Despite having the most virulently anti-immigrant platform in the GOP field, Mitt Romney won Florida’s primary handily last night, even capturing a majority of Hispanic voters. Vanessa Cárdenas, Director of Progress 2050 at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, writes that Romney’s strategy to sway Latino voters has been to deflect criticism from his immigration policies by arguing that his economic plans would benefit Hispanic families.

But in her new report, Cárdenas points out that these policies “are out of step with the interests of the Latino community and in fact would hurt more than help.” For instance, his plan to privatize Social Security would disproportionately hurt Latinos who depend on the program for a large chunk of their income:

Latinos rely on Social Security for more of their retirement income and benefit over a longer period of time than most other population groups because of their longer life spans. Because a large number of Hispanics tend to have lower wages and less pension coverage, over 3/4 of Latinos rely on Social Security for at least half of their income.

Approximately 45 percent rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income, while about 38 percent rely on it for all of their income. Twenty-eight percent of Hispanics under 18 who are poor live below the poverty level. Hispanics 65 years and over were 21.8 percent of those who live below poverty. Without Social Security more Latinos would be harmed across the country. Privatization would dismantle the safety net.

Additionally, Romney has pledged to roll back President Obama’s health care reform law, which would be a crippling blow to the 9 million Hispanics who currently lack health insurance. Romney’s proposal to block grant Medicaid would result in deep cuts to the “program that is at the crux of Latinos’ access to health care” and covers more than one in four Hispanics.

Facing criticism for not being conservative enough on many issues, Romney has consistently tried to outflank many of his opponents on the right when it comes to immigration. Among other things, he has vowed to veto the DREAM Act if he becomes president, which would deny undocumented students the chance to come out of hiding and get a college education or serve in the military. After one GOP debate in November, Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom essentially conceded that his candidate’s position was to make immigrants’ lives unbearable to force them to leave the country.

The Occupy Wall Street movement, as we noted last month, is shifting its focus to helping the 99 percent avoid foreclosures. And for one couple in Detroit, that help resulted in them being able to keep their home of 22 years, when it looked like they could be evicted at any moment:

Two weeks ago the couple got formal notice of an eviction. On Monday, a contractor attempted to place a dumpster on the Garrett property, a step required before an eviction can take place, according to city code.

But also on Monday, members of Moratorium Now, Occupy Detroit and Homes Before Banks rallied at the Detroit office of the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., the trustee of the Garretts’ mortgage. The family’s supporters also blocked the contractor from placing the dumpster.

On Tuesday morning a representative of Statebridge Co., a servicer for their mortgage, called the family to say the company would accept their offer of $12,000 to buy back their home, said the Garretts’ daughter, Michele Finley.

This is not the only house that Occupy Detroit has tried to keep out of foreclosure, nor is it the only successful instance of the Occupy movement keeping someone in their home. In places as far apart as Atlanta, Rochester, and Cleveland, Occupy members have managed to prevent foreclosures. Bank of America went so far as to warn its field managers to prepare for Occupy actions around soon-to-be foreclosed upon homes.

Detroit is the 18th worst city for foreclosures in the nation, down from its number one ranking in 2008, and already has more than 70,000 unoccupied homes. The mayor has set a goal of demolishing 10,000 empty homes by the end of the year.

Indiana Republicans passed their anti-union “right-to-work” bill this morning, and Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) signed the bill this afternoon, officially making his state the 23rd to adopt such a law. Despite the bill’s widespread opposition from Democrats and labor groups, Republicans claim they have broad support across the Hoosier State and that the new law will increase the state’s attractiveness to businesses.

If the GOP had studied the state’s history, however, it might feel differently. Indiana Republicans passed a similar right-to-work law in 1957 over the objections of Democrats, labor leaders, and workers, and the law proved so unpopular that it lasted only eight years, as the Evansville Courier Press noted in November:

However, the new law was so unpopular that many Republicans were turned out at the polls in 1958. By the 1960s, Democrats controlled both chambers of the General Assembly and the governor’s office. And in 1965, they repealed the right-to-work law.

The events surrounding Indiana’s previous attempt at right-to-work bear an eerie resemblance to Indiana’s current efforts. Time Magazine, in its March 11, 1957 issue, reported that “some 7,500 wrought-up Indianans marched into the Statehouse in Indianapolis last week to protest against a ‘right-to-work’ bill,” which then-Gov. Harold W. Hanley (R) allowed to become law even though he “disliked the bill himself.” Last week, more than 10,000 workers marched through Indianapolis, and thousands have rallied at the state capitol this week. Current Indiana Gov. Daniels will sign the law despite previously saying that he though such a law would spark a “civil war” in the state.

And just like Indiana Republicans were hammered at the polls in 1958, Republicans in other states have faced public rebuke for attacking unions. Wisconsin’s anti-union legislation passed in 2011 led to recall elections for six Republican state senators (two lost), and Gov. Scott Walker (R). And while Indiana’s right-to-work bill lasted eight years, anti-union legislation signed by Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) was defeated at the polls by Ohioans less than a year after it became law.

Indiana Democrats made a similar effort to put right-to-work up to a referendum, a decision that, according to the Teamsters union, was supported by 71 percent of state voters. But Republicans, perhaps realizing that such a plan might lead to an ugly repeat of history, blocked those attempts. With studies showing that right-to-work is bad for workers and won’t actually help Indiana, however, Hoosiers may be yearning for a repeat of 1965 sooner rather than later.

The GOP is cultivating a staggeringly disdainful view of Americans who are struggling to get by in the wake of the Great Recession. Seeking to gut the social safety net programs on which an increasing number of Americans rely, Republicans have demonized the poor as dependent, lazy drug-users who pilfer Uncle Sam for trips to Hawaii. In that vein, House Republicans are bringing a bill to the floor today to ensure that low-income Americans don’t use federal benefits to pay for “lap dances.”

The bill’s sponsor Rep. Charles Boustany Jr. (R-LA) says he’s trying to close a “strip-club loophole” which allows beneficiaries of the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program use state-issued debit cards at strip clubs, casinos, and liquor stores. “It’s pretty rampant around the country,” he insists.

Naturally, no one thinks adult entertainment is an appropriate use for TANF funds. But as Center for American Progress Action Fund’s Melissa Boteach notes, the use of funds at strip clubs, liquor stores, and casinos is hardly a “pressing national crisis,” but rather a politically valuable message for the GOP, regardless of its veracity, because it’s useful to the GOP to paint vulnerable Americans as “delinquent and criminally inclined“:

But putting politics above policy in this crass way is unfortunate and cynical. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program has experienced benefit cuts of more than 20 percent, after adjusting for inflation, even as the Great Recession and the slow economic recovery have caused elevated levels of unemployment and poverty. Many low-income workers on TANF are unable to access the child care they need to make work possible and ultimately end up paying nearly half their income towards care for their children. And low-wage workers are constantly facing the threat of a layoff because more than 80 percent lack access to a single paid sick day to take care of themselves, a sick kid, or an elderly relative.

And the big vote on TANF is about strip clubs?

This vote represents yet another instance in the creeping trend of conservatives to demonize the poor — and then threaten anyone who votes against the legislation with supporting “welfare spending” for strip club admissions. The tactic enables conservatives to imply that tough economic circumstances somehow make poor people delinquent and criminally inclined.

Boustany pushes the common refrain that such bills are an “obligation to make sure taxpayer dollars are spent appropriately.” But as Boteach points out, TANF and other social safety net programs are already subject to federal and state audits. And for measures like drug-testing welfare recipients, such proposals can cost thousands to catch one drug user because the positive test rate is so low.

At a time when nearly half of the U.S population is just one financial shock away from poverty, Republicans should focus on bolstering the very programs that ensure the economic security of families. Instead, Republicans seem committed to push a strip club stereotype for a political win while stripping vulnerable Americans of a safety net.

Arizona Republicans this week released a bill that would essentially abolish public sector unions in their state, taking the high-profile union-busting bills of Wisconsin and Ohio one step further. A state Senate committee plans to vote on the measure today. As Arizona Channel 12 News’ Brahm Resnik explained, the bill would:

– Make it illegal for government bodies to collectively bargain with employee groups. Public safety unions would be included in the ban.

– End the practice of automatic payroll deductions for union dues.

– Ban compensation of public employees for union work.

Arizona’s state government already doesn’t bargain with unions, but local governments and school districts do, so the ban would ripple through every school, local police station, and firehouse. “The Republican majority has established themselves to be very much anti-employee,” said state Sen. David Lujan (D). “It’s just another strike at those who choose to be public service employees. Their voice is not valued.”

The legislation originated with the libertarian think tank the Goldwater Institute, which counts the Walton Foundation (the Waltons of the Walmart fortune) and the Charles Koch Foundation amongst its top donors.

The Arizona GOP, predictably, is blaming public sector unions for the state’s budget woes, with the bill’s Republican sponsor claiming that “taxpayers’ costs from public employee contracts negotiated by unions for pay and benefits burden taxpayers.” However, the facts don’t support that theory. In fact, North Carolina (a state without collective bargaining) is projected to have a 10 percent budget deficit for the 2013 fiscal year, compared to 3.5 percent for New York (more densely unionized than any other).

And, of course, unions have the added benefits of alleviating income inequality and pushing for important worker protections. Arizona Republicans, in fact, might want to learn a lesson from Ohio, as the Ohio GOP saw its union-busting law repealed via referendum following a strong public outcry.

President Obama’s plan to rescue Chrysler as part of a broader bailout of the American auto industry in 2008 came under fire from various Republicans who predicted the company would never return to profitability. “The government has forced taxpayers to buy these failing companies without any plausible plan for profitability,” South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint (R) said. Arizona Sen. John McCain (R), meanwhile, said that if “anybody believes Chrysler is going to survive, I’d like to meet them.”

Two years later, though, Chrysler has done just that, posting its first operating profit since the rescue and its first net profit since 1997. Chrysler’s $225 million income, including $183 million in net profits, would have been more than $500 million larger, the company said, had it not decided to retire the debt it owed the U.S. and Canadian governments. CEO Sergio Marchionne said the company’s forecast for 2012 is even better, the New York Times reports:

Mr. Marchionne, who also heads Chrysler’s Italian parent company, Fiat, said the Detroit automaker expected to earn profit of $1.5 billion this year as it continued to introduce products including the Dodge Dart, a new compact car derived from an existing Fiat model.

“The house is in good order,” Mr. Marchionne said in a statement. “Now we greet a new year of high expectations with our heads down, forging ahead and focusing on executing the goals we’ve set for ourselves as a company.”

Chrysler has added 9,400 jobs since the rescue and plans to announce tomorrow that it will add 1,600 more at a plant in Illinois, where it will manufacture the fuel-efficient Dodge Dart. That’s part of an industry-wide hiring spree in the United States, as American and foreign automakers are expected to add nearly 167,000 jobs by 2015. Boosted by strong sales years in both 2010 and 2011, American automakers now control more than half of the United States’ market share.

Of course, the profits and jobs that have come from the renewed success of the American auto industry would not have been possible had Obama followed the advice of Republicans, whose plan to let the companies enter an uncontrolled bankruptcy would have killed as many as 80,000 jobs.

Coming off his big win in Florida last night, GOP front-runner Mitt Romney told CNN this morning that helping the poor is not his priority, suggesting that Democrats worry enough about the “plight of the poor” already:

ROMNEY: I’m not concerned with the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America. [..]

HOST: You just said said, ‘I’m not concerned about the very poor because they have a safety net.’ But I think there are a lot of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say, that sounds odd. [...]

ROMNEY: The challenge right now — we will hear from the Democrat party the plight of the poor. And there’s no question it’s not good being poor. And we have a safety net to help those that are very poor, but campaign is focused is on middle-income Americans. My campaign — you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich, that’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor, that’s not my focus.

Watch it:

Later, Romney said, “we have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.”

Romney’s claim that the safety net is “very ample” suggests a lack of understanding . While safety net programs kept seven million Americans out of poverty in 2010, according to a study from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, government assistance fell far short of insulating all, or even most, poor Americans.

But his comment is especially tone deaf considering that Romney has proposed weakening many of these safety net programs. Under Romney’s proposed reductions in federal spending, it’s likely that Medicaid would be cut by $153 billion by 2016, the food stamp program would have to throw 10 million low-income people off the rolls, and a key program supporting poor children’s health would face cumulative cuts of $946 billion through 2021. As ThinkProgress’ Igor Volsky has said that Romney is living in a “dream world” when he claims his Medicaid cuts won’t hurt the poor.

And Romney’s tax plan suggests his focus is really on the wealthy, as it includes massive giveaways to upper-income earners and investors, while doing almost nothing for middle- and low-income Americans.