Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Can't Always Spend What You Want

Gov. Blago threatens to cut spending
Please follow through with your threats

Come up with 1.5 billion dollars or else, is the message Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) has sent the Illinois House as he punts the state budget woes back to them. "The budget sent to me fails to meet the constitutional requirement that spending be matched by funding to pay for it," Blago said in a statement. Hey Rod, try this on for size. How about not asking for such a bloated budget and then you won't need so much more money!

In May the Illinois incompetents, I mean lawmakers passed a budget that was about 2 billion dollars short to fund Blago's socialist nanny state, then they went home for the summer. It must be nice to make at least 70K a year for a part-time job and have summer's off, but I digress.

As overpaid as politicians are, I do not want the governor to call them back into session. For starters these jokers get a daily per diem of $113 and I don't want to have to flip that bill. Also, truth be told, I don't see a reason this dilemma needs to be resolved. The less money government has the better off the people. Plain and simple.

Blago claims he will cut $110 million from schools, $260 million from social services and $600 million in health care for the poor. Notice how he has picked the services that can be used against legislatures in an election year.

The sad reality is that with some fiscal accountability, cutting patronage jobs and contracts and making government departments responsible and transparent, the state of Illinois would have more than enough money. That of course is a pipe dream with the king of corruption at the helm and his court of jesters in the House and Senate.


Gallup Poll Shows Dead Heat
Media won't tell you why results are bad for Obama

A few weeks back Illinois Senator Barack Obama became the clear winner of the Democratic Primary and was able to enjoy a slight bounce in the polls. 48/42 Obama lead presumptive GOP candidate John McCain, which resulted in a mere 5 point jump at best for Obama, a far cry from bounces previous Democratic nominees have had in recent memory.

Today Gallup announced that Obama and McCain are in a dead-heat at 45% each. While Obama's media allies are downplaying the results citing other polls showing him as much as fifteen points ahead, the Gallup poll and it's history cannot be denied.

In 1988 Michael Dukakis had a 14 point lead on George H. Bush. The Vice President would go on to win handily by 7 points. President Jimmy Carter lead Ronald Reagan by over 20 points, but he would go on to loose by over ten points. Historically Democrats needed large leads in the June Gallup poll to have any chance of winning in November.

Paulies Point wants readers to remember how unreliable early polling numbers are and in reality how unimportant national numbers are. We have an electoral college in the United States, so popular vote nationally is a moot result. As always the swing states will determine the next President of the United States.

While Obama is showing promise in red states such as North Carolina and Virginia, McCain is running strong in the blue states of Michigan and Pennsylvania. McCain will be very tough to defeat in Florida and Ohio will once again be a prize state.

The bottom line is that so much can happen between now and the first Tuesday in November. Does the Michelle Obama "Whitey" tape exist? Will Tony Rezko name Obama in a corruption scheme to lessen his prison term? Will John McCain refuse to get tough on the campaign trail? Will health issues develop creating skepticism about his ability to be President?

As I said, so much can happen.


Supreme court rejects death penalty for child rape
Ruling is one thing, but opinion is ignorant

By a 5 to 4 vote the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that permitted the death penalty as a sentence for individuals convicted of raping a child under the age of 12.

Your brilliant blogger is not strong proponent of the death penalty. I do believe it has it's place and capital punishment is a deterrent, which is why the possible sentence of death for murderer's should be a option for a judge and jury. As horrible as child-rape is I don't believe death is an appropriate punishment unless of course the victim is murdered as well.

While right-wing pundits are condemning the decision and leftists are running away from it, Paulies Point is more concerned about the opinion written by Justice Kennedy for the majority.

Citizens of the United States rely on judges to offer rulings and opinions that are based on facts, logic, common sense and most important enforce the constitution. However certain excerpts from Kennedy's opinion are based on nonsense and wishful thinking.

"In most cases justice is not better served by terminating the life of the perpetrator rather than confining him and preserving the possibility that he and the system will find ways to allow him to understand the enormity of his offense."

In the case before the court, Kennedy vs. Louisiana, the petitioner was appealing his death sentence for brutally raping his 8-year old step-daughter. Any monster who would commit such a heinous act will never be capable of understanding the "enormity of his offense." Even if he finds God or what have you, repents and understands what he did was wrong, how is justice being served? By no means is this a logical argument against the death penalty.

Most frightening about the majority opinion is that after countless paragraphs citing case law and how the majority of states do not permit the death penalty in cases where the victim wasn't murdered, Kennedy writes the following:

" There are measures of consensus other than legislation. Statistics about the number of executions may inform the consideration whether capital punishment for the crime of child rape is regarded as unacceptable in our society." and " Our determination that there is a consensus against the death penalty for child rape." - Justice Kennedy

Nowhere does Kennedy present any meaningful support for this so called "consensus." It's as if he realized that his written opinion lacked substance, so he pulled this idea out of thin air. Not exactly how I want the Supreme Court to base their rulings on.

On Thursday the highest court in the land will make a ruling on an important second amendment case. Regardless of the decision I can only hope that the opinion of the court doesn't appear to be written by a kid who hasn't completed his first year of law school.

Paulie

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Add to Technorati Favorites