France has seen the latest outbreak of the politician’s double standard. It’s a story as old as politics itself. It goes like this: the politicians decide that, for the good of the country, it’s important to enact some new, typically painful law or regulation of private behavior. The politicians also decide, of course, that it’s equally important that they not be bothered with compliance.
This week Jerome Cahuzac, the former French minister who was responsible for prosecuting tax evasion, finally admitted he had a secret bank account in Switzerland and had been lying about it. His admission came two weeks after he resigned following reports that he was funneling funds to the account to avoid the harsh taxes the French government has levied and after Cahuzac had strenuously denied having the account. Now he says he is “devastated by remorse” and begs forgiveness. “Devastated by remorse?” Or, embarrassed that he was caught in a colossal lie and thought he could get away with avoiding the law that applied to everyone else?
In America, we see this kind of behavior from our political classes all the time. Congress passes laws that regulate the activities in every workplace except congressional offices. Politicians lecture us about global warming and not relying on fossil fuels then fly on gas-guzzling chartered jets rather than rub elbows with the great unwashed on standard commercial flights. Presidents and Vice Presidents tell us we need to tighten our belts, but enjoy lavish and repeated vacations on the taxpayers’ dime.
What’s sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander — period.
From a budgeting standpoint, the judiciary is unique. Unlike other agencies and entities, it doesn’t operate grant programs or distribute benefit checks or buy advertising to discourage drunk driving or promulgate regulations. Instead, it exists solely to resolve disputes and try those accused of federal crimes. Its budget is spent largely on people — on judges and their law clerks, bailiffs and court reporters, docket clerks and security personnel — who make the system function smoothly.
In case you missed 
“Urgent” is one way to describe the financial condition of the Postal Service; another apt word would be “calamitous.” The Postal Service lost $15.9 billion last year. The elimination of Saturday delivery to most Postal Service customers will save $2 billion annually, so the Postal Service has a ways to go to get back into the black. The president of the National Association of Letter Carriers, predictably, calls the decision a “disastrous idea” that would hurt the millions of Americans who depend on Saturday delivery, but I think eliminating Saturday delivery is an easy and obvious cost-saving decision. I, for one, am willing to grudgingly give up the possibility of getting junk mail, catalogs, and political contribution solicitations over the weekend.
Why has this happened? There are a lot of reasons, of course, but I think one significant cause is that we’ve changed how we think about our political leaders and what they should be doing. What attributes are featured in political ads these days? Democrat or Republican, the candidate is always portrayed as a “fighter” who will “fight” for his constituents in opposing unnamed forces of evil. Important qualities like thoughtfulness, cool deliberation, and attention to detail are ignored. When was the last time you saw a candidate in a political ad sitting and reading something? Instead, they’re always out, talking, talking, talking to groups, and vigorously gesturing as they are doing so.
For example, the bill included 
As 
The stated reason for Congress’ action is that the word “lunatic” is “pejorative.” The sponsor of the bill effecting the ban says “[f]ederal law should reflect the 21st Century understanding of mental illness and disease.” Huh? Sure, “lunatic” obviously traces its roots to the notion that the moon affected mental health, but so what? “Lunatic” is a perfectly good word that 
The 
The executive summary of the report notes that, in 2010, Congress more than tripled the budget for the CIO, from an $18 million baseline to $62 million, to enhance information technology security for the agency. In 2011, the budget was set at $40 million, more than double the $18 million baseline, for that same purpose. The CIO therefore received $64 million in additional money over the two-year period, and it funded 16 projects with that sum.
More importantly, the story of the internship program reveals a deeper truth about the bureaucratic mindset. Why would anyone charged with enhancing IT security think an internship program was an appropriate use of the money in the first place? The real answer, I’d wager, is empire building. Bureaucrats want to have ongoing programs they can administer and people they can supervise; those programs get built into their job descriptions, become part of their goals and objectives for the year, and help them to move up the government wage scale. We can only imagine how the proponents of the internship program touted their development of the “networking website,” their selection of housing, and their development of the selection process as key performance successes during the year.
Yes, Mr. Webner. 
The Congressional Budget Office forecasts that this year’s deficit will be $1,170,000, 000,000 — $1.17 trillion. That breathtakingly huge number comes on the heels of the $1,300,000,000,000 deficit in the last fiscal year. Our deficits topped $1,000,000,000,000 during each of President Obama’s three years in office.
There’s plenty of blame to go around. Congress has shirked its responsibility to pass honest budgets and specific spending bills, administrators have wasted tax dollars, and huge segments of the American public have an apparently insatiable appetite for federal benefits and perks. But I have grown sick to death of President Obama’s constant attempts to dodge his share of the blame for the ignominious failure of the government that he — and he alone — heads. Successful Presidents are able to lead and work within our political system to deal the issues of the day. President Obama, in contrast, throws out unrealistic budgets that don’t even receive the votes of members of his own party in Congress and then blames his predecessor — the one who left office more than three years ago — for our mounting debt problems. Meanwhile, the spending and deficit binge continues. I don’t view President Obama’s approach as quality leadership. In fact, I don’t view it as leadership at all — and if a President doesn’t lead, he has failed on the most fundamental part of his job.
Currently the internt is “governed” (if you can call it that) by a a collection of non-profit entities. The result has been a lot of freedom and not much regulation. Governments, however, are concerned that they don’t have sufficient control over this massive, still developing communications medium. The U.N. proposal, backed by governments in China, Russia, Brazil, India, and other countries, would give the ITU more authority over cybersecurity, data privacy, technical standards and the Web’s address system.
Today, for example, 
Indeed, the whole idea of judicial review is that the democratically elected members of Congress and the President might be swayed by the popular passions of the day, and therefore only judges appointed for life who are removed from politics should determine whether a statute contravenes the Constitution. To be sure, it’s not a power the Supreme Court has used routinely, but over the last two centuries the Court has not hesitated to strike down statutes that are found to be unconstitutional. The Court’s power to do so therefore is, quite literally, not “unprecedented.”
