ThinkProgress has already found that 2012 GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney’s economic plan would explode the deficit to the tune of more than $6.5 trillion over the next decade, while doing next to nothing to help middle class or low-income Americans. In fact, Romney’s tax cut that is supposedly “focused” on the middle class gives literally no benefit to most middle class households.

The Tax Policy Center released an analysis today showing that, contrary to Romney’s rhetoric, the overwhelming majority of the benefits under the plan would go to the wealthy. In fact, compared to the policy in place today, Romney’s plan would give millionaires a $150,000 tax cut, while raising taxes on many low-income families:

A sizable number of low-income families would see their taxes go up. For instance, about 15 percent of those in the $10,000 to $20,000 income group would get an average tax cut of about $140, but 20 percent would get hit with an average tax increase of $1,000, mostly because Romney would bring back the less generous versions of those refundable credits.

About one-third of those in $40,000 to $50,000 group would get a tax cut that would average about $400, but about one-six would face a tax increase of nearly twice as much.

Almost every millionaire would get a tax cut averaging roughly $150,000. As a group, those making $1 million or more would receive nearly half the benefit of Romney’s tax plan.

Romney plan hits hardest those making less than $40,000, and primarily those households with children, as he would undo President Obama’s expansion of the child tax credit.

And Romney’s proposal only gets more lucrative for those at the very top of the income scale, giving those in the richest 0.1 percent an annual tax cut of nearly half a million dollars. In 2015 alone, the plan would add $600 billion to the deficit.

This flies directly in the face of Romney’s assertion that he isn’t focused on helping the rich. “If I’m going to use precious dollars to reduce taxes, I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most, and that’s the middle class. I’m not worried about rich people,” Romney said in an October debate. If that is the case, why do the ultra-wealthy receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax cuts annually under his plan, while a middle class family could very well see its taxes go up?

Bank of America has had some unfortunate foreclosure practices in recent months, including foreclosing on a home that no longer exists, repossessing the wrong person’s pet parrot, and foreclosing on an elderly couple for paying their mortgage too early. Added to the annals of absurdity, the bank nearly foreclosed on a homeowner who accidentally underpaid his mortgage payment by a whopping 80 cents, as the Tampa Bay Tribune reported:

When Tom Mudie was approved for a mortgage modification program, he thought his foreclosure troubles were over.

Bank of America lowered his monthly payment by nearly $200. All he had to do was make the new payments — on time for three months — and the new amount would be made permanent.

But a simple error — hitting a “0″ on his telephone keypad instead of an “8″ — threatened not only to cancel the savings but also to cost him his home…Mudie paid his second trial mortgage payment by phone. The keypad mistake meant that instead of paying $615.82, he paid $615.02. He was three quarters and a nickel short.

Mudie paid the 80 cents in a separate check. The bank not only sent that check back to him, but sent his subsequent payment back as well and continued with foreclosure proceedings. Mudie was eventually able to convince the bank that he, in fact, had not intentionally underpaid his mortgage by less than a dollar. BofA claims the whole mess is due to a “computer glitch.”

Bank of America has had a significant amount of trouble processing loan modifications. It even foreclosed on one New Jersey homeowner two days after approving his modification, a mistake it did not correct until it was contacted by New Jersey’s largest newspaper. Outside of the modification sphere, one couple resorted to cutting a music video in order to embarrass the bank to close on their loan.

Over the last few decades, U.S. corporate tax revenue plunged to historic lows, falling from about 6 percent of GDP in the 1950s to barely more than 1 percent of GDP today. Obviously, part of the recent low level has to do with the Great Recession and its effect on businesses and their profits. But while corporate profits have rebounded to their pre-recession heights, setting a record in the third quarter of 2011, corporate tax revenue has yet to follow suit:

After plummeting from 2007 through 2009, U.S. corporate profits regained their precrisis peak in early 2010, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The latest, revised data released just before Christmas showed corporate profits before tax rose to a record $1.97 trillion in the third quarter of 2011.

But corporate tax receipts, as reported by the Treasury Department, remain lackluster, even as the economy has gained some ground of late. Although they have trended higher in recent months, corporate taxes measured on a 12-month basis were still under $200 billion in November. That is well below a precrisis peak of about $380 billion and still far below the government’s fiscal 2012 target of $332 billion.

Corporate tax revenue has plummeted for several reasons, but one of the big ones is the growth of deductions, loopholes, and outright tax evasion that helps companies limit, or entirely eliminate, their income tax liability. 30 major corporations, in fact, paid no corporate income tax over the last three years, while making $160 billion in profits.

After nearly edging out former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney — the living embodiment of the “one percent” — in the first GOP presidential caucus in Iowa, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has sought to portray himself as the “anti-Romney.” Part of this push involves casting himself as a populist candidate.

The Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney argues this morning that Santorum is positioning himself to champion the interests of blue collar Americans, in contrast to Romney’s elitism. Yet at a campaign event in New Hampshire this morning, Santorum aligned himself with the one percent. He dismissed the 99 Percenters protesting against income inequality, saying that the movement is “dividing” America. “You know, it’s not 99-1,” he said. “It’s anybody who makes money and pays taxes and everybody who doesn’t. That’s the 99-1″:

SANTORUM: [Referring to Obama] When he goes around and tries to divide America and aligns himself with Occupy Wall Street. Says, this dividing of America, 99-1. You know it’s not 99-1. It’s anybody that makes money and pays taxes and everybody who doesn’t. That’s the 99-1. It’s anybody who goes out and succeeds in America versus those who should have that wealth redistributed.

Watch it:

It’s unclear why Santorum thinks that the ratio of people who pay taxes to those who don’t can be described as 99:1, which would be wildly inaccurate. By attacking people who supposedly don’t pay taxes, he is likely referring to Americans who are too poor to pay federal income taxes. The truth is, while there are many Americans who are too poor to pay federal income taxes, particularly during the Great Recession, it is also true that if you look at state and local taxes, the working poor actually pay a higher percentage of their income in these taxes in every state except for Vermont.

The former senator also champions financially successful Americans and contrasts them against “those” who would redistribute that wealth. Yet many of the corporations that 99 Percenters are protesting against have been immensely financially successful while both dodging their tax responsibilities and benefiting from government largess — that is, wealth redistribution. Major corporations like General Electric and Boeing have managed to go years without paying federal corporate income taxes while collecting tax benefits and billions of dollars in government subsidies. If Santorum was truly serious about championing the interests of working class voters and contrasting himself with Romney, he might instead take aim at the corporate manipulation of American tax and subsidy policy that is leading to growing income inequality.