When it comes to getting borrowers through foreclosure prevention programs, Bank of America has lagged the other large mortgage servicers in the country for years. Initially, the bank blamed its borrowers for the lack of success, before eventually acknowledging that its mortgage modification processes are wholly inadequate.

According to a report today in Bloomberg News, things still haven’t changed:

Bank of America Corp., plagued by complaints about customer service in its mortgage unit, said it hasn’t yet refinanced a “significant number” of loans as part of the industry’s $25 billion settlement of foreclosure abuses.

The lender blamed the “time required to underwrite” loans for why it hasn’t completed many of its planned $1 billion in modifications, according to a filing earlier this month. By contrast, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) said last week it has already finished a “significant portion” of its $500 million program and Wells Fargo (WFC) & Co. said it expected to complete its $900 million requirement two years ahead of the 2015 deadline.

Under the terms of the $25 billion foreclosure fraud settlement that the nation’s five biggest banks cut with a coalition of attorneys generals and the federal government, the banks are required to provide a certain amount of relief to struggling homeowners. So far, Bank of America has failed to keep up.

Bank of America has managed to produce some spectacular messes when it comes to foreclosures, including foreclosing on a homeowner over an 80 cent typo. The bank also foreclosed on a home that no longer exists, incorrectly repossessed a pet parrot, and foreclosed on an elderly couple for paying their mortgage too early.

Meanwhile, one whistleblower alleged that the bank intentionally blocked homeowners from getting federal mortgage aid. But, remember, the bank will give you a modification if you promise to erase the mean things you said about it on Twitter.

Mitt Romney said on Thursday on the campaign trail that he never paid less than a 13 percent tax rate, adding that continued calls for him to release his tax returns are “small-minded.” “I did go back and look at my taxes, and over the past 10 years I never paid less than 13 percent,” he said. “And if you add in addition the amount that goes to charity, why the number gets well above 20 percent.”

Leaving aside that Romney expects everyone to simply take his word for it that this is true, there are still many questions that can’t be answered without seeing Romney’s tax returns. Here are seven:

1) What kind of taxes? Does that 13 percent cover income taxes, capital gains taxes, or some combination? By Romney’s own admission, nearly all of his income comes from investments (so the low capital gains tax rate helps him drive his overall rate far below that of many middle-class families).

2) What sort of deductions did Romney employ? In addition to the deduction they receive for classifying Ann Romney’s horse as a business, what other deductions are the Romneys using to lower their tax rate?

3) How did Romney’s IRA grow so large? Romney’s retirement account contains more than $100 million, despite annual limits on contributions. How did that happen?

4) What sort of offshore tax strategies does Romney use? While Romney was on the executive committee of Marriott, the company employed complex strategies known as “Son of Boss” to dodge taxes, prompting consequences with the IRS. Did Romney use a similar strategy for his own taxes?

5) Was Romney’s Swiss bank account disclosed on all tax returns for all years? Did he file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) as required by the deadline for each year he had the account?

6) Did Romney participate in the IRS’s settlement initiative for undeclared offshore financial accounts (the amnesty)? In 2009, the IRS gave American citizens a window to declare their Swiss bank accounts and avoid prosecution for tax dodging, before it launched a crackdown on foreign accounts. As Slate’s Matt Yglesias wrote, “Romney might well have thought in 2007 and 2008 that there was nothing to fear about a non-disclosed offshore account he’d set up years earlier precisely because it wasn’t disclosed. But then came the settlement and the rush of non-disclosers to apply for the amnesty.”

7) Why did Romney invest in Houston rental real estate that was explicitly marketed as a tax shelter? As The New York Times reported, Romney was an investor in a real estate scheme in which the organizers “played up the tax shelter benefits.” The deal turned out to be a lousy investment.

On a final note, does Romney think that the 20 prominent conservatives calling for more tax returns are “small minded”?

A new report from the Institute for Policy Studies notes that tax breaks enjoyed by 26 of the most highly-compensated chief executive officers in the U.S. could have instead been spent to hire an estimated 211,000 elementary school teachers.

According to the report, four direct tax subsidies that corporations take advantage of to boost executive pay into the stratosphere cost taxpayers an estimated $14.4 billion per year, which is enough to hire 211,000 elementary school teachers, fund public broadcasting for more than 30 years, or provide the maximum Pell Grant to more than 2.5 million college students.

The US tax code is riddled with easily exploitable loopholes that corporations routinely employ when it comes to executive pay. A CEO’s salary is only tax deductible up to $1 million, so instead they receive other forms of compensation, like stock options or other “performance based pay,” which are exempt from the deductibility limit. That practice alone cost taxpayers $9.7 billion in 2011, says IPS:

The unlimited tax deductibility of executive pay loophole operates as a powerful subsidy for excessive compensation. The more corporations pay out in executive compensation, the less they owe in taxes. And average taxpayers wind up paying the bill. According to the Economic Policy Institute, this loophole cost American taxpayers as much as $9.7 billion in 2010.

Rewarding executives with salaries stretching into the hundreds of millions per year, and pushing the bill onto taxpayers, simply forces deeper cuts in other government services, at a time when CEO pay is already through the roof.

The Bush tax cuts, again, are set to expire at the end of the year, and President Obama has promised to veto any extension of the cuts on income in excess of $250,000. Of course, Republicans are opposed to anything but a complete extension.

In a new report, the Institute for Policy Studies shows just how unnecessary the tax breaks on high income are, noting that last year, 57 of the top 100 CEOs in the country saved more than $1 million due to the Bush tax cuts alone:

– CEOs have benefited enormously from the Bush tax cuts for upper-income taxpayers. Last year, 57 CEOs saved more than $1 million on their personal income tax bills, thanks to these Bush-era cuts.

– The top CEO beneficiary of the Bush tax cuts in 2011, James Mulva of ConocoPhillips, saved $6.7 million. Mulva cashed in more than $140 million in stock options in his last year at the energy company’s helm.

IPS added, “All the CEOs on this list certainly saved significantly more from the Bush tax cuts than the sums listed here, since they had additional income from other sources, including their investments.”

In recent decades, CEO pay has absolutely skyrocketed, leaving worker pay far behind. It would take the typical American worker 244 years to earn what the average CEO now makes in one year. Over the last 30 years, CEO pay has increased 127 times faster than worker pay. And at the same time, taxes on the rich have gone down further and further, further exacerbating already high income inequality.