A recently-released Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll surveyed Americans on a variety of issues, including their views on the country’s direction, their approval of the president’s handling of the economy, and what they think of Congress’ performance.

One section of the poll asked respondents how they would feel about a candidate who ran based on several different policy platforms. Respondents then replied whether they were enthusiastic about the platform, comfortable with it, had reservations about it, were very uncomfortable with the position, if it made no difference, or they weren’t sure. The results were listed numerically responding to each category from left to right.

The two issues that netted the highest “uncomfortable” rating from poll respondents were Bush’s economic policies and Social Security privatization. 39 percent of those polled responded that they’d be uncomfortable with voting for a candidate who supported the economic polices of former president George W. Bush. But the position that provoked the highest level of opposition was supporting “phasing out Social Security and instead [supporting] allowing workers to invest their Social Security contributions in the stock market,” with 49 percent of respondents saying the position made them “very uncomfortable“:

While the poll shows that only 21 percent of the public is “enthusiastic” or “comfortable” with slowly privatizing Social Security, there are a number of leading Republican officeholders who have endorsed the concept of doing so. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the “ranking member on the House Budget Committee,” has put together a road map for privatizing the program that is similar to President Bush’s failed 2005 plan. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has also indicated that he’d like to revive the Bush effort. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has talked about the need to “wean” Americans off the program.

Meanwhile, a number of leading Republicans running for office have also endorsed radical plans to privatize the program. Both Pennsylvania Republican senate candidate Pat Toomey and Rand Paul have endorsed at least partially privatizing Social Security. Nevada Republican senate candidate Sharon Angle has called for the program to be “phased out,” and Alaska Republican senate candidate Joe Miller has gone even further, declaring that the program is simply unconstitutional.

The escape of three detainees from a privately-run prison in Arizona last month “put the spotlight on…private prisons,” as critics of prison privatization pointed to the “lax oversight” of the private prison system as one reason the inmates were able to so easily break out of their facilities.

Now, the New Mexico Independent (NMI) reports that neighboring state New Mexico is experiencing similar lax oversight as “the New Mexico Corrections Department has not collected penalties from two private prison operators despite repeated contract violations, costing the state potentially millions of dollars in uncollected fines.” The two prison operators in question, GEO Group, and Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), have been found to be understaffing the prisons they operate, not meeting contractual obligations.

In an interview with NMI, New Mexico Corrections Secretary Joe Williams “acknowledged that the vacancy rates at the prisons GEO and CCA operate often are higher than their contracts allow,” but said he “decided against punishing the firms because the prisons they manage ‘are outstanding.’” He explained that the prisons’ contract doesn’t say that he “shall” fine the companies for violating the terms of the agreement, but rather that he “can”:

The New Mexico Corrections Department has not collected penalties from two private prison operators despite repeated contract violations, costing the state potentially millions of dollars in uncollected fines, state officials have told The Independent. [...]

Williams acknowledged that the vacancy rates at the prisons GEO and CCA operate often are higher than their contracts allow, but he decided against punishing the firms because the prisons they manage “are outstanding,” he said. “They are not having escapes; there are no substantial problems. If there were a problem I would be down there penalizing them,” he said. [...]

“The contract does not say I shall do it. The contract says I can do it,” Williams told The Independent.

In choosing not to penalize the GEO and CCA prisons for understaffing their facilities, Williams is far from an impartial arbiter. As his biography page on the New Mexico Corrections Department website boasts, in 1999, the “Geo Group, Inc. (formerly known as Wackenhut) hired Joe as the warden for the Lea County Correctional Facility, and charged him with turning around the troubled prison in Hobbs, New Mexico. The facility eventually became a flagship prison. Agreeing to serve as its warden proved to be the right move, both professionally and personally. In fact, Joe liked the city of Hobbs so much, he named his beloved basset hound Sir Hobbs.” It adds that Williams’ experience at GEO gave him “rare insight into the world of private corrections” and made him an “ideal candidate for the job he now holds.” The biography notes that the state’s incarceration system is “44 percent privatized, and leads the nation in prison privatization.”

The Governor’s website notes that Williams is “the first private sector Warden ever to be selected to head a state correctional system in the nation.” It now appears that Williams still has some loyalty to his former employer, and in refusing to penalize GEO for its clear violation of its contract, is exhibiting a clear conflict of interest.

Last week, gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott (R-FL) tapped Jennifer Carroll (R-FL), an African American immigrant from Trinidad, to share the Republican ticket with him as lieutenant governor. “Working together, we will broaden the base of our party,” Scott said as he introduced Carroll. However, if Scott hopes to use Carroll to broaden a minority base that includes disgruntled Latino and immigrant voters who he has isolated via his hardline immigration stance, he may want to ask his running mate to brush up on her talking points. The Palm Beach Post published an awkward exchange between one of its reporters and Carroll:

CARROLL: I agree with Rick and his position on legal immigration. Illegal immigration I do not support because I feel that we should not be rewarding illegal activities.

PALM BEACH POST: But does that mean you support bringing an Arizona-style immigration enforcement law to Florida?

CARROLL: Well let me you ask you back, what is your impression about Arizona-style immigration laws?

PALM BEACH POST:What is my impression?

CARROLL: Yes.

PALM BEACH POST:It’s a law that requires police when enforcing other laws to check immigration status if there is a suspicion. [...]

CARROLL: We haven’t gotten into the nitpicky as to how a bill is going to be crafted. There’s already a bill by Will Snyder that the House has already filed. What the containment of that bill is, how it is going to come out of the House or Senate, is another story

PALM BEACH POST:Do you support Representative Snyder’s bill?

CARROLL: I have not read the bill, so I cannot tell you.

Watch it:

During his primary against Bob McCollum (R-FL), Scott poured millions of dollars into ads supporting Arizona’s tough immigration law and advocating for one like it in Florida. Snyder’s immigration bill, which McCollum unveiled as part of his campaign platform, was largely a desperate response to Scott’s pandering on the issue. Since then, GOP Latino leaders have been publicly asking Scott to abandon his anti-immigrant rhetoric. So far, there is no indication that either he or his running mate is listening. Read more at the Wonk Room.