Tomorrow, South Carolina will hold its First in the South primary to determine the state’s pick for the GOP nomination. But while most of the state’s focus is on who people will be voting for, what about those who are actually doing the voting?

With the state’s unemployment rate well above the national average and more than 18 percent of residents living in poverty, economic security is certainly a driving concern for the majority of voters. But, given the GOP field’s stances, it doesn’t seem to be a concern candidates are taking to heart.

Here’s a look at how the GOP candidates’ positions would affect the vulnerable populations of South Carolina, by the numbers:

–Over 3,000,000: There are at least at least 3,380,000 eligible voters in South Carolina, but many students, seniors, low-income voters, and minority voters may find it difficult to actually cast a ballot thanks to the state’s new voter ID law. Rick Santorum called it a “common-sense anti-fraud” measure that prevents the vote of “people who probably shouldn’t be voting.” Newt Gingrich blasted President Obama’s rejection of the law as trying to “steal elections.”

–Over 200,000: There are at least 213,000 unemployed South Carolinians contributing to the state’s 9.9 percent unemployment rate. While those receiving unemployment insurance actually work harder to find a job, according to studies, Gingrich equates joblessness with laziness and demands that any benefits come through a work-training program — or a drug test.

–Over 400,000: There were at least 408,000 veterans living in South Carolina in 2009. veterans increasingly need to be treated for traumatic brain injury, PTSD, and other health consequences of war. While Mitt Romney briefly flirted with turning the VA into a voucher system, Gingrich adopted the idea wholesale, stating we should “find a way to have a voucherized system for those who want it.”

–Over 650,000: In 2009, there were over 650,000 people in the state participating in the food stamp program, and the economic recession has no doubt only increased those numbers. Rather than address the need of vulnerable South Carolinians, Gingrich and Santorum traffic in “ugly, racial stereotypes” to justify calls to drug test recipients and cut funding for the needy.

Much has been said in recent days after Mitt Romney revealed that his effective tax rate is close to 15 percent — below that of many middle-class Americans — because much of his income comes from investment gains, which are taxed at lower rates than normal wages.

But Flyod Norris reminds us in the New York Times today that “unearned income” from investments was not always taxed at a lower rate than earned income. For two years, thanks to Republican icon Ronald Reagan, capital gains and earned income were treated equally:

For most of the history of income taxes in America, long-term capital gains — defined at different times as investments held for minimum periods of as little as six months and as long as 10 years — have been taxed at substantially lower rates than top ordinary income tax rates.

There was, in fact, only one time that capital gains were taxed at the same rates that were paid by people who earned their money by working. That was during the years 1988 to 1990, as a result of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 — a law championed by President Ronald Reagan.

Reagan’s Vice President, George H.W. Bush, convinced Reagan and Congress to lower the rate again as he was preparing to run for the presidency, and the capital gains rates was subsequently lowered to today’s rate of 15 percent by his son, President George W. Bush, as part of his 2003 tax cut. As Citizens for Tax Justice has noted, Reagan’s tax increase did not cause investment to fall, as many anti-tax ideologues had predicted.

In urging a reluctant Mitt Romney to finally release his tax returns, Newt Gingrich produced his own last night during the debate. His 2010 returns reveal an adjusted gross income of $3.1 million with an effective tax rate of almost 32 percent. That’s more than twice the rate that Romney said he pays — unless, of course, Gingrich gets his way.

Seeking to overhaul the U.S. tax code, Gingrich announced his plan last month to introduce a new, parallel tax system with what he calls a “flat” 15 percent rate. But as the Tax Policy Center notes, that plan would mean that millionaires would actually pay much lower tax rates than those below them on the income scale — millionaires like Newt Gingrich.

According to calculations by Center for American Progress Action Fund’s Seth Hanlon, Gingrich’s own tax plan would slash his effective tax rate from 31.6 percent down to 14.6 percent, right around where Romney sits comfortably under the existing code. That amounts to a $536,000 tax cut that Gingrich is proposing to give himself.

It is important to note that while Gingrich released his individual return as well as the one for his charitable foundation, he chose not to disclose the returns from his multiple business entities like Gingrich Holdings, which constitutes the primary source of his wealth. Together, they brought in $2.6 million for the Gingriches. Because his proposal includes business tax cuts as well, it is possible that his tax break would be even larger.

Meanwhile, middle-class families would pay significantly higher federal taxes than one-percenters like Gingrich and Romney. In fact, because Romney essentially admits he accrues nearly all of his wealth from investments, which are tax-free under Gingrich’s plan, Gingrich’s plan would allow Romney to pay almost no taxes at all.

And while Gingrich tries to sell his plan as a one that will “allow Americans the freedom to choose to file their taxes on a postcard,” middle-class families will have to do their taxes under the regular system and Gingrich’s system to see which actually affords them a better return.

Incidentally, that $500,000 windfall from his tax plan also happens to be the amount of credit Gingrich and his wife had at Tiffany and Co., the jewelry store. Whether to feed a high-end habit or provide a tax “choice” to American families, Gingrich definitely walks away from his tax plan a much richer man.

Faith in Public Life reports that more than 40 Catholic leaders and theologians across the country are calling on two of their “fellow Catholics,” GOP contenders Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, to stop using divisive rhetoric about race and poverty on the campaign trail.

Noting that Catholics consider racism an “intrinsic evil,” the open letter confronts the two candidates about their comments singling out minorities who receive welfare:

As Catholic leaders who recognize that the moral scandals of racism and poverty remain a blemish on the American soul, we challenge our fellow Catholics Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to stop perpetuating ugly racial stereotypes on the campaign trail. [...]

Labeling our nation’s first African-American president with a title that evokes the past myth of “welfare queens” and inflaming other racist caricatures is irresponsible, immoral and unworthy of political leaders.

Some presidential candidates now courting “values voters” seem to have forgotten that defending human life and dignity does not stop with protecting the unborn. We remind Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum that Catholic bishops describe racism as an “intrinsic evil” and consistently defend vital government programs such as food stamps and unemployment benefits that help struggling Americans.

Gingrich frequently derides President Obama as a “food stamp president” and recently said he would go to the NAACP and tell African Americans they should “demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps.” He also said “really poor children…have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works,” and don’t know how to earn an income “unless its illegal.”

In Iowa, Santorum proclaimed, “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better” through government aid — conveniently ignoring that only 9 percent of Iowans on food stamps are black. After facing criticism for his remarks, he tried several times to deny he had ever made them.

Despite the fact that 39 percent of Americans on welfare are white, Gingrich and Santorum have directed their vitriol toward minorities in speeches before mostly-white audiences. Instead of acknowledging that millions of American families are looking for help in difficult times, the candidates have played up stereotypes of “lazy blacks” who prefer a government handout to hard work.

Those stereotypes are inaccurate as well as offensive. As Tanya Somanader notes, an increasing number of food stamp beneficiaries actually do have jobs and receive paychecks that are the primary source of their income — but most of those incomes still keep them below the poverty line. The Catholic leaders who signed the letter call it “misleading and insulting” to suggest that the unemployed would rather collect benefits than work at a time when there are four job seekers for every job opening.

Faced with an disintegrating American auto industry in 2009, President Obama opted to rescue General Motors and Chrysler from bankruptcy. His decision invited immediate derision from Republicans, but, after paying back millions of loans and adding thousands of additional jobs, GM and Chrysler are on track to sell millions more cars and hire thousands of workers in 2012. Indeed, GM rebounded to become the top-selling automaker of 2011.

That level of success, however, has done little to dislodge some Republicans’ delusion that the auto rescue was bad for business. Today on C-SPAN, GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum completely dismissed the necessity of a rescue, stating that “the greater meltdown over the long term for this country is having the government inject itself into the private sector” at all. GM and Chrysler should’ve “gone through a structured bankruptcy,” he said. “You pretty much would’ve had the same company, maybe even a better company”:

SANTORUM: I called for a structured bankruptcy from the very beginning. Look, I opposed the Wall Street bailout, which of course was the funding source for the auto bailout. I was the only one up on that stage — between myself, Gingrich, and Romney — that did on principle oppose it, even though people were saying there could be a financial meltdown. The bottom line is, the greater meltdown over the long term for this country is having the government inject itself into the private sector in such a huge way. Allow the capitalist system to work, and that’s what I believe in. The same thing with GM and Chrysler, they could’ve gone through a structured bankruptcy and the only difference between those two companies coming out of bankruptcy and the bailout that Obama put in place was that the unions wouldn’t have a big ownership share of the company…You pretty much would’ve had the same company, maybe even a better company, because they would’ve been stripped of even more legacy costs that frankly makes it hard for them to be competitive.

Watch it:

Santorum’s obstinence in the face of such success is somewhat surprising especially given the fact that other Republican naysayers have been quick to about-face. Once calling on America to “let Detroit go bankrupt,” his competitor Mitt Romney now insists that the auto rescue was his idea first. Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R), who originally dismissed the rescue, suddenly is “very pleased” that Obama went through with a decision that turned out to be vital to his state. Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) praised the government intervention and explicitly “warned GOP presidential candidates against criticizing the bailout.”

The industry has now hired back just about everybody from the automotive side that had been laid off — a feat that would not have been possible without the auto rescue. If Santorum wants to continually denigrate that decision, he’ll continue to do so without an ounce of evidence to back him up.

When Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) proposed his 2012-2013 budget this week, he admitted that it was “inadequate for the needs” of the state’s people. “We should be making substantial investments in our physical and intellectual infrastructure to bring transformational change to our state,” Beshear said. “This budget does not allow us to do enough of that.”

Beshear’s assessment of his own budget is, unfortunately, correct. The budget makes $286 million in cuts, including a 6.4 percent cut to a higher education system that has been plagued by funding cuts and rising tuition for years. And though it attempts to preserve K-12 education funding, it will result in less spending on Kentucky’s students and schools, the Lexington Herald-Leader reports:

Although the main funding formula for K-12 schools wouldn’t be cut, population growth means spending per student would decline. Also, education officials say the current year’s population estimate was low, resulting in a cut of more than $50 million to that funding formula.

At the same time, the $43 million tax break Kentucky approved for a Bible-themed amusement park — which will include a 500-foot by 75-foot reproduction of Noah’s Ark — could go into effect for the first time under Beshear’s budget. In addition, the budget includes $11 million to improve a highway interchange near the park. Proponents of the park, Beshear included, have claimed it will boost tourism and create jobs, but those assumptions are based on a report done by the park’s developers.

While Beshear’s budget isn’t guaranteed to pass as proposed, it will likely go through mostly unchanged. Unfortunately, that means lawmakers could jeopardize Kentucky’s substantial gains in K-12 education and ensure ballooning tuition rates at its colleges and universities, all while they preserve tax breaks for what critics have dubbed the “Ark Park.”

CHARLESTON, South Carolina — Earlier this week, an investigation revealed that Mitt Romney holds millons of dollars in accounts located in the Cayman Islands. According to the ABC News report, Romney currently has as much as $33 million stored in accounts in the Caymans, “a notorious Caribbean tax haven.”

The former Massachusetts governor’s campaign maintains these funds do not directly dodge taxes, but this claim is difficult to verify because Romney refuses to release any of his tax returns until April.

Following last night’s Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, ThinkProgress asked former state Attorney General Henry McMaster (R) about the matter. Though McMaster was skeptical that the issue would sway many South Carolina primary votes, he plainly laid out why Romney would utilize such offshore tax havens. Said McMaster, “I mean, the man’s got so much money, I don’t know where he’s going to put it all.”

KEYES: Do you think it’s going to matter to folks, this story that Mitt Romney has put some of his money in offshore accounts, like in the Cayman Islands?

McMASTER: It doesn’t make any difference to most people. I mean, the man’s got so much money, I don’t know where he’s going to put it all. I guess there are reasons to put it in other banks and other places. I wish I had enough to have to worry about that kind of stuff. There may be some legitimate (inaudible) turned up in there, but we’re delving into personal stuff that I don’t think is central to the campaign.

Watch it:

Indeed, most estimate that Romney’s personal fortune is worth approximately $250 million. Despite his vast wealth, Romney’s investments have allowed him to pay a tax rate of just 15 percent, well below the top income tax rate of 35 percent.

Not all GOP officials have been as candid about Romney’s enormous wealth. Sen. John Thune (R-SD) told ThinkProgress earlier this month that there is no merit to the idea that Romney is part of the 1 percent.

In addition to those funds Romney has personally invested in, his former private equity firm, Bain Capital, set up 138 separate funds in the Cayman Islands. Jack Blum, a lawyer with expertise on offshore banking, told ABC News that Romney’s “personal finances are a poster child of what’s wrong with the American tax system.”