The Tax Policy Center yesterday released an analysis showing that 2012 GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney’s tax plan is heavily weighted towards the richest Americans, giving 50 percent of its benefit to those making $1 million or more. While millionaires would receive an annual tax cut of nearly $150,000, many middle class and low income families would see their taxes go up.

And because Romney would phase out tax breaks that the Obama administration put in place in 2009 specifically for families with children and families paying for a child’s college education, it’s those families that would be hardest hit. According to an analysis of the Tax Policy Center’s data done by the Center for American Progress’ Seth Hanlon and Michael Linden, half of families with incomes of less than $50,000 who have children would see a tax increase under Romney’s plan (compared to current policy):

– 40% of families with incomes under $100,000 who have children (more than 14 million families) get a tax hike.

– 55% of families with incomes under $50,000 who have children (more than 12 million families) get a tax hike.

– Families with incomes under $50,000 who have children (including the ones who get small tax cuts) see an average tax hike of $512.

Overall, under Romney’s plan, 22.1 million households would see a tax hike, including 17.4 million who have incomes under $50,000.

Romney likes to claim that his tax plan is “focused” on providing tax relief to the middle class, but his signature tax cut gives literally no tax break to most middle class families (because he centers it on investment income that is almost exclusively collected by the wealthy). Romney tries to claims that he’s “not worried about rich people,” but his plan proves that he’s mostly worried about the wealthy, while not sparing much of a thought for families struggling with the effects of the Great Recession.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and a group of Democratic lawmakers took to an empty House floor today to demonstrate that they were willing to work while Republicans lawmakers are at home. “Where are the Republicans?” demanded Assistant to the Minority Leader James Clyburn (R-SC). Joining Pelosi and Clyburn were five other House Democrats who are assigned to the payroll-tax extension conference committee.

Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA), representing House Republicans, quickly banged his gavel over the Democrats’ voices, and instructed the clerk to stop taking notes of the proceedings. Moments later, the microphones were silenced and C-SPAN’s video feed was cut. (The House leadership controls the cameras and has previously cut video of Democrats on the floor.) Watch it:

The theatrical stunt also serves to underscore Provident Obama’s claim this week that Congress is effectively in recess, thus allowing him to make recess appointments, even though the Senate has been holding 30-second long pro-forma sessions.

This week, defense and aircraft manufacturing giant Boeing announced that it will be closing the Boeing Defense, Space & Security facility in Wichita by the end of 2013, which “means the loss of 2,100 well-paying jobs at its Kansas facility, which was once considered the centerpiece of Wichita’s claim as the air capital of the world.” Boeing will instead be performing the operations that were scheduled for Wichita in San Antonio and Oklahoma City.

Boeing’s decision — which it blames on possible defense cuts that may take place in the future — is devastating to Wichita community, which also includes more than four hundred Boeing suppliers. Local news station Fox 4 covered the closure in a video report. Watch it:

The announcement is particularly shocking given the fact that Boeing had repeatedly promised to keep jobs in Kansas and add many more if it were able to land a $35 billion contract for an aerial tanker. Kansas lawmakers went to bat for the company in early 2011, with Sen. Pat Roberts (R) even calling on “everybody who’s out there tweeting, chirping and Facebooking” to push for the Air Force to grant the tanker contract to Boeing rather than European rival EADS.

The Air Force initially handed the contract to EADS, but reneged after loud protests from Kansas lawmakers. Boeing then went on to promise as many as 7,500 jobs and “an overall economic impact of $390 million” if it were to receive the contract. “Boeing’s chairman sat in my office 22 months ago during that battle and promised me, then-Senator Brownback and Congressman (Todd) Tiahrt that if we won the fight to get the tanker contract back, Boeing would stay in Wichita,” recalled Roberts.

Not only did Kansas lawmakers in Congress heavily lobby on behalf of Boeing to get the contract over its European rival, but state lawmakers also laid out a wide set of incentives “in the form of tax breaks, research dollars, workforce training” and other gifts. In 2007 alone, the legislature gave Boeing $2,175,355 for the IMPACT — Investments in Major Products and Comprehensive Training — program, to train new employees. The company has also benefited from a machinery and equipment property tax exemption, the repeal of the corporation franchise tax, and other benefits.

“Boeing is the poster child for corporate tax incentives. This company has benefited from property tax incentives, sales tax exemptions, infrastructure investments and other tax breaks at every level of government. These incentives were provided in an effort to retain and create thousands of Kansas jobs,” said Wichita Rep. Jim Ward (D) in response to Boeing’s move. “We will be less trusting in the future of corporate promises.” Indeed, the company’s ruthless behavior — promising jobs if the state granted it special treatment and then fleeing for lower costs elsewhere — is a cautionary tale not just to Kansas but every legislature in the country.

For the last two days, Democrats in the Indiana legislature have prevented the consideration of a “right to work” bill, which would make Indiana the first state in the U.S. industrial belt to allow non-union workers to free-ride on union contracts, which obviously undermines the ability of the union to do its job. Today, the National Football League Players Association called on the Indiana GOP to drop its bill in advance of the 2012 Super Bowl, which is being played in Indianapolis, saying that the NFL’s biggest game “should be about celebrating the best of what Indianapolis has to offer, not about legislation that hurts the people of Indiana“:

To win, we have to work together and look out for one another. Today, even as the city of Indianapolis is exemplifying that teamwork in preparing to host the Super Bowl, politicians are looking to destroy it trying to ram through so-called “right-to-work” legislation.

“Right-to-work” is a political ploy designed to destroy basic workers’ rights. It’s not about jobs or rights, and it’s the wrong priority for Indiana. [...]

As Indianapolis proudly prepares to host the Super Bowl it should be a time to shine in the national spotlight and highlight the hard working families that make Indiana run instead of launching political attacks on their basic rights. It is important to keep in mind the plight of the average Indiana worker and not let them get lost in the ceremony and spectacle of such a special event. This Super Bowl should be about celebrating the best of what Indianapolis has to offer, not about legislation that hurts the people of Indiana.

Conservatives love to claim that being “right to work” helps a state boost its economy. But according to the Economic Policy Institute, “right to work” laws, far from helping workers, actually:

– reduce wages by $1,500 a year, for both union and nonunion workers, after accounting for different costs of living in the states;

– lower the likelihood that employees get healthcare or pensions through their jobs—again, for both union and nonunion employees;

– have no impact whatsoever on job growth

Indiana Republicans have, so far, not backed down in their desire to move the bill through the legislature. But as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow put it, the GOP may want to rethink that strategy considering that “”America’s most celebrated union members (the NFL players) and a whole lot of national media are coming to town.”

A Missouri steel company in which former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s (R) Bain Capital was the majority shareholder went bankrupt, laid off more than 750 workers, and had to turn to the federal government for a bailout of its pension funds in 2001, according to a special report from Reuters.

Romney, whose time as CEO of Bain Capital has been a centerpiece of his campaign, as he has criticized President Obama for not having experience in the “real economy,” opposed both the 2008 bank bailouts under President George W. Bush and Obama’s rescue of the auto industry. But when Kansas City’s Worldwide Grinding Systems went belly-up less than a decade after Bain became its majority stakeholder, the company, which had been in operation since 1888, had to turn to a federal insurance agency to bailout its pension program in large part because Bain had “saddled” it with “such a heavy debt load”:

Less than a decade later, the mill was padlocked and some 750 people lost their jobs. Workers were denied the severance pay and health insurance they’d been promised, and their pension benefits were cut by as much as $400 (258 pounds) a month.

What’s more, a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company’s underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees.

While Romney’s firm benefited from a federal bailout, he has been a vocal critic of such bailouts while on the campaign trail. At different times, Romney both supported and derided the federal bank bailouts, but he most recently referred to the Troubled Asset Relief Program as a “slush fund” that “should be shut down.” When Obama proposed bailing out the auto industry in 2009, a rescue that was ultimately successful, Romney famously criticized the plan in a New York Times editorial titled, “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.”

And while Bain drove Worldwide Grinding Systems into bankruptcy, it didn’t share in the misery. According to Reuters, Bain made at least $12 million from the invesment, and added another $9,000 a year from the company via management consulting fees. Meanwhile, by 1995, the company was carrying debt that amounted to 10 times more than its annual operating income. Six years later, it was bankrupt. “Romney cost me lots and lots of sleepless nights and lots and lots of money,” Ed Stanger, who worked at the plant for more than 30 years, told Reuters.

The Kansas City steel mill isn’t the only chink in Romney’s “job creator” armor. American Pad and Paper (AMPAD), acquired by Bain in 1992, closed two plants, laid off hundreds of workers, and eventually went into bankruptcy. Several companies owned by Bain laid off thousands of workers, even as Bain made handsome profits from its investments — and boosted those profits by abusing offshore tax havens in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.

Though he left Bain more than a decade ago, Romney is still making millions a year from the firm thanks to a lucrative retirement package. His campaign, meanwhile, finally admitted that its claims that Bain created 100,000 jobs under Romney’s leadership were bogus.