Despite a brief moment of optimism, it turns out that domestic workers in California still won’t be guaranteed a lunch break.

As part of his clean sweep on unfinished legislation from the state house, California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) late last night vetoed a bill that would have ensured basic rights for in-home aide workers. Such protections would have included overtime pay, meal breaks, and “adequate sleeping conditions for live-in workers.”

The California Chamber of Commerce, a business lobby with strong anti-union positions, opposed the protections, arguing that domestic workers couldn’t take breaks without endangering the health of those for whom they are providing care.

Brown apparently sided with those interests. In a letter explaining his decision, he said that he had “unanswered questions” about the bill. But he seemed to have answered some of those questions, as well, since he provided a list of qualms he had with the legislation, arguing that it would cost the state, and disabled employers, too much.

The Domestic Workers’ Alliance responded to Brown’s veto in a statement, calling Brown’s decision “a huge disappointment”:

“It is a huge disappointment that Governor Brown chose not to recognize the people caring for California’s families and homes as real workers,” said Sylvia Lopez a worker with the California Domestic Workers Coalition, sponsor of the bill. “For decades we have tirelessly cared for California’s homes, children, the elderly, and people with disabilities without the protection of basic rights. Tonight, Governor Brown has done a tremendous disservice to thousands of domestic workers, their families, and the people they care for.”

Domestic workers are a largely immigrant, largely female constituency across the country — groups that are often voiceless in political debates. The rights requested in the bill were in no way substantially different from those afforded to employees in small or large businesses, but are harder to enforce in a household setting.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that Mitt Romney’s potential list of nominees for Treasury Secretary includes John Thain, the former CEO of Wall Street investment bank Merrill Lynch who now heads CIT Group. Thain is perhaps best known for overseeing Merrill Lynch as it fell apart during the 2008 financial crisis, necessitating a rescue by Bank of America, and then paying out bonuses to his failed bankers anyway.

But Thain didn’t only think his employees deserved huge bonuses for their role in the financial crash — he also believed that he should be paid $10 million during a year that saw his company lose $11 billion and get bailed out by another bank:

Merrill Lynch & Co. chief John Thain has suggested to directors that he get a 2008 bonus of as much as $10 million, but the battered securities firm’s compensation committee is resisting his request, according to people familiar with the situation. [...]

Merrill has suffered net losses of $11.67 billion this year and is about to complete its acquisition by Bank of America Corp. later this month. On Friday, shareholders of both companies separately approved the deal. Mr. Thain has said he deserves a bonus because he helped avert what could have been a much larger crisis at the firm, say people familiar with his thinking.

Bank of America required new infusions of federal aid after acquiring Merrill Lynch, as the extent of Merrill’s losses were never properly disclosed.

According to a new book by former Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation chairwoman Sheila Bair, when the CEOs of America’s major banks came to Washington to discuss the much-reviled $700 billion bank bailout in 2008, the first question asked by Thain was “if his compensation was going to be cut.” Upon Thain’s departure from Merrill Lynch, the New York Times’ Floyd Norris wrote, “The departure of John Thain from Bank of America provides another reminder of how Wall Streeters have come to see themselves as entitled to pay that would seem excessive even if their companies were not failing.”

Romney, of course, has pledged to repeal the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, which included new restraints on executive pay at financial companies.

Asking the Republican presidential ticket to explain how it plans to give a the massive tax cut to the rich while still balancing the budget and avoiding tax increases on the middle class is “laughable,” Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Monday.

Yesterday, Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace asked Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan, to explain the math of the tax plan,but Ryan refused because he said “it would take me too long.” The Romney campaign has faced calls from Democrats, the media, and even other Republicans to get more specific about its tax and budget plans, but has thus far refused. That’s fine with McDonnell, an oft-used Romney surrogate, who could neither explain Romney’s tax plan nor name a single specific spending cut Romney would make as president:

MITCHELL: Where is the math, and is Mitt Romney going to be under pressure in this debate to produce some specifics about how it will all add up?

MCDONNELL: Well, Andrea, first, that’s a laughable question. Where’s the president’s plan? He’s had four years. 23 million people don’t have work. So let’s start with that, the president’s policies haven’t worked.

MITCHELL: The question was asked by Chris Wallace on Fox, it’s being asked by other Republicans. Where is the math? How do you add up those tax cuts even eliminating some deductions? Which deductions would you eliminate? Let’s be specific. And how will you do that and reach deficit reduction? Which programs will be cut?

MCDONNELL: The question is how do you get America back to work? What Paul Ryan just said on your clip is you, you flatten the base and increase the, I mean excuse me, you increase the — you reduce the number of deductions that are out there and you expand the base. That’s typically what works. That can be done in a revenue-neutral fashion, I think that’s what Paul Ryan has proposed, and what that does is make America more competitive.

Watch it:

Romney’s tax plan either adds up to budget-busting deficits or tax increases on middle class families, as the Tax Policy Center found when it filled in the gaps of Romney’s plan in the most generous fashion. Republicans and the Romney campaign have insisted that Romney will close tax loopholes that affect the rich to pay for the plan. But TPC found that there weren’t enough of those loopholes, meaning Romney’s plan would have to either add to the deficit or raise taxes on middle class families by as much as $2,000. The plan, as conceived, simply can’t accomplish both of Romney’s goals.

McDonnell tacitly and perhaps unknowingly admitted as much today, when he told Mitchell that there are ways to do tax reform in a revenue neutral way that involves expanding the tax base. Expanding the base often translates to increasing the number of people paying taxes (including, presumably, some of the 47 percent Romney says he can’t convince to take responsibility for themselves), the clearest admission yet from a campaign surrogate that a President Romney would have to raise taxes on the middle class to avoid blowing a hole in the budget.