Aural learners can listen to this through WBEZ.

All this talk about Illinois' budget crunch has gotten me to thinking about Jose Padilla.

In case you, like me, immediately zone out whenever the word "budget" is mentioned, the state of Illinois is a little poorer than it expected to be this year. Governor George Ryan has spent the last several weeks pleading with Illinois' legislature to pass his balanced budget, but the legislature is like, "Our constituents hate it when we raise taxes and cut spending," and then the governor is like, "You guys are so lame," and then the legislature is like, "Are not," and Ryan is like, "Are so," and then they shoot spitballs at one another.

The end result of all this is that we're probably either going to borrow a bunch of money, or cut spending on some useless government programs like public schools, and raise taxes on cigarettes and casinos. As a rule, most people are okay with those taxes, since no one's running around singing the praises of cigarettes and casinos. Well, except in Rosemont.

The problem is that the Illinois constitution has this idiotic Article that says we can't spend more money than we have. I call this idiotic because I myself have been a debtor nation of one for several years now, and it's working out just fine. When the credit card companies call me to ask about why I haven't paid my bills, I just tell them, "Look! A purple elephant!" and hang up the phone real fast. I don't see why Illinois can't implement a similar policy.

But since we don't have time to repeal Article VIII of the Illinois constitution and we certainly don't want our leaders to raise taxes or cut spending, maybe we should just ignore the constitution. "But wait," you say. "Illinois can't just ignore its own constitution." Enter Jose Padilla, the alleged would-be dirty bomber with Chicago roots.

The federal government has no intention of charging Jose Padilla with a crime. And since Padilla was born here, they can't keep him in jail on some vague immigration charge the way they have with 150 Arab immigrants living in America. So they're just going to keep Padilla in prison indefinitely. As one congressman told the AP, "He's going to stay in the can until we're through with al-Qaeda." Is that constitutional? Not unless Jose Padilla is a "foreign combatant," which is what the government keeps calling him, even though he is in fact a guy from the West Side of Chicago. But since we can't convict him of a crime, and we don't want him walking the streets, we're just going to make like he's foreign and keep him in jail until we're good and finished with terrorism.

I don't hold Jose Padilla in high regard. He doesn't seem like a very charming or personable individual, and to hear the government tell it, he wants to kill me. And although it would solve most of my financial problems, I don't want to die. So I don't like Jose Padilla. But I also don't like my former girlfriend Karen. Karen is a bad person, and she should be kept separate from society so as to ensure that she does not dump again. But it wouldn't be right to incarcerate Karen until my personal War on Heartbreak is over. Though God knows I'd like to.

If Jose Padilla is guilty of conspiracy and the government wants to keep him in custody, then the constitution requires a trial, even if it would reveal intelligence information. And if they can't convict him of a crime, he must be set free, although the government is welcome to keep him under extremely tight surveillance. But it's not constitutional to lock up an American citizen because he might, at some point in the future, commit a crime.

It's not constitutional, but it is great news for our state government. The message from the federal government to Illinois is clear: when the constitution is inconvenient, ignore it. So lower those taxes! Raise that spending! Do the easy thing rather than the right thing!