Nevada Releases Returns - A Day Late

I think Miss Peabody's fourth grade class could have done it faster (and probably just as accurately), but Nevada's Republican officials are finally getting the state's vote reported from the caucuses -- most of which were held Saturday morning. The hold-up was the vote from Las Vegas, which accounts for more than half of the state's votes. It seems that some precincts (especially one "troublesome" precinct) had reported more votes than the number of caucus goers on their sign-in sheets.

The Clark county Republican officials, along with officials from the state party, the national party, representatives of the four candidates, and lawyers representing all parties have been arguing over the few votes in question for the last 24 hours. I guess they have now finally come to some understanding, although the crazy part of it all is that the number of votes being argued over are not nearly enough to make a difference in the delegate allocation (the only reason for the caucuses in the first place). Evidently, some people just enjoy arguing.

The most important fact this year about the Nevada caucuses (other than the delegate allocation, of course) is the turnout. The state had their first caucus in 2008 and 44,324 people attended (about 11.08% of the state's registered Republicans). They were hoping to build on that this year, and party officials had predicted a turnout of around 70,000. That didn't happen. With 100% of the precincts reporting, the turnout had only reached 32,894 -- less than half of the voters predicted (and only 8.22% of registered Republicans in Nevada).

That's a significant drop-off from 2008 (over 11,000 less voters), and just like in Florida, shows the Republicans are not really as enthusiastic about their presidential hopefuls as party officials would like for us to believe.That has to worry them, because the leading candidate (Romney) just doesn't inspire the rank-and-file Republicans -- and that could carry over into the general election.

With 100% of precincts reporting, here is the vote total (with delegates won in parentheses):

Mitt Romney...............16,486 (14) -- 50.12%
Newt Gingrich...............6,956 (6) -- 21.15%
Ron Paul...............6,175 (5) -- 18.77%
Rick Santorum...............3,277 (3) -- 9.96%
TOTAL VOTES...............32,894

Here is the accumulated delegate count:

Mitt Romney...............84
Newt Gingrich...............29
Rick Santorum...............14
Ron Paul...............11

1,143 delegates are needed to win the nomination.

On Super-PAC Shoulders

Political Cartoon is by Clay Bennett in the Chattanooga Times Free Press.

Bloomberg On Guns

I am not a big fan of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and if I lived there I seriously doubt that I could ever bring myself to vote for him. For one thing, he's all over the map politically -- going from being a Democrat to a Republican, and then when the bloom came off the Republican rose he started calling himself an Independent. But the main problem I have against him is his concerted efforts to deny the Wall Street Occupiers their constitutional rights to freedom of assembly and free speech.

But every now and then, this rather strange political animal and die-hard member of the 1% does something to make me think he may not be a totally hopeless case after all. Just a few days ago, Bloomberg reacted to the politicization of the Komen Foundation by donating $250,000 to Planned Parenthood. That's just a drop in the bucket compared to his total wealth, but it was still a good and decent thing for him to do -- and I applaud his gesture.

Another area where he comes off sounding like a reasonable human being is when he talks about guns. This is what he had to say about guns on Meet The Press:

You’d think that if a congresswoman got shot in the head, that would have changed Congress’ views. I can tell you how to change it, just get Congress to come with me to the hospital when I’ve got tell tell somebody that their son or daughter, their spouse, their parent is not going to come home again. This past, this week, even though the murder rate in New York is so much lower than almost every big city, we still had a cop shot last week with a gun that somebody had even though the federal laws prohibited that person from having a gun.


You know, the federal laws say you can’t get a gun if you have a drug problem, psychiatric problems, criminal record or [if you are] a minor. And yet Congress doesn’t give moneys to make sure we can have a background check. They have too many loopholes. The background databases aren’t up to date. Private sector sales of guns are something like 40 percent and they don’t do background checks, I don’t know who has to get killed for people to start saying ‘wait a second, this is enough.’

What he has to say is very reasonable. He's not calling for changing or eliminating the Second Amendment. He's not even asking for any new laws that might restrict the rights of the average American to own a firearm. He's just asking that the nation (and the states) enforce the laws that are already on the books, and fully fund those enforcement efforts.

I have to agree with Mayor Bloomberg on this issue. Laws are useless unless they are enforced, and they cannot be enforced until the funds for enforcement are available. Our nation has decided (and even many NRA members agree) that there are some Americans who should not be allowed to own guns -- like convicted felons and the dangerously mentally ill. But while a structure has been put in place to accomplish this, it is not fully enforced. This must change.

A failure to enforce the laws already on the books doesn't just put political leaders in danger -- it puts all Americans in danger. That is inexcusable.

Self-Splattered

Political Cartoon is by Clay Bennett in the Chattanooga Times Free Press.

Nevada GOP Defines Incompetence

I live in Texas where the Republicans have been in complete control of state government for quite a while now, so I am very familiar with Republican incompetence. That ingrained incompetence has frustrated me for years now. But I have to admit that the Republican leadership in Nevada makes that of Texas look like a well-oiled and smoothly-running machine.

Nevada held its Republican caucuses on Saturday, with most of them starting at 9:00 am. There was one caucus that started after dark, but even it was over by 9:30 pm. It was not like a huge number of people showed up for these caucuses -- less than 50,000 people (less than 12.5% of the state's 400,000 registered Republicans). And yet at 7:30 am on the following morning, they had still only posted about 70% of the vote because they were not finished counting it. How can that be?

Iowa had over 100,000 people show up for their caucuses, and those caucuses were held in the evening. But by midnight they had the votes all counted and reported. New Hampshire had over 200,000 people vote, South Carolina had over 600,000 people vote, and Florida had over 1.3 million people vote -- and yet all three states had their votes counted and reported no later than 1:00 am. Why then, 10 hours after the last caucus was over (and 21 hours after most caucuses had ended), has Nevada been unable to count and report less than 50,000 total statewide votes? There can be only one reason -- an utter and complete incompetence on the part of Nevada's GOP leadership.

Some of you probably wonder why that should matter. After all, the talking heads on TV have already told us that Wall Street Willie was the winner. That's true, but it's not the only thing that matters. It matters who finished second and third and how many delegates each candidate earned, because that has a bearing on future campaign funding and how long candidates might stay in the race. Those things may only matter to a political junkie like me (and the candidates themselves), but they do matter.

Can Nevada Republicans really be satisfied with leadership this incompetent?

What Nerve !

Romney Speaks To The Poor

Political Cartoon is by Mike Luckovich in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

More On The Komen Foundation

The above image was found on the blog Dammit Janet. There it was labeled the "new Komen logo". Considering the right-wing politics that has recently been exposed concerning the foundation's CEO (Nancy Brinker), vice-president (Karen Handel), and Board of Directors, the label has the ring of truth. They put their right-wing politics over the importance of poor and uninsured women being able to get early breast cancer screening -- and even though they have apologized for the announcement they made, they have not promised to continue future funding for these screenings at Planned Parenthood (or anywhere else).

The Komen Foundation's political attack has seriously damaged their image and it will probably take years for them to recover, if they ever do. And it has caused many people to look a lot more closely at the foundation and its actions -- and some of the things they are finding are not very pretty. For instance, the foundation spends over a $1 million a year (of charitable donations) to sue other charitable organizations for using the color pink or the words "for the cure" in their fund-raising efforts. Is this really a wise use of donated funds -- funds that were donated to fight breast cancer?

And that is not the only questionable use of donated funds. The CEO of the Komen Foundation receives an annual salary of $459,406.00 a year. That's more than the salary of the President of the United States. That bothers me. Should the head of a charitable organization, any charitable organization, be making nearly half a million dollars a year in salary?

In the 2009-2010 fiscal year, the Komen Foundation reported the following expenses:
$140.8 million (39.1%) was spent on public education
$75.4 million (20.9%) was spent on research
$46.9 million (13.0%) was spent on health screenings
$20.1 million (5.6%) was spent on treatment services
$36.1 million (10.0%) was spent on fund-raising expenses
$40.6 million (11.3%) for general and administrative expenses
TOTAL EXPENSES = $359.9 million

That makes it look like they are spending 78.7% of all donations to actually fight breast cancer in some way. But that is not quite true. While the expenses for the year was $359.9 million, the Komen Foundation actually had an income for the year of about $400 million. What happened to the other $40.1 million (about 10% of their income)? Did you know the foundation plays the stock market? Since all other expenses are accounted for, this obviously is money they use to play the stock market. I think most people who donate to the Komen Foundation are unaware that 10% of the foundation's income goes into the stock market, and I doubt they would approve of it. Their money was donated to be used in the fight against breast cancer -- not gambled in the stock market.

When you consider the actual income of the foundation (instead of just expenses), the percentages change:
35.2% was spent on public education
18.85% was spent on research
11.7% was spent on health screenings
5.0% was spent on treatment services

That means that only 70.8% of their income was spent on cancer related expenses (not 78.7%). Which of course means that 29.2% of their income goes to non-cancer related things. I wonder if the contributors know that only 7 out of 10 dollars goes to the purpose for which the foundation claims it was created to do?

And then you have the issue of "pink-washing". The Komen Foundation receives about $55 million a year from corporations -- and in return, these corporations get the Komen Foundation's seal of approval by allowing them to use the foundation's name and pink ribbon logo. It creates the perception that these companies only produce safe products that can be counted on to not harm consumers. Sadly, that is not necessarily true -- and some of those products actually contain cancer-causing chemicals.

Frankly, I'm beginning to think the Komen Foundation is a nest of vipers -- who care more for their income and politics than they do the health of women. I'm not at all sure I can ever trust them again. There are many other organizations that raise money for breast cancer research and treatment, and you can go to this website to find them. Donating to defeat breast cancer is a good thing. Donating to the Komen Foundation is not.

GOP's Level Playing Field

Political Cartoon is by Jack Ohman in The Oregonian.

Roseanne For President ?

Last October the Green Party had their first candidate announce a run for the party's presidential nomination. It was Dr. Jill Stein, a mother of two from Massachusetts. Dr. Stein graduated from Harvard University and Harvard Medical School with honors. In addition to being a practicing physician, she has written two books -- and she has a long history of support and activism for progressive causes. She is a serious and qualified candidate with only one real flaw -- no one in America has ever heard of her (and she won't have much money to rectify that).

Now a new candidate has tossed her hat into the race for the Green Party nomination for president. And this new candidate certainly doesn't have a name-recognition problem. In fact, I would venture a guess that nearly everyone in the United States knows who this new celebrity candidate is. That candidate is comedian Roseanne Barr.

Last Thursday Roseanne Barr announced she is now a candidate for the Green Party nomination. She told reporters that she has filed the necessary paperwork with the party, and is serious about running because the two major parties aren't serving the American people. She went on to say she has long believed in the principles of the Green Party.

In her announcement statement she said, "The Democrats and Republicans have proven that they are servants -- bought and paid for by the 1% -- who are not doing what's in the best interest of the American people." She went on to say, "I will barnstorm American living rooms. Mainstream media will be unable to ignore me, but more importantly they will be unable to overlook the needs of average Americans in the run-up to the 2012 election."

Since hearing of her entrance into the race, I have been considering it and I'm still not sure what to think about it. I like the Green Party and agree with its stated beliefs. I would like to see them do well enough to stay on my state's ballot a couple of years from now. And if the poll's show that President Obama has no chance of carrying Texas, I might vote for the Green Party presidential candidate (to help them stay on the ballot two years from now).

There is no doubt that Roseanne Barr would get a lot more press coverage than Dr. Jill Stein ever could. The question is what kind of coverage would it be. At times in the past, Roseanne Barr has displayed an inability to restrain her comedic side and has sometimes looked like a buffoon. If she does that during the campaign, she could make the Green Party look like a joke. On the other hand, if she could run a serious campaign, she could bring some good publicity to the party.

The delegates to the Green Party convention in Baltimore next July will have a tough choice to make. I just hope they make the right choice, whoever they choose.

Under Construction

Political Cartoon is by Joe Sharpnack at sharptoons.com.

Corporate Tax Avoidance At 40 Year Low

We have been hearing about corporations avoiding taxes for a while now. This excellent piece from Think Progress shows just how bad corporate tax avoidance has become. Something must be done about this. Americans pay their taxes (except for the rich like Mitt Romney) and it's time for the corporations to pay their share also. Here is what Think Progress had to say about corporate taxes:

In recent decades, corporate tax revenue has plunged, falling from about 6 percent of gross domestic product in the 1950′s to less than 2 percent today, due to a proliferation of corporate tax breaks and the use of offshore tax havens. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in fact, corporate tax receipts as a share of corporate profits have hit their lowest point in 40 years:

Corporate tax receipts as a share of profits are at their lowest level in at least 40 years.

Total corporate federal taxes paid fell to 12.1% of profits earned from activities within the U.S. in fiscal 2011, which ended Sept. 30, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That’s the lowest level since at least 1972. And well below the 25.6% companies paid on average from 1987 to 2008.

Even the 25.6 percent share of profits that went to corporate taxes over the last quarter century comes in below the top statutory corporate tax rate of 35 percent. Meanwhile, corporate profits are currently at a 60 year high, rebounding back to above where they were before the Great Recession hit.


At the same time that corporations are pulling in huge amounts of money, workers are seeing their wages shrink. Last year, real wages fell by 2 percent, and “many employees are also working longer hours and getting more done without raises or overtime pay.” “Part of the reason why business profits are so high is it is a zero-sum game, so labor is on the losing end of that,” said Aaron Smith, senior economist at Moody’s Analytics. “Businesses are getting more out of each worker they have.”

American Exceptionalism

This bit of truth was found at the blog of Yellowdog Granny.

It's Nevada's Turn At Bat Today

(The above cartoon is by David Horsey in The Los Angeles Times.)

Today is the day that Nevada Republicans caucus to make their choice for the Republican presidential nomination. And as interesting as who will get the lion's share of Nevada's 28 delegates is wondering just how many Republicans will show up for the caucuses. There are about 400,000 registered Republicans in the state, but it is very unlikely that anywhere near that number will participate. In 2008, only about 45,000 Republicans attended the caucus (and Romney got 22,649 votes, or 51.1%). It will be interesting to see if they top that number this time.

The turnout in Iowa and new Hampshire was about the same as in 2008, while the turnout in South Carolina was larger than 2008 and the Florida turnout significantly smaller than 2008. Only enthusiastic party members tend to turn out for caucuses (which require more time and effort than taking a few minutes to vote in a primary), so the turnout can tell us something about how enthused the people are about their candidate choices (at least in Nevada).

It is harder for the polls to predict the winner of a caucus, since the ability of a candidate to turn out his supporters is more important than what the average voter thinks of the candidates. It is not uncommon for a candidate to out-perform or under-perform his poll numbers, depending on how well-organized and enthusiastic his supporters are. That makes Ron Paul the wild card in Nevada. Even though he's not polling well, his supporters are enthused and organized and he will probably out-perform his poll numbers.  I expect he will probably beat Santorum, and may even give Gingrich a good contest for the second place slot.

The chances are very good that the winner in Nevada will be Willard Mitt Romney (Wall Street Willie). he got about half the votes in 2008, and recent polls show he could do that again. Yesterday I posted the Las Vegas Review-Journal poll, which showed him with 45% support in the state (which would give him about half the state's delegates). Now the Public Policy Polling survey has been released, and it shows even better numbers for Wall Street Willie. Here are those numbers:

Mitt Romney...............50%
Newt Gingrich...............25%
Ron Paul...............15%
Rick Santorum...............8%