A $2 million border camera project started by Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) has yielded just 11 arrests and 8 drug busts. That’s 1,189 fewer arrests than what Perry anticipated. Only 300 undocumented immigrants were reported to the U.S. Border Patrol, compared to the 4,500 that were expected.

125,000 people registered to serve as “virtual Texas deputies” and monitor the border cameras on the website “BlueServo.” Camera watchers found it difficult to determine the difference between animals and undocumented immigrants crossing the border. One vigilante wrote:

“Just a word of warning: A moment ago I saw a spider crawl across the top of the camera…You might want to try and prevent any webs from being spun across the lens area by treating with repellent or taking other measures.”

That’s a bit different from the picture Perry excitedly painted in 2006:

“Under the watchful eyes of law enforcement and the American people, criminals who smuggle drugs and human beings, predators who commit violent crimes against citizen and immigrant alike, and terror groups looking to exploit our border will all lose their greatest strategic asset: the cloak of secrecy. Enforcing the border is the federal government’s responsibility, but Texas will not wait to act.”

The border camera project has run out of money and Perry has asked for another $2 million to keep it alive. Perry made a name for himself earlier this year when he threatened secession and rejected $555 million in stimulus funds.

Our guest blogger is Krisila Benson, Director of Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities Action, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

The debate over the future of the F-22 is turning out to be a marathon, not a sprint. After three days of debate this week on the amendment to the Defense Authorization bill proposed by Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ) to strip the $1.75 billion for the purchase of seven additional planes, the amendment was temporarily withdrawn because Republicans were unwilling to agree to cloture on the debate.

The Republicans appear committed to stretching out debate on the Defense Authorization bill as along as possible, as part of a larger stall strategy to avoid getting to healthcare, and other issues critical to the agenda of the Obama administration before the August recess. The F-22 is a great stall tactic – from their perspective it is more politically savvy to pontificate on the full floor of the Senate at great length in support of the F-22 than against the Hate Crimes amendment, the other big amendment debated this week.

To raise the stakes, earlier this week President Obama made a pointed veto threat if the Defense Authorization bill (pdf) winds up on his desk with any F-22. This debate is no longer one based on the merits of the case, and it is unclear whether Levin and McCain have the votes they need, even after the threatened veto. Senators hear the “Jobs, jobs, jobs” arguments made by Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and others supporting the F-22, in spite of the fact that future production of the F-35 will offset job losses created by the end of the F-22. And unfortunately many Democrats continue to be reluctant to vote against any defense initiative for fear of appearing soft on national security.

The top civilian and military leaders of the Pentagon have spoken at great length about how additional F-22s are not needed, and continuing production of the line comes at the expense of other initiatives that are far more important for our national security.

Secretary of Defense Gates can only be characterized as exasperated on this issue. Last night in Chicago he said, “with regard to something like the F-22, irrespective of whether the number of aircraft at issue is 12 planes or 200, if we can’t bring ourselves to make this tough but straightforward decision – reflecting the judgment of two very different presidents, two different secretaries of defense, two chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff, and the current Air Force Secretary and Chief of Staff, where do we draw the line? And if not now, when? If we can’t get this right — what on earth can we get right?”

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio is asking his officers to take 56 hours of unpaid leave in fiscal year 2010 as the state of Arizona faces a $3.4 billion budget deficit that has forced Arpaio to trim his own budget by 17%. In solidarity, he has agreed to put a miniscule dent in his $97,000 annual salary by donating $2,613 to three charities set up by his agency which includes his own “Anti-Illegal Immigration Donation Fund.”

Arpaio blames his budget crisis on city council members that voted to limit his funds. Back in April, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in Arizona voted to postpone the acceptance of $1.6 million from the state that would’ve gone towards Arpaio’s controversial immigration enforcement tactics which allegedly include racial profiling and discrimination. At the time, Arpaio warned that “(Board Chairman Max Wilson) better be careful on cutting my budget, since I am investigating the Board of Supervisors.” Since Arpaio’s empty threats didn’t work, he is now suggesting that county supervisors should take furloughs or salary cuts as well when in fact some of them already have.

County Manager David Smith says he has decided to take a $23,000 pay cut this year — an amount that dwarfs Arpaio’s meager “charitable contribution.” Maybe Arpaio wasn’t aware of it since Smith didn’t hold a self-aggrandizing press conference to announce his goodwill to the world. Arizona Central reporter Yvonne Wingett points out that supervisors Don Stapley, Andy Kunasek and Max Wilson already donate thousands of dollars to charities every year.

As for himself, Arpaio says he can’t take a furlough because he is an elected official. But what he could do is change the way he operates his police department to cut costs and fight crime. According to a Pulitzer Prize-winning series of articles published in the East Valley Tribune, Arpaio’s budget nearly doubled from $37 million to $72.5 million since 2001. As of 2008, his office created a $1.3 million deficit in just three months. According to the Tribune, these costs are all a result of his immigration-enforcement crusade that has netted a lot of brown-skinned traffic violators, but neglected violent crimes and homicides which have gone up by 166%.

The Phoenix News Times blog accuses Arpaio and many of his top commanders of “double dipping,” or collecting both retirement benefits and a salary. Arpaio reportedly is paid a pension in addition to his $97,000 salary from his former employer, the DEA.

The message of Ehud Olmert’s op-ed this morning is simple: Despite promises not to take actions that would prejudice a final outcome, for years, Israel has gotten away with building and expanding settlements on occupied Palestinian land. But now the Obama administration has called them on this. Olmert liked things the way they were!

“The focus on settlement construction, while ignoring the previous understandings,” Olmert writes “unjustly skews the focus from a true political process and from dealing with the real strategic issues confronting the region.”

Olmert states the “previous understandings” (in bold), my responses follow:

- No new settlements would be constructed.

The official boundaries of existing settlements are huge, enabling Israel to construct new “neighborhoods” while claiming they don’t represent “new settlements.”

- No new land would be allocated or confiscated for settlement construction.

The amount of land that has already been allocated or confiscated for settlement construction is enormous, and Israel continues to use an array of bureaucratic and security measures to confiscate Palestinian land.

- Any construction in the settlements would be within current building lines.

The current building lines are enormous.

- There would be no provision of economic incentives promoting settlement growth.

A July 6, 2009 article in the Jerusalem Post entitled “Government still offering settlers incentives” stated that “First-time home buyers can receive a bigger mortgage if they move to settlements such as Itamar and Eilon Moreh than to the city of Ashkelon, according to the Construction and Housing Ministry Web site.”

- The unauthorized outposts built after March 2001 would be dismantled (a commitment that Israel, regrettably, has not yet fulfilled).

Yes, regrettably. As for the unauthorized outposts built before March 2001 (which, in terms of international law, means all the settlements east of the Green Line) normal life, and “natural growth” — which in 2007 accounted for 63 percent of settlement population growth — will continue. All of which is to say that, even if we grant that Olmert’s description of “previous understandings” is accurate, it is precisely these understandings that have enabled the settlements to continue expanding at an enormous rate.

When Olmert writes plaintively about “a proper balance” in U.S.-Israel discussions of settlements “to allow essential elements of stability and normality for Israelis living in settlements,” it’s important to understand that Israel shows no such considerations toward the impact of these settlements on the Palestinians, nor certainly toward Palestinians’ own need for “stability and normality”.

When he was mayor of Jerusalem, Olmert was “considered a driving force behind the intensified campaign to set up new Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem,” overseeing a massive expansion (funded to a great extent by private American donors like Irving Moskowitz) of settlements in Palestinian neighborhoods. So Olmert is a particularly unsuitable messenger in this respect. Read more