Goldman Sachs is one of the U.S.’s most profitable companies, making, in the last three years, profits of $13.9 billion, $8.5 billion, and $4.4 billion, even as the country grappled with the effects of the Great Recession. But despite these sky-high profits, the state of Utah is still seeing fit to give the mega-bank tens of millions of dollars to create jobs:

Goldman will receive an estimated $47.3 million from Utah over a 20-year period in the form of a 30 percent tax rebate, according to Governor’s Office of Economic Development.

In exchange, the bank agreed to maintain at least 1,065 employees in Salt Lake City and pay them at least 150 percent of the average local county salary.

State legislatures can’t seem to help themselves when it comes to doling out tax breaks in order to create or preserve jobs, but the history of such policy should act as a warning. For instance, Illinois doled out millions in subsidies to Sears, only to have the retailer layoff 100 workers last month. Boeing not only received a slew of tax credits from Wichita, Kansas, but had Kansas lawmakers lobby for it to receive billions in federal contracts: the company will leave Wichita at the end of 2013, costing thousands of jobs.

And the list goes on and on. The Des Moines Register found that “15 [Iowa] companies enjoying tax credit dollars given to them by the state have defaulted on the job-creation requirements tied to those credits.” Louisiana doles out hundreds of millions in tax credits to businesses, with no clue as to whether or not they create jobs.

As Citizens for Tax Justice noted, “the reasons for these failures should be obvious. When the economy is weak, businesses generally can’t sell as much of their product as they used to. You can throw money at them and ask them to hire more people, but ultimately it doesn’t make sense for a company to bring on more employees unless there’s some new, unmet demand that needs to be filled.” But states continue to try this failed strategy, with Utah giving a humongous investment bank millions of dollars in the hopes that it will bring some of “god’s work” to the Beehive State. (HT: Jess Kutch)

So-called “job killing regulations” have become a favorite target of Republicans since the economic downturn, as legislators have denounced the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Labor Relations Board, and virtually every other government agency that writes rules. The EPA has emerged as target number one, with Republican presidential candidates promising to shut it down for good and the GOP-controlled House of Representatives seeking to defund it at every turn.

According to a new report from the Economic Policy Institute, however, the “job-killing” part of the phrase “job-killing regulation” is built largely on myth. Last year, EPI released a report that found that several of the EPA’s proposed environmental regulations would actually create jobs. Now that the EPA has finalized a rule regulating toxic waste, EPI has used that rule to analyze whether such regulations are, indeed, job-killers. Once again, it found the opposite to be true, and said the new rule will actually create more jobs than it previously estimated:

Previous studies (such as Bivens 2011) that have estimated the jobs impact of specific proposed regulatory changes have probably understated the gains to employment spurred by the rule, likely by roughly 50%. But even given these understatements, the effects of some specific regulatory changes—such as the toxics rule, the largest single air-quality rule currently being proposed by the EPA—are surely positive for job creation. [...]

Even with multiplier effects, these estimates translate into job gains of roughly 117,000 to 135,000 in 2015, depending on whether one or both offsets to the job-depressing effects of price increases are used. … But what this reassessment does make clear is that it is near-inconceivable that adoption of the rule will cost any jobs at all in the near term. The effect will be unambiguously positive.

The study is hardly the first indication that the GOP’s “job-killing regulations” rhetoric is built on a myth. The EPA’s regulation of the coal industry helped boost industry employment to a 15-year high, and EPA regulations aimed at cleaning up Chesapeake Bay would create 35 times more jobs than the GOP’s favorite pet project, the Keystone XL pipeline. The GOP’s spiel has even fallen flat with business leaders large and small, with one CEO saying there was “no question” the new regulations would create jobs.

Several corporate CEOs representing the Business Roundtable, a lobbying group, were on Capitol Hill today to unveil a set of measures that they claim will boost the economy. Not surprisingly, some of the high-profile items are a cut in the corporate tax rate and shifting to what’s known as a territorial tax system:

Fresh out of a meeting with members of the Blue Dog Coalition, dozens of CEOs in town for a series of Business Roundtable policy and lobbying meetings today unveiled proposals to boost the economy.

The plan, billed as “Taking Action for America,” calls for a balanced federal budget, a reform of federal regulations and a lower corporate tax rate based on a territorial tax system, among others.

A territorial system, as well as cutting the corporate tax rate without raising more corporate tax revenue, are both misguided proposals. But the interesting thing about these particular CEOs pushing this particular policy prescription is that several of them already run corporations that pay little to nothing in taxes.

For instance, Boeing CEO Jim McNerny is part of the group calling for corporate tax cuts, despite the fact that his company has a negative federal tax rate for the last decade. Only twice in the last ten years has Boeing had federal tax liability in a given year, and between 2008 and 2010, the company made $9 billion in profits without paying any federal corporate income tax.

Andrew Liveris, president and CEO of the Dow Chemical, also joined the lobbying party, even though his company received nearly half a billion dollars in tax refunds in 2010. Proctor & Gamble’s CEO also participated, while heading a company very fond of exploiting loopholes to avoid taxes.

Corporate tax rates are already at a 40 year low. As billionaire investor Warren Buffett explained, “it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it…Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness.” Yet corporate CEOs whose companies already pay literally nothing think driving rates down further is the answer to boosting the economy.

In February, a CNN poll found that regardless of age, race, sex, or party affiliation, all Americans agreed that Mitt Romney “favors the rich” over the middle class or poor, ThinkProgress noted. And it looks like the rich are returning the favor.

The Washington Post reported this morning that in both Michigan and Ohio, “voters making more than $100,000 per year turn[ed] out in much higher numbers this year than they did in 2008″:

In 2008, 22 percent of GOP primary voters in Michigan made at least $100,000, and that group made up 21 percent of the electorate in Ohio, according to exit polls. This year, 33 percent of voters in Michigan made that much money, while 30 percent of Ohio voters did. In both cases, the number of wealthy voters grew by about 50 percent — a pretty stunning increase in that demographic over just a four-year span.

In both states, Romney won among those making more than $100,000 by 14 points, even though he lost among all other income demographics.

This trend occurs in virtually every state that has voted thus far. A ThinkProgress analysis of exit/entrance polls from the 14 states that have conducted them shows that Romney consistently does best among those earning more than $100,000 or $200,000 a year, while more often than not losing among middle- and working-class voters.

The only states where this wasn’t true were Massachusetts, his home state where he served as governor, and Virginia, where Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich weren’t even on the ballot.

See the full breakdown of the 12 state exit polls HERE.

For instance, in Ohio, where Romney barely eeked out a win last night, Romney dominated among the wealthy, capturing 46 percent of those making more than $100,000 and a whopping 55 percent of those making more than $200,000. He lost among middle-class voters, by 11 points among those making $50,000-$100,000 and 6 points for people earning $30,000-$50,000.

Meanwhile, in Georgia, Iowa, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and South Carolina, Romney lost overall, but won in the top income bracket, in some cases by over 20 percent.

And the states that Romney has won are overwhelmingly the wealthier states that have that voted thus far, while he’s generally lost in the poorer states. The major exception is the wealthy state of Minnesota, which Romney lost, but where he didn’t campaign as aggressively.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials last week deported an undocumented California woman to Mexico following a citizen’s arrest that occurred as she protested a potentially illegal foreclosure on her home. Blanca Cardenas is married to an American citizen and has two children — one age 14, the other 17 months — who are both American citizens, but following her arrest, she was deported to Mexico with no money and nothing but the clothes on her back.

Cardenas was arrested outside her Los Angeles home on February 22 after protesting against what she believed was an illegal foreclosure on her home. According to a release from the California-based Occupy Fights Foreclosures, Cardenas disputed the eviction because it believes Bank of America filed fraudulent paperwork to begin the foreclosure process, and also because she was a part of federal bankruptcy proceedings, which protects against foreclosure.

After Cardenas was the subject of a citizen’s arrest (allegedly initiated by an investor who had bought the home), she was detained by Los Angeles Police Department officers and turned over to ICE, leading to another legal dispute. According to the activists backing Cardenas, the local Sheriff’s Department, not LAPD, has jurisdiction over foreclosures and evictions. ICE deported Cardenas to Mexico on February 29.

“It’s been devastating since they took her,” said Gerardo Quinones, Blanca’s husband. “She was deported with nothing but the clothes on her, she didn’t have money or anything else. She had every right to fight for her home and believed the authorities would protect her.”

As Firedoglake’s David Dayen noted, the Obama administration had ordered reviews of undocumented immigrants with no prior criminal record. Occupy activists claim that Cardenas has no prior record and is a “non-priority” undocumented immigrant, but according to ICE officials, she had been previously deported to Mexico in 2002. Upon her arrest, ICE “reinstated her prior order of removal,” according to a statement, which also said the agency’s enforcement “prioritizes the removal of criminal aliens, recent border crossers and egregious immigration law violators, such as those who have been previously removed from the United States.”

Foreclosure fraud and abuse has been prevalent across the country and particularly in California. Attorney General Kamala Harris (D) launched an investigation into foreclosure fraud in December, and a recent audit of 400 San Francisco-area foreclosures found that nearly all of them had legal issues. California Occupy activists have called on banks and federal housing authorities to halt foreclosures until a full investigation into foreclosure fraud is complete.

Among Wall Street banks, Wells Fargo has been one of the biggest perpetrators of fraud, deception, and abuse during the housing and foreclosure crisis. The bank has used robo-signers to fraudulently sign foreclosure documents, foreclosed on homeowners who followed the bank’s directions, and illegally foreclosed on military veterans.

Now, Wells Fargo and other banks have found another way to mislead consumers. While trying to sell the properties it holds in foreclosure, Wells Fargo has urged real estate agents not to disclose that such properties are bank-owned, and in other cases, it has used divisions it owns to avoid identifying itself as the owner of foreclosed homes, the Palm Beach Post reports. Under such conditions, would-be homeowners don’t discover that the property is in foreclosure until they place a contract on the house:

It’s a little-known fact that Wells Fargo Bank’s Premier Asset Services division, which sells bank-owned homes, instructs agents who sell these houses to list the owner as “Owner of Record,” and not Wells Fargo. Premier Asset Services also sells homes owned by other banks.

The Multiple Listing Service, which is used by real estate agents to list properties, includes a category for bank-owned property. But here again, agents are told by many banks not to disclose the fact that the property is, in fact, owned by a bank. [...]

If a buyer wishes to put a contract on a bank-owned home, then it will become clear through paperwork the property is a foreclosure, and any defects or repairs can be corrected or reflected in the sales price, Smith said.

Wells Fargo makes such strident efforts to avoid labeling homes as “bank-owned” because there is a “negative connotation” associated with those properties, Tyler Smith, a vice president at Premier Asset Services, said. But as consumer activists told the Post, many home buyers aren’t interested in such properties because bank-owned homes often have “deferred maintenance, hidden defects and a host of problems caused by neglect or vandalism,” as the banks often ignore their foreclosed-upon properties.

Worse yet, Smith acknowledged that the practices were deceptive in nature, but said the bank’s true motivation for misleading customers was to protect local communities. In reality, though, the decision likely boils down to money. “There’s definitely a perception the bank is going to sell the property for a lower price than if it was a regular seller of a home in a neighborhood,” a local real estate attorney told the Post. “The bank wants as much money as it can get because it’s costing (the bank) homeowners association fees and insurance.”

Mitt Romney — fresh off his series of primary victories last night — appeared on CNBC this morning, where he was asked about the Tax Policy Center’s assessment that his tax plan would add trillions of dollars to the national debt. Romney responded by saying that TPC didn’t actually score his whole plan, admitting later in the interview that his plan “can’t be scored” because some of the key details have been left out:

They [TPC] don’t look at the full plan. What I say is we’re going to cut the top marginal rate across-the-board by 20 percent, and at the same time, we’re going to limit deductions and exemptions to pay for most of that and then additional growth will pay for the rest of that such that our plan does not increase the deficit. And then combine that with the savings I just described with Tom in terms of cutting back several government programs or eliminating some of those programs, and we finally get America to a balanced budget…I haven’t laid out all the details of how we’re going to deal with each one of the deductions and exemptions, so I think it’s kind of interesting for the groups who try and score it because, frankly, it can’t be scored because those kinds of details are going to have be worked out with Congress.

Watch it:

The reason that Romney’s plan can’t be scored, as he himself noted, is that he hasn’t explained which deductions and exemptions he will supposedly limit to pay for it. Instead, he waves his hands and promises to get to that part later. But at the same time, he feels comfortable criticizing TPC for not taking into account elements that he freely admits he hasn’t (and maybe won’t ever) release.

But even if Romney coughed up those details, his plan’s math still wouldn’t add up. Even with limiting deductions and exemptions for the richest Americans, Romney would need economic growth to be at 6.5 percent for five years to prevent his plan from adding to the deficit. But the very best five-year period in post-war America was from 1961 to 1966, when economic growth averaged 5.8 percent.

As Center for American Progress Director of Tax and Budget Policy Michael Linden noted, “Tim Pawlenty’s economic plan relied on consistent 5 percent real growth and he was basically laughed out of the room for making such outlandish assumptions.” Yet Romney’s plan depends on the same sort of fantasy.

One of the many ways in which House Republicans have sought to undermine the Dodd-Frank financial reform law — and the tactic that has been most successful — is denying the regulatory agencies that police financial markets enough funding to adequately do their job. The GOP, in particular, has denied funding to the Securities and Exchange Commission, despite that agency’s vast new responsibilities under Dodd-Frank.

This week, SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro implored Congress to give her agency the funding it needs. In the House Financial Services Committee yesterday, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) offered an amendment to do just that, but House Republicans voted it down on party lines.

But the worst part about the GOP’s intransigence when it comes to funding the SEC is that the agency isn’t even paid for by taxpayers. Instead, its budget comes from fees assessed on Wall Street. So refusing to fund it undermines regulatory enforcement, and just leaves more money to the banks:

Cutting the S.E.C.’s budget will have no effect on the budget deficit, won’t save taxpayers a dime and could cost the Treasury millions in lost fees and penalties. That’s because the S.E.C. isn’t financed by tax revenue, but rather by fees levied on those it regulates, which include all the big securities firms.

A little-noticed provision in Dodd-Frank mandates that those fees can’t exceed the S.E.C.’s budget. So cutting its requested budget by $222.5 million saves Wall Street the same amount.

The SEC regulates more than 35,000 institutions, and to give a sense of the funding gap it faces, JP Morgan Chase spends four times the SEC’s entire budget on information technology alone.

As the New York Times’ James Stewart put it, “given the magnitude of the S.E.C.’s task, Congress could make Wall Street firms pay more and not less to police the mess they helped create.” However, House Republicans have refused to do that, instead following House Financial Services Committee Chairman’s Spencer Bachus’ (R-AL) philosophy that Washington’s role is to “serve the banks.”