Mike Leavitt, the man Mitt Romney has tapped to head his transition should he win this November, has held a wide array of public-sector jobs including Governor of Utah and Secretary of Health and Human Services. But perhaps most interesting is the fifteen months he spent from November 6, 2003 through January 26, 2005 as President George W. Bush’s EPA administrator — a period over which he supported many of the environmental protection efforts Romney has railed against through the campaign.

Romney’s official campaign website has a prominent section on government regulations entitled “Obama’s Failure,” which blasts the EPA for “endless new regulations touching on countless other forms of economic activity—regulations that drive up costs, hinder investment, and destroy jobs. Romney has added that “there are other people who would like to put in place a cap-and-trade program and dramatically increase the cost of energy. That’s their view. And by the way, that would kill a lot of jobs.”

Leavitt has a rather opposite record. In his introductory address to his EPA employees, enthusiastically endorsed a cap-and-trade, telling them:

We need to take the giant step toward national market-based solutions; to do that we need only look to our own experience. That is exactly what we’re doing with cap and trade. The cap and trade strategy was key to the breakthrough against acid rain. It is central to Clear Skies. The cap and trade approach shows us again and again that people do more and they do it faster when they have an incentive to do what’s in the public’s interest.

And, a ThinkProgress analysis of Regulations.gov data reveals that between Leavitt’s first day as administrator to his last, the agency promulgated or amended 232 regulatory rules. These
included tougher standards for ozone, diesel fuels, and other air pollutants. Among these were things like National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Asbestos, and Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Refrigerant Recycling; Substitute Refrigerants — the sorts of regulations Romney says “drive up costs, hinder investment, and destroy jobs.”

Given their opposite views on these issues and Leavitt’s strong support of ObamaCare, he seems a surprising choice to lead Romney’s transition.

More than three dozen activists attempted to prevent a court-ordered eviction in Washington D.C. this morning before being forcefully removed from the property by U.S. Marshals. The activists, who are affiliated with Occupy Our Homes DC, were attempting to stave off the eviction on behalf Dawn Butler, a D.C. resident who has lived at her home for more than six years.

Activists assembled outside the home around 8 a.m.; D.C. Metro Police and U.S. Marshals arrived shortly thereafter. Metro Police warned protesters that they would be subject to arrest after multiple warnings if they didn’t leave the property. Less than an hour later, a half-dozen U.S. Marshals walked to where the protesters were sitting and announced that they would carry out the eviction. When protesters sitting on the home’s front walkway refused to leave, the Marshals began forcefully removing them, dragging some across the sidewalk and others down the front stairs.

After nearly a half-hour, the Marshals reached the front door of the home, where multiple activists tied themselves to milk crates and the door to prevent entry. The Marshals, again using brute force, yanked the protesters away, ripping half of the home’s front door away with them. Marshals tossed one protester over the side of the home’s front porch, sending him sprawling onto his back in the neighbor’s yard and prompting shouts of, “Shame! Shame!” from the activists. Watch it:

At that point, an eviction crew entered the home and removed all of Butler’s belongings, stacking them on the sidewalk. Activists planned to use a moving truck to take Butler’s possessions to storage.

The home went into foreclosure more than two years ago, and Butler, who rents the home, was facing eviction from JP Morgan Chase. Butler challenged the eviction on the grounds that she was denied her right to first refusal when she and her mother attempted to buy the home in 2010. Both Butlers said they received no response from JP Morgan when they submitted a bid for the home.

The court granted Butler a stay from eviction on April 2, but issued an order for eviction Monday. Butler returned to court this morning seeking another stay.

“They’re taking homes just for no reason. They haven’t given us a reason,” Butler said today. “It’s hell. Hell on earth.”

“In this case, the court ruled that the lease was not valid,” JP Morgan Chase said in an official statement. “The tenant had no legal right to remain in the property.”

Today, Republicans in the Senate blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act by filibustering the bill. The legislation would have strengthened protections for women who are being paid less because of their gender by creating larger penalties for employers who discriminate, creating more transparency of salaries so that women know whether they are being paid less, and protecting those who sue for pay equity.

Republicans framed the measure as a useless bureaucratic roadblock that would have hindered free enterprise and helped trial lawyers. Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) called the bill a “war on free enterprise.” But Heller’s record on women’s issues is far from stellar: He previously voted against Paycheck Fairness when he was in the House of Representatives and also voted against the Lily Ledbetter Fair pay act, another pay equity bill.

Pay discrimination isn’t some fantasy of the left — it actually prevents families from higher earnings. On average, women make 77 cents to a man’s dollar. And that’s happening while more women are becoming the primary breadwinners or dual-earners in their family and a larger number of women with high degrees entering the job market.

Over her lifetime, the average woman loses enough in wages to feed a family of four for 37 years.

The Paycheck Fairness Act has become an election issue, as well. Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV), who is challenging Heller, cited his opposition as a sign that he is one of the warriors in the ongoing battle to destroy women’s rights. In Missouri, the Senatorial candidates have also butted heads on Paycheck Fairness (all three Republican candidates opposed the bill). And in the Presidential election, President Obama has come out strongly in favor of the bill, while Mitt Romney has kept silent on the issue.

Despite last week’s disappointing jobs report, which showed the largest drop in construction jobs in two years, House Republicans are threatening to walk away from a transportation infrastructure bill unless Democrats agree to approve construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline and limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate coal ash:

House Republicans say they are willing to walk away from highway bill talks if they cannot get what they want on issues including approval of the Keystone XL pipeline and limiting the EPA regulation of coal ash, a move that clouds prospects for completing legislation before the June 30 deadline.

“If we can’t get serious about finding common ground, the bill will fail,” said Pennsylvania Republican Bill Shuster, a House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee chairman and a deputy whip.

The Senate passed a bipartisan transportation bill by a 74-22 vote, but House Republicans have been unable to corral enough votes to pass their own legislation, instead opting for short-term extensions of transportation funding. And this is not the first time that House Republicans, led by Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), have threatened to use the bill to force approval of the pipeline.

Back in March, Republicans threatened to shut down transportation funding, which would have meant at least the temporary loss of 1.9 million jobs. Meanwhile, the GOP claim that the pipeline is a key driver of job creation is largely a myth.

As the Senate prepares to consider the Paycheck Fairness Act, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) has strongly backed the important measure, which would expand protections for women who face gender discrimination in the workplace.

But the three top Republicans seeking to challenge her this November unanimously expressed opposition to the bill, the Kansas City Star reports, suggesting that efforts like this to reduce the significant wage gap between pay for men and women are not necessary:

• Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO): voted against the measure in the House in 2010 and, through a spokesman, called it “more government intrusion into the marketplace.”
• Former Missouri Treasurer Sarah Steelman (R): dismissed the need for any such legislation, calling the bill “political posturing intended to deflect attention from the horrific employment numbers and faltering economy.”
• Wealthy businessman John Brunner (R): said that the problem has already been solved by existing law, saying “I’ve been in the workplace for 30-plus years here, and the whole issue is there are systems in place for those issues of discrimination. I believe these issues are fully covered.”

With women still making just 77 cents for every dollar, the Paycheck Fairness Act would represent a much-needed step toward gender equity.

2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney will hit the fundraising circuit in Texas tomorrow, attending a fundraiser in San Antonio hosted by billionaire Billy Joe McCombs. Likely not on the table for discussion, though, is the fact that McCombs was ordered by the IRS to pay $44.7 million after using a scheme meant to avoid capital gains taxes:

McCombs is contesting the IRS’ assertion that he should have reported $213.4 million in long-term capital gains in 2002 from the sale of 11.3 million shares of Clear Channel Communications Inc., the company he cofounded in 1972. He’s also disputing an additional $3.3 million in 2003 capital gains in connection with the same purported sale. In all, the IRS asserts, McCombs had $245 million in taxable income for 2002 and 2003, rather than the $18 million he reported and owed $53 million in income tax, not the $8 million he paid.

The case involves a complicated strategy, which was widely peddled by Wall Street as a way for rich folks like [billionaire Phil] Anschutz and McCombs to raise cash from highly appreciated stock positions, while deferring capital gains tax.

In the last few years, the IRS has attempted to crack down on these schemes, much to the chagrin of the billionaires who use them. McCombs settled his case last year.