China's Defense Budget up 17.6 Percent

China continues to build up their military and threaten America without a wimper from our so-called leadership in Washington. It is the same kind of indifference that existed prior to 9-11. It will continue to be ignored until there is a conflict between our two sides, probably over Taiwan:

China's defense budget for 2008 will be up 17.6 percent from last year to more than $58 billion, a parliamentary spokesman announced Tuesday.

Jiang Enzhu, spokesman for the National People's Congress, whose session opens Wednesday, told reporters in Beijing the budget represents an increase of nearly $8.8 billion from last year's actual military spending, Xinhua reported.

Then there is the highly provocative hacking the Chinese are engaging in:

China rejected a U.S. report concluding that the Chinese military is secretly increasing spending to break into U.S. military computer systems, expand its Navy, and invest in intercontinental nuclear missiles and weapons to destroy satellites.

Speaking of Taiwan:

China warned Tuesday that Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian will "pay a dear price" if he continues with current pro-independence plans.

Texas Gets B+ Rating, Runs a $3.3 Billion Shortfall

So much for ratings of State governments:

Texas' state government got a B-plus in a report card released Monday by The Pew Center on the States. The center ranked the states based on how well they manage their budgets, staffs, infrastructure and information. A closer look:Texas' grade: B+. The state made a B in 2005, when the last report card was issued.

Here's the reality that really matters, not some worthless rating system:

Texas would lose more than $3.3 billion in Medicaid funding if Congress doesn't stop new rules designed to arrest the growth of federal health care spending, according to a congressional report issued Monday.

The new rules target hospitals and other organizations that use Medicaid to provide health care to the uninsured. In a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission estimated that the changes to hospital reimbursements would create a shortfall that could imperil health care for 185,000 patients.

Hillary Still Hiding her First Lady Phone Logs

The Clintons have been trying to stall any and all releasing of records that might derail and candidacy that is on the verge of collapsing anyway:

Hillary Clinton has taken heat throughout her presidential campaign for not forcing the release of documents detailing her activities during her time as first lady. Conservative advocacy group Judicial Watch and rival Barack Obama, among others, have called on Clinton to intervene to expedite the release of the documents.

Obama had this to say on the matter: "We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history. And not releasing, I think, these records — at the same time, Hillary, that you're making the claim that this is the basis for your experience — I think, is a problem."

Now the Associated Press reports that the National Archives said today that "it expects to release Hillary Rodham Clinton's schedules as first lady later this month, but has asked a judge to delay the release of thousands of her telephone logs for one to two years."

Clinton critics suggest that the Clintons are intervening to keep the papers secret[...]

Obama Must Build a Movement Beyond Winning White House

This is an excellent article on how its not enough to just win the White House. Obamamania must get beyond just winning the White House. We need a movement that will sweep out the old guard that has run this country on behalf of the few for so long:

For her win was the product not just of electoral momentum but a political movement. For several years now online activists have been building a progressive counterweight to rightward drift within the Democratic party. In general elections, they attack Republicans. In primaries, they support progressives. And in between time they light a fire under Democrats lest they forget why they were elected.

Edwards was, among other things, a product of that movement. It made her candidacy viable and sustained it after her narrow defeat in 2006. If she goes to Congress and sells out, they will turn on her. If she delivers progressive policies and comes under fire, they will support her. The interests of her candidacy and their priorities coincided. But they are not identical.

As the primary race reaches its denouement, Obama needs to reflect on how he can nurture a similar relationship with his base - not just to sustain his candidacy but to bolster his prospects of actually delivering on his promises. Obama has been described as running a grassroots movement. This is only half true. It is certainly grassroots. In the various states that I have seen it operate there are plenty of local volunteers and local staff. At web-driven meet-ups people get together, independent of the campaign. On Facebook his candidacy has a life of its own. One of the reasons he has won every caucus state is because his supporters are far more dedicated and far better organised at a local level than Clinton's.

But it is not a movement. It has no purpose or meaning beyond getting him elected. Once he wins or loses it will cease to exist. It operates not from the bottom up but the top down. The change he refers to is principally a change in leadership. The chant "Yes we can", in essence, means yes he can.

[...]What Obama does have is a highly professional electoral campaign that has proved itself adept at getting people involved at every level and harnessing new technologies to that end. So far so good. It is perfectly possible (although by no means inevitable) that by the end of tomorrow night Obama will effectively be the nominee. His team could be forgiven for dwelling on making that immediate prospect a reality.

But then what? If Obama is serious about his desire to fundamentally change the way America operates at home and abroad then he will have take on entrenched, vested interests to beat John McCain and deliver on his promises.

[...]An electoral coalition of independents, wealthy progressives, African Americans, white men and the young have come together to vote for him, but has yet to mobilise itself into a political movement that can support him. A movement sparked by the issues his candidacy has raised that moves beyond his personality as a candidate.

Were he to win, he would need to tap their outrage at the pharmaceutical companies, Halliburton, lobbyists, Pentagon torturers and corporate tax-dodgers. He would need them sufficiently empowered to confront the banks over their lending practices, multinationals over outsourcing, and universities over rising fees. And in his negotiations with Congress and other powerbrokers he would need to know the limits to what he can concede without antagonising his base.

Obama cannot turn this around on his own any more than Bush got America into this mess on his own. Enough of the public had to be actively complicit in the Bush agenda for it to be possible to make things this bad. Indeed, the right has been extraordinarily adept in this regard. When Bush nominated Harriet Miers or sought to pass immigration reform, they blocked him. When he cut taxes and started war, they backed him. Without them his presidency would have crumbled sooner, and even more dramatically. Enough of the public would have to be equally complicit in Obama's agenda for him to right Bush's wrongs.

Obama: Hillary Clinton Getting a "Little Desperate"

This is an excerpt from a Nightline interview to be shown on Monday:

The Obama campaign accused the Clinton campaign of "fear-mongering."

"I think she has got a little desperate toward the end of this campaign," Obama told "Nightline's" Terry Moran, while campaigning in Ohio. "[She] has been a lot more aggressive in her negative attacks.

"As I've pointed out, we've actually had a pretty significant moment in the last several years, that called people's judgment into question. And that was the war in Iraq."

On the war:

Regarding the Iraq War, this weekend, Clinton told reporters that if she runs against McCain, she will "put forth my lifetime of experience. Sen. Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."

Obama disagrees with that characterization. "I was in the midst of a U.S. Senate race," he said. "It wasn't simply a speech. It was an ongoing opposition."

On experience:

On the question of experience, Obama welcomes the contrast between him and Clinton, who has repeatedly described herself as someone who is "tested" and "ready."

"I think the question is, how do you know any president is ready?" Obama said. "[Until] you're president, you haven't made these decisions."

"What people can take a look at is how I exercised judgment on key foreign policy questions over the last several years," he said. "And I think they can have confidence. ... More often than not, I have shown judgment that was superior to some of these people who are claiming much lengthier experience."

As part of her proven experience, Clinton has highlighted her visits to more than 80 countries, her time spent in the White House and her service on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"Look, I've lived overseas," said Obama. "I have family overseas. I have served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."

As for Clinton's experience in the White House, Obama is dubious. "It is true that I've not lived in the White House," he said. "Although, one of the tough things about Sen. Clinton's campaign has been the degree to which she takes credit for good things that happened and doesn't take credit for bad things that happened."

And what about temperament:

Obama believes that his "matter of temperament" best prepares him for the White House.

"One of the things that I've known about myself for a long time," he said, "is that, in difficult or stressful moments, I don't get rattled And I don't get rattled during campaigns. I don't get rattled when things are up ... and I don't get too low when things are down."

Why Hillary Lost: "Mrs Clinton Tries Hard to Fake Sincerity"

It took a British newspaper columnist to expose the real Hillary Clinton:

When Texas and Ohio vote in Tuesday’s Democratic primaries, they may bring Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the presidency to an end. If she loses either of those states, her bid is over barring the formalities. This is a position few expected her to be in. Not long ago, success in the primaries and victory in the general election were regarded as almost inevitable. What went wrong?

For the answer, one should turn (as always) to the teachings of Marx. “The secret of success in life is sincerity,” Groucho once famously observed. “If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”

This truth about the human condition applies with particular force to politics. Mrs Clinton tries hard to fake sincerity – so hard it is painful to watch. Sometimes, in fact, I suspect that she really is sincere and only looks as though she is faking. Barack Obama, on the other hand, may actually be sincere – and if he is not, he fakes it so well it makes no difference. Elections are won and lost formany reasons, but if I had to point to just one in the present case, this would be it.

It is surely telling that the most effective moments in Mrs Clinton’s campaign have been those rare times when a real person has appeared to break through: the tears in New Hampshire, the moving and seemingly unaffected tribute to wounded soldiers at the end of the Houston debate the other day. But for most of the time she has veered from one false personality to another, often during the course of a single debate or interview. One moment she would be acting tough, the next warm; now aloof, now approachable; now a fun person, fond of a joke (that was the worst), now stern and serious. In every moment of repose came that scary rictus smile, to emphasise the lack of authenticity and remind one irresistibly of Jack Nicholson in The Shining.

Meet The Press Transcript 3-2-08: Looks Grim for Hillary

Clintonista, James Carville, was forced to admit that if Hillary Clinton doesn't win Tuesday she is toast (read the entire transcript here):

MR. SHRUM: Do you agree with me that if Obama carries one state, it's effectively over?

MR. CARVILLE: It is very, very, very difficult. And I've--and, and I said that earlier; President Clinton has said it. It becomes exceedingly difficult if she, if she loses either Ohio or Texas. That's, that's evident. You got to...

MR. RUSSERT: It's over.

MR. CARVILLE: It's very, very, very difficult.

MR. RUSSERT: Oh, you're...

MR. CARVILLE: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Two weeks ago, you said it was over.

MR. CARVILLE: It--I don't know what the difference is. It sounds good to me.

MR. MURPHY: It's one sentence he'd like to have back.

MR. CARVILLE: It's--I don't have this reject...

MR. RUSSERT: I think he got a phone call this morning, "Don't say it's over." Right?

MR. CARVILLE: No, I--in, in effect, I, I agree with President Clinton.

MR. MURPHY: There you go.

MR. CARVILLE: And I--I'll leave it at that.

Then Carville tries to explain away Hillary's position on NAFTA by making an unverified claim that she sort of opposed it when Bill was President:

MR. CARVILLE: I can--something I can attest to personally, and I, I have checked, she--in, in 1992, she was decidedly cool toward NAFTA. Came up with--we came out for NAFTA during the campaign. And I--the reason I remember it so well is it's one of the few times that I actually disagreed with, with Hillary Clinton on anything. I made it my business to try to agree with her on, on most things. Now, I don't know what happened in between 1992 and this campaign, but I do know that she was decidedly cool on, on the idea of us endorsing NAFTA during that campaign.

MR. MURPHY: But she has a theory about what happened...

MR. RUSSERT: But in 2004, she did say, "On balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and for America."

MR. MURPHY: Right.

MR. CARVILLE: I, I--again, I, I do know that--what it was in 1992. I can't attest other...

Bottomline: if she doesn't win big on Tuesday she won't win the nomination:

MR. RUSSERT: All right, let me show you, though, there's a map, and this is a map of the remaining 12 states, 611 delegates starting with this Saturday--next Saturday be Wyoming and in Mississippi, our calculation is, even if Senator Clinton wins Ohio and Texas say 52-48, she'd have to win 70 percent of the vote in each of those states in order to get enough delegates to surpass Obama among selected delegates. If she didn't, James Carville, I understand--I'm hearing you, that even if she was behind amongst elected delegates...

MR. CARVILLE: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...she could say "I finished strong.

MR. CARVILLE: Yeah. Of course.

MR. RUSSERT: I won Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, I should be the nominee."

MR. CARVILLE: And, and, and we're also forgetting they have to do something about Florida and Michigan. Now, you can say we, we discount the, the previous election, they have to go to like what they call a firehouse caucus or something. But part of her calculation would be that she's showing strength...

MR. SHRUM: Right.

MR. CARVILLE: ...and then she does--you got to put the--they're not going to not seat something from Florida and Michigan. It may not be based on the previous...

MR. RUSSERT: But what you're saying is that she would go to a convention and say, "I did not win elected delegates, I did not win as many states, primaries, caucuses as Obama, I did not win as much popular vote, but I should be the nominee because you should seat Michigan and Florida."

MR. CARVILLE: Well, well, well, we may not--wait, I mean, look...

MR. RUSSERT: What would happen inside that convention?

MR. CARVILLE: Well, first of all, I'd say now many Idahos does it take to count as California? I mean, come on, that's a little bit of a...

MS. MATALIN: Wait...

MR. SHRUM: That would be...

MR. CARVILLE: But it would be...

MR. MURPHY: That's the beauty of it.

MR. SHRUM: Someone from the Clinton campaign is a fraud.

MR. CARVILLE: What...

MR. SHRUM: Barack Obama is going to carry California if he's the nominee, he's going to carry New York, he's going to carry New Jersey.

MS. MATALIN: I...

MR. SHRUM:

That's not the issue. The issue here--the issue here is you cannot go into this convention and not have some moral claim to this nomination.

MS. MATALIN: I...

I think she can acquire one in the next few weeks, but she's got to acquire it by winning these two states, then winning Pennsylvania, and doing better.

MS. MATALIN: I agree.

MR. SHRUM: But she cannot in the end, "By the way, nominate me by giving me the delegates out of the Soviet-style primary in Michigan where we only had one person's name on the ballot."

Report: UK energy Firms told to Surrender Profits

Maybe it could be solution in the U.S. also:

British gas and electricity companies are being ordered by the government to hand over part of their bumper profits or face a new windfall tax, according to a newspaper report on Sunday.

Chief executives of utility firms have been told that, unless they agree to subsidise a new nationwide "fuel poverty" scheme aimed at the 4.5 million poorest households, a levy will be put on their profits, the Sunday Telegraph said.

Finance minister Alistair Darling plans to unveil the fuel poverty programme in his budget on March 12, it added.

The move follows widespread protests at ballooning gas and electricity bills. Five of the six big suppliers to British homes and small businesses have announced big price increases this year, blaming soaring wholesale energy costs.

The Britain's energy watchdog Ofgem launched an investigation into power and gas supply markets because of growing public concern on Feb. 21.

Iraq War Hurts Economy: Economics Nobel Winner

Now we have an important voice making an economic argument against the Iraq War:

The Iraq war has contributed to the U.S. economic slowdown and is impeding an economic recovery, Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government is severely underestimating the cost of the war, Stiglitz and co-author Linda Bilmes write in their book, "The Three Trillion Dollar War" (W.W. Norton), due to be published on Monday.

The nearly 5-year-old war, once billed as virtually paying for itself through increased Iraqi oil exports, has cost the U.S. Treasury $845 billion directly.

"It used to be thought that wars are good for the economy. No economist really believes that anymore," Stiglitz said in an interview.

Stiglitz and Bilmes argue the true costs are at least $3 trillion under what they call an ultraconservative estimate, and could surpass the cost of World War Two, which they put at $5 trillion after adjusting for inflation.

The direct costs exclude interest on the debt raised to fund the war, health care costs for veterans coming home, and replacing the destroyed hardware and degraded operational capacity caused by the war.

In addition, there are costs not accounted for in the budget such as rising oil prices and social and macroeconomic costs, which the book details.

Doctor: 40 Dead in Pakistan Attack

The new Iraq. Will we end up fighting in Pakistan too? If things continue at this pace the issue will fall on the lap of the next President:

A suicide bomber blew himself up Sunday at a large meeting called by tribal elders pushing for peace in northwestern Pakistan, killing at least 40 people and injuring more than 100, witnesses and officials said.

It was the third suicide bombing in as many days in the volatile northwest, where security forces were battling pro-Taliban Islamic militants.

Thousands of people were at the meeting in Darra Adam Khel in North West Frontier Province about 25 miles south of the provincial capital, Peshawar. The five tribes involved wanted to finalize a resolution calling for punishing anyone who sheltered or helped militants, including those of al-Qaida and the Taliban, Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema said on state-run Pakistan Television.

Dead Pet Pig Gets Registered to Vote

This says something about our voting system and how overzealous voter groups can lead to unintended results. I've heard of dead people voting; but dead pigs? If animals could be registered to vote can you imagine how many illegal aliens are registered?

Ricin Suspect had Anarchist Handbook, Guns

This story gets more and more mysterious as the authorities insist that the suspect who had ricin in his Las Vegas hotel room, along with guns and an anarchist handbook, was not involved in any terrorist activity. Then what were his plans?

Obama: A Thin Record For a Bridge Builder

This article asks a fair question: will Obama make the changes he promises and are necessary. I don't believe he would. Having said that, I believe he would make a better President than either Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Nevertheless, It won't be real change. The kind of change we need. We will still have a nation on the decline. We need a revolution. Barack Obama is one man. If he becomes President he will still be part of a two-party system that is the problem in the first place:

Hillary Clinton has been trying to make a point about Barack Obama that deserves one last careful look before Tuesday's probably decisive Democratic primaries: If Obama truly intends to unite America across party lines and break the Washington logjam, then why has he shown so little interest or aptitude for the hard work of bipartisan government?

This is the real "Where's the beef?" about Obama, and it still doesn't have a good answer. He gives a great speech, and he promises that he can heal the terrible partisan divisions that have enfeebled American politics over the past decade. This is a message of hope that the country clearly wants to hear.

But can he do it? The record is mixed, but it's fair to say that Obama has not shown much willingness to take risks or make enemies to try to restore a working center in Washington. Clinton, for all her reputation as a divisive figure, has a much stronger record of bipartisan achievement. And the likely Republican nominee, John McCain, has a better record still.

Obama's argument is that he can mobilize a new coalition that will embrace his proclamation that "yes, we can" break out of the straitjacket. But for voters to feel confident that he can achieve this transformation should he become president, they would need evidence that he has fought and won similar battles. The record here, to put it mildly, is thin.

What I hear from politicians who have worked with Obama, both in Illinois state politics and here in Washington, gives me pause. They describe someone with an extraordinary ability to work across racial lines but not someone who has earned any profiles in courage for standing up to special interests or divisive party activists. Indeed, the trait people remember best about Obama, in addition to his intellect, is his ambition.

Read the entire Washington Post op-ed by David Ignatius

Congressman Fights Nuclear Waste Imports

This is what we've come to. America is a dumping ground. At least one American politician hasn't been bought off:

A Utah congressman is fighting against a proposed project that he says could turn the United States into a nuclear waste dump for the world.

The Christian Science Monitor reported Friday that U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, a Democrat, is battling efforts to allow the Utah firm EnergySolutions to import large amounts of low-level radioactive waste from Italy.

"I recognize that small amounts of waste have been permitted entry into the U.S. in the past; however, encouraging other nations to actively pursue disposal options in the U.S. seems shortsighted at best," the Utah Democrat wrote in a letter this week to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Environmentalists too are opposed to the project that would allow the company to ship up to 20,000 tons of mildly radioactive material from Italian nuclear-power plants to Tennessee to process it, then dispose of the waste in Utah.

Mexican Drug Gangs Threaten U.S. Border

There is a drug war going on in Mexico near the U.S. border. The drug cartels are in that country are growing stronger and are terrorizing the population near the U.S. border. They are being funded the drug profits obtained in the U.S. It is a serious problem that is getting worse. The politicians in the U.S. are essentially silent on the issue:

Bush Press Conference Transcript 2-28-08

Bush at his most delusional best. Read the entire transcript:

• I don't think we're headed to a recession, but no question we're in a slowdown.
• I don't know much about Medvedev either. And what will be interesting to see is who comes to the -- who represents Russia at the G8, for example. It will be interesting to see -- it will help, I think, give some insight as to how Russia intends to conduct foreign policy after Vladimir Putin's presidency. And I can't answer the question yet. I can say that it's in our interests to continue to have relations with Russia. For example, on proliferation matters...

Then there is this incredible contradiction. Isn't Putin a tyrant? How about China?:

• Here's what I learned -- here's what I learned: I learned that it's important to establish personal relations with leaders even though you may not agree with them -- certain leaders. I'm not going to have a personal relationship with Kim Jong-il, and our relationships are such that that's impossible.

  But U.S.-Russian relations are important. It's important for stability. It's important for our relations in Europe. And therefore my advice is to establish a personal relationship with whoever is in charge of foreign policy in Russia. It's in our country's interest to do so.

  Now, it makes it easier, by the way, when there's a trustworthy relationship, to be able to disagree and yet maintain common interests in other areas. And so we've had our disagreements. As you know, Putin is a straightforward, pretty tough character when it comes to his interests. Well, so am I. And we've had some head-butts, diplomatic head-butts. You might remember the trip to Slovakia. I think you were there at the famous press conference. But -- and yet, in spite of that, our differences of opinion, we still have got a cordial enough relationship to be able to deal with common threats and opportunities. And that's going to be important for the next President to maintain.

• What's lost by embracing a tyrant who puts his people in prison because of their political beliefs? What's lost is it will send the wrong message. It will send a discouraging message to those who wonder whether America will continue to work for the freedom of prisoners. It will give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity.

  I'm not suggesting there's never a time to talk, but I'm suggesting now is not the time -- not to talk with Raul Castro. He's nothing more than an extension of what his brother did, which was to ruin an island, and imprison people because of their beliefs.

• Q Thank you, sir. In China a former factory worker who says that human rights are more important than the Olympics is being tried for subversion. What message does it send that you're going to the Olympics, and do you think athletes there should be allowed to publicly express their dissent?

  THE PRESIDENT: Olivier, I have made it very clear, I'm going to the Olympics because it's a sporting event, and I'm looking forward to seeing the athletic competition. But that will not preclude me from meeting with the Chinese President, expressing my deep concerns about a variety of issues -- just like I do every time I meet with the President.

  And maybe I'm in a little different position. Others don't have a chance to visit with Hu Jintao, but I do. And every time I meet with him I talk about religious freedom and the importance of China's society recognizing that if you're allowed to worship freely, it will benefit the society as a whole; that the Chinese government should not fear the idea of people praying to a god as they see fit. A whole society, a healthy society, a confident society is one that recognizes the value of religious freedom.

  I talk about Darfur and Iran and Burma. And so I am not the least bit shy of bringing up the concerns expressed by this factory worker, and I believe that I'll have an opportunity to do so with the President and, at the same time, enjoy a great sporting event. I'm a sports fan. I'm looking forward to the competition. And each Olympic society will make its own decision as to how to deal with the athletes.

His convoluted logic led to this gaffe (see video in previous post today):

I had these wives of these dissidents come and see me, and their stories are just unbelievably sad. And it just goes to show how repressive the Castro brothers have been, when you listen to the truth about what they say. And the idea of embracing a leader who's done this without any attempt on his part to release prisoners and free their society would be counterproductive and send the wrong signal.

Q No one is saying embrace him, they're just saying talk --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, talking to him is embracing. Excuse me. Let me use another word -- you're right, "embrace" is like big hug, right? You're looking -- I do embrace people. Mike, one of these days, I'm just thinking about -- (laughter.) Right, okay, good, thank you for reminding me to use a different word.

1 in 100 U.S. Adults Behind Bars, New Study Says

A national disgrace:

For the first time in the nation’s history, more than one in 100 American adults is behind bars, according to a new report.

Nationwide, the prison population grew by 25,000 last year, bringing it to almost 1.6 million. Another 723,000 people are in local jails. The number of American adults is about 230 million, meaning that one in every 99.1 adults is behind bars.

Incarceration rates are even higher for some groups. One in 36 Hispanic adults is behind bars, based on Justice Department figures for 2006. One in 15 black adults is, too, as is one in nine black men between the ages of 20 and 34.

[...]In the past 20 years, according the Federal Bureau of Investigation, violent crime rates fell by 25 percent, to 464 for every 100,000 people in 2007 from 612.5 in 1987.

[...]Now, with fewer resources available, the report said, “prison costs are blowing a hole in state budgets.” On average, states spend almost 7 percent on their budgets on corrections, trailing only healthcare, education and transportation.

In 2007, according to the National Association of State Budgeting Officers, states spent $44 billion in tax dollars on corrections. That is up from $10.6 billion in 1987, a 127 increase once adjusted for inflation. With money from bonds and the federal government included, total state spending on corrections last year was $49 billion. By 2011, the report said, states are on track to spend an additional $25 billion.

It cost an average of $23,876 dollars to imprison someone in 2005, the most recent year for which data were available. But state spending varies widely, from $45,000 a year in Rhode Island to $13,000 in Louisiana.

Bush Gaffe on Cuba During Press Conference

Is it any wonder that we are in so much trouble diplomatically throughout the world when the President of the United States doesn't know the difference between embracing and talking to a regime. Just add this blunder to the long list of Bush verbal slip of the tongue.

Jack Cafferty: Hillary Blaming Press a Desperate Ploy

Hillary Clinton has adopted a new tactic--blame the press for all her failures. It is reminiscent of the vast right-wing conspiracy arguments during hubbies Presidency. Her reference to the Saturday Night Live spoof during the debate was a new low for her floundering campaign:

"Bill Clinton: The Bitter Half"

We heard from the beginning that Bill Clinton was a great asset for Hillary. I never really believed that. It now turns out that he was only a liability. Remember that the former Rarely is it mentioned that Bill Clinton was instrumental in the Democrats losing control of Congress in 1994. He was also to blame for Gore not winning the White House in 2000:

It is hard to miss the irony: the man from Hope is now trying to figure out how to tamp it down. But that tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the spot in which Bill Clinton finds himself today, as his wife's presidential campaign fights for its life in Ohio and Texas. What is harder to figure out is how much of the blame for her predicament belongs to him. "I think he just did her such damage," says a friend and supporter, expressing a sentiment that many feel privately. "They'll never see it that way, because they can't. And he has no self-knowledge. This has magnified all his worst traits."

Everyone around Hillary Clinton always recognized that Bill would be a mixed blessing for her campaign. Back in the pre-Obamamania days, her supporters assumed that no one could draw crowds, bring in money or ignite the base like the only Democratic President since F.D.R. to win re-election. Bill was considered the sharpest political strategist of his generation. And as public approval for President George W. Bush sank lower and lower, the Clinton years, for all their drama, were looking better and better. Yet there was always the worry about whether Bill would be able to stay within the constrained, derivative role of the candidate's spouse. The biggest fear was that he would shine too bright, burn too hot, consign the candidate to his shadow.

[...]On the campaign trail, Bill's way of grabbing the spotlight has reminded voters of what they didn't like about the last Clinton presidency and what might be wrong with the next one. Lobbyist and former Texas Lieut. Governor Ben Barnes, long a prolific donor to the Clintons and other Democrats, says the former President is — as everyone knew he would be — his wife's most powerful weapon. The problem is, says Barnes, who now supports Obama, "that gun kicks as bad as it shoots."

In Iowa, Bill Clinton shaded his own nuanced record on the war, saying he "opposed Iraq from the beginning"; in New Hampshire, the criticism he got for that didn't stop him from blasting Obama's claim of steadfast opposition to the war as a "fairy tale." He twisted Obama's observation that Ronald Reagan had changed the country to make it appear that the Illinois Senator had praised Reagan's ideas. And Bill churlishly diminished Obama's sweeping and historic primary victory in heavily African-American South Carolina by pointing out that Jesse Jackson had also won the state. Liberal columnist Jonathan Chait wondered, "Were the conservatives right about Bill Clinton all along?"

Nowhere did it get worse than in South Carolina. A Clinton campaign official says Bill "hijacked the candidacy in South Carolina. It was appalling to watch it." In the week before the primary, his attacks on Obama put the former President in the news more times than any of the Republican candidates, according to a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism; during a debate in Myrtle Beach, Obama complained, "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes."