GM and Chrysler are asking for another $14 billion (the WSJ and LAT say the number is closer to $22 billion) in government loans to stay solvent.  While this is a headline running in newspapers all across the country, it's not really news. Anyone who didn't think that these two companies would be coming back to the government to ask for more money were either clueless or naive. The only surprise is how quickly they came back and how much money they're asking for:

G.M. said Tuesday that it had increased its overall loan request from the government to a total of $30 billion, up from $18 billion.

The company has received $13.4 billion so far from Treasury, and the most recent installment — $4 billion — was turned over to G.M. on Tuesday.

But G.M. said that loan would not last long. Company officials said they hoped to receive another $2 billion loan in March and $2.6 billion in April. Beyond that, G.M. is asking for another $12 billion by 2011 — $7.5 billion in loans and $4.5 billion to pay off a credit facility that comes due.

Chrysler, which has received $4 billion in loans, also increased its overall request for funding. In December, it said it needed $3 billion more to survive 2009, but it raised that request to $5 billion.

Both companies said their current federal loans will be "exahusted" by March 31.

So here we are again, asked to foot the bill to keep these companies afloat. It feels an awful lot like throwing good money after bad, doesn't it? And how will we feel a few weeks or months when they return to ask for another $10 billion or $8 billion more? Because as sure as the sun will rise in the East, these companies will need more government assistance to continue operating.

The whole process is infuriating because it feels partly like a scam and partly like a case study in government dependence. Then again, everything pretty much feels that way these days.

Roland Burris may be toast. The pressure mounting on Burris to resign went from zero to sixty pretty darn quick. Today, the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post both call for him to step down, while the Chicago Sun-Times says that Burris "owes us the facts" on his dealings with Blagojevich.

Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown, who has recently lit Burris up in his columns as a "lying little sneak," says Blago played him for a fool. Meanwhile, Tribune columnist John Kass says there is some blame to go around for the Burris mess - even though the Hopium eaters don't want to hear about it.

Burris fought his way tooth and nail to get into the United States Senate.  But he also played the race card at the same time he told people not to convict him of guilt by association. Now, however, there is the admission of an association, the revelation of having told a string of lies, and his race has nothing to do with it.

Maybe Burris can fight his way out of this mess as well, but I doubt it.

My post from this morning was more timely than I knew. President Obama just announced he has OK'd a troop increase in Afghanistan, which the AP says will be a bump of roughly 17,000 troops (CNN says the total is closer to 12,000). Here is President Obama's statement announcing the move:

There is no more solemn duty as President than the decision to deploy our armed forces into harm's way.  I do it today mindful that the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action.  The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and al Qaeda supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe-haven along the Pakistani border.

To meet urgent security needs, I approved a request from Secretary Gates to deploy a Marine Expeditionary Brigade later this spring and an Army Stryker Brigade and the enabling forces necessary to support them later this summer. This increase has been requested by General McKiernan and supported by Secretary Gates, the Joint Chiefs and the Commander of Central Command. General McKiernan's request for these troops is months old, and the fact that we are going to responsibly drawdown our forces in Iraq allows us the flexibility to increase our presence in Afghanistan.

This reinforcement will contribute to the security of the Afghan people and to stability in Afghanistan.  I recognize the extraordinary strain that this deployment places on our troops and military families. I honor their service, and will give them the support they need.

This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires. That is why I ordered a review of our policy upon taking office, so we have a comprehensive strategy and the necessary resources to meet clear and achievable objectives in Afghanistan and the region.  This troop increase does not pre-determine the outcome of that strategic review.  Instead, it will further enable our team to put together a comprehensive strategy that will employ all elements of our national power to fulfill achievable goals in Afghanistan.  As we develop our new strategic goals, we will do so in concert with our friends and allies as together we seek the resources necessary to succeed.

Notice that Obama says his decision to increase troops "does not pre-determine the outcome" of the strategic review he's ordered. In other words, Obama seems to be saying he's taking this action because his military advisors have requested it, but that it may be reversed or revised upon further review.

Ohio Sec. of State Jennifer Brunner formally entered the 2010 Senate race today by announcing her candidacy in a video released this afternoon.

"I'm running for the United States Senate to be a part of the solution, to meet our challenges and to help Ohio emerge stronger than ever," Brunner says in her announcement video.

Joining Brunner in the Democratic primary contest will be Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher, who is set to announce his candidacy at a news conference this evening in Columbus. Gov. Ted Strickland (D) said publicly two weeks ago that Fisher was the "best qualified" candidate among the Democrats considering a bid.

The winner of the Brunner-Fisher primary will likely face former Congressman and U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman (R) in the general election. Portman announced his candidacy a month ago.

All three candidates are vying for the seat that Sen. George Voinovich (R) is vacating at the end of his term. Voinovich was first elected to the Senate in 1998, and also served two terms as Ohio governor from 1990-1998.

Democrats view this race as an excellent opportunity to pick up a Republican Senate seat. The party is coming off two impressive election seasons, with Obama taking Ohio by a 4-point margin in November, and Strickland and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) both taking over for a Republican in 2006.

Here is Brunner's announcement video:

\

Check out RCP's Politics Nation for more on Congress and the Obama adminstration.

A new Gallup survey shows Congress' job approval rating jumping 12 points in the last month to 31%. That's the highest rating for Congress in the last two years in the Gallup poll. Overall, Congress' job approval in the RCP Average is a nearly identical 30.8%.

Roland Burris was out of the news for what? Like one week? Turns out he lied, or something very close to it, in his affidavit and his testimony during the impeachment proceedings against Rod Blagojevich.  Really, are you surprised that Roland wasn't telling the truth about his dealings with Blago? If you lived in Illinois and knew our state politics, you wouldn't be.

In an op-ed in The Australian, Major General Jim Molan, chief of operations for the multinational force in Iraq from 2004-2005, urges Australia to increase its commitment of troops in Afghanistan from 1,100 to 2,000.  Molan argues that NATO needs 180,000 troops - roughly three times the current number of forces - to win the war in Afghanistan. He writes:

Defensive operations do not win wars but can prevent defeat until more security is available. Yet if adequate security is not going to be available at some future date, defensive operations just prolong the war until defeat ensues.

I have long estimated an adequate number of foreign troops in Afghanistan would be 180,000, based on history and recent experience in Iraq. Most, if not all, would be required to conduct offensive operations. Such a number should just about suffice to: provide a basic level of protection to people to allow reconstruction and development to occur; protect and form the elements of government, including an effective military and police; and effectively attack our opponents.

Of course, unless there is the will to win among our allies, matched by a willingness to deploy the right number of troops who can conduct effective operations, not just show their nation's flag, there is no point in increasing Australian troops.

Molan concludes by saying, "Whether we like it or not, we have committed to Afghanistan and withdrawal does not appear to be an option. The only workable strategy is to win, and winning is still possible."

If you believe Molan is right that "winning is still possible," then we'd better get on it, because the news in Afghanistan continues to worsen. This morning we find that the Pakistani government has thrown in the towel in its fight against the Taliban, assuring that the region along its northwestern border with Afghanistan will remain a safe haven for fighters to launch cross border attacks.

There's also a report from the UN saying civilian deaths in Afghanistan are up 40%, the highest level since the 2001 US invasion that successfully ousted the Taliban.

As President Obama mulls his decision on troop deployments to Afghanistan, the whole thing has the feel of Iraq, circa 2006. After the bombing of the Golden Dome mosque in Samarra in February sent the country into a downward spiral of severe civil strife and chaos, the Bush administration spent much of the year trying to get a handle on how to respond. That process eventually led to the troop surge announced by President Bush in January 2007 - a policy Obama opposed as a Senator and candidate for President - which has been widely credited as a success that restored stability to Iraq and saved the country from disintegrating.

As President and Commander in Chief, Obama now faces a similar decision of his own in Afghanistan. If Molan's assessment is correct that the war is still winnable but will require 180,00 troops to do so, then Obama will have to significantly increase American troop levels there - and lean heavily on our NATO allies to do the same.

For at least the last two years Obama has argued that the war in Afghansitan is far more important than the war in Iraq. Given that the situation in Afghanitan is deteriorating and time is running out, we're about to have another "rhetoric meets reality" moment when President Obama announces his decision - which should be coming any day now.

A new Quinnipiac poll finds New York Gov. David Paterson trailing Atty. Gen. Andrew Cuomo by a 2-to-1 margin in a potential 2010 Democratic primary for governor. The survey is the latest evidence of the fallout from the Caroline Kennedy-for-Senate fiasco.

Gov. Dem Primary
Cuomo 55
Paterson 23

Gov. General Election
Cuomo 51
Giuliani 37
Und 9

Paterson 43
Giuliani 43
Und 10

2010 NY Senate Special Election: Most voters approve of Paterson's eventual selection of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) to succeed Hillary Clinton in the Senate. However, Gillibrand remains a largely unknown figure. She trails in a potential primary matchup against Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, but leads Rep. Peter King (R) in a potential general election matchup.

Sen. Dem Primary
McCarthy 34
Gillibrand 24
Und 39

Sen. General Election
Gillibrand 42
King 26
Und 28

NBC's Chuck Todd is frustrated by the White House bubble. On the other hand, Robert Gibbs is probably feeling pretty frustrated himself by having to continually face questions like this from Jake Tapper of ABC News.

Again without a single Republican vote. Here's the 243-183 roll call. Seven Democrats voted against the bill this time around, and Dan Lipiniski strangely voted "present."