corporate welfare so much more acceptable than individual welfare?