As ThinkProgress previously reported, unions are a key building block of the middle class, and as unionization rates fell in the 20th century, so did the middle class’s share of national income.

Now, the Center for American Progress Action Fund’s David Madland and Nick Bunker have crunched the numbers and found that if unionization rates were just 10 percentage points higher — meaning there would be a net rate of 22.2 percent as opposed to the current 12.2 percent — the typical middle class household would earn $1,479 more every year. That number is almost equivalent to the $1,638 more these families would earn every year from increasing college attainment rates by 10 percent:

The table below shows the state-by-state impact of unions on income. If unionization rates increased by 10 percentage points—to roughly the level they were in 1980—the typical middle-class household, unionized or not, would earn $1,479 more a year.

To put that number in context, increasing college attainment rates by 10 percentage points would boost middle-class incomes by $1,638. Similarly, decreasing unemployment rates by 4 percentage points—bringing rates down to pre-Great Recession levels—would increase household income by $772 per household.

Madland and Bunker charted out the estimated gains from a 10 percent increase in unionization for typical middle-class households across the 50 states. They range from a $1,096 gain in Nevada to a $1,969 gain in New Jersey. Find your state in the chart below: Read more

During a town hall meeting today, Doug Edwards, the former Director of Consumer Marketing for Google, asked President Obama to please raise his taxes. “I would like very much to have the country to continue to invest in things like Pell Grants, infrastructure, and job training programs that made it possible for me to get to where I am,” Edwards said, noting that he is unemployed by choice because he was “fortunate enough to work for a start-up down the street here that did quite well.” “It kills me to see Congress not supporting the expiration of the tax cuts that have been benefiting so many of us for so long,” he said.

The spokesmen for both House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) — Brendan Buck and Brad Dayspring, respectively — proceeded to mock the exchange on Twitter by densely insinuating that the man only wants taxes to go up because he is unemployed and wouldn’t have to pay them:

These two — either out of ignorance or because they’re being disingenuous — completely missed Edwards’ point and the point behind the “Buffett rule” that the administration has proposed. Many people, Edwards included, make their income through investments, which are taxed at a much lower rate than wages. The Bush tax cuts not only lowered income tax rates, but also the rate on capital gains, taking it all the way down to 15 percent.

When asked after the event if he supported raising the capital gains tax, Edwards replied that he did. This jives with what billionaire investor Warren Buffett has said:

The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot…I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off.

Remember, it was the raging socialist President Ronald Reagan who totally equalized the treatment of investment income and wage income, rejecting the argument that investors needed to pay a lower tax rate. Edwards, meanwhile, is earning enough income from his stock options in Google to donate all of the proceeds from a book he wrote to charity, while supporting three children.

But the spokesmen for the two most powerful congressman in the House managed to miss the point entirely. When it was pointed out to Dayspring that Edwards was still likely making investment income, all he could respond with was “he is welcome to pay more.”

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) — like House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) — walked back his endorsement of Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s (R) charge that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme” today, telling NPR that he won’t use the term again. While many Republicans have been uncomfortable or outright hostile to Perry’s hyperbolic and false characterization of the popular federal program, Daniels lent it support last week, saying the only problem was that Perry was “too frank.”

But when NPR host Diane Rehm challenged Daniels on the claim his morning, the popular governor relented, acknowledging that the characterization was “trite” and perhaps “too casual”:

REHM: But you agreed with [Perry]. You called it a “Ponzi scheme” as well.

DANIELS: Well, I said that’s a place to start. But again, people of every persuasion have used that — maybe it’s too casual an allusion. [...]

REHM: To use that word signals that it is fraudulent and it’s not fraudulent.

DANIELS: Well, you know, I’ll be careful not use it again.

Listen here:

Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme by any stretch of the imagination — PolitiFact rated the claim “false” — and it’s positive to see Daniels acknowledge such and say he won’t use the term again.

But that commitment makes Daniels’ newly published book, which is why we went on Rehm’s show in the first place, already out of date. In it, “he doesn’t say the exact words ‘Ponzi scheme,’ but only because he’s more verbose than that,” Politico reported. “This whole setup is enough to give Mr. Ponzi a bad name — or a legitimate job,” Daniels wrote in the book.

Daniels joins House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), who also recently flip-flopped on whether Social Security is a “ponzi scheme,” saying, “It’s not the word I would choose to describe” the program.

The nation’s biggest oil companies — many of them headquartered in oil-rich Texas — are raking in record profits this year and don’t need any more incentive to keep doing business. But Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) and his hand-picked appointees are giving them one anyway, and literally taking money away from children and schools to pay for it.

Public education — along with Medicaid, women’s health care, and the Texas Forest Service — was gutted in the budget Perry signed this year. But the governor’s hand-picked appointees on the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality look likely to raid another $67 million from public schools to give Big Oil a tax break:

Three commissioners appointed by Gov. Rick Perry may grant some of the nation’s largest refineries a tax refund of more than $135 million — money Texas’ cash-strapped schools and other local governments have been counting on to help pay teachers and provide other public services.

The refund would mean more pain for some communities after a year in which state lawmakers had to grapple with a $27 billion shortfall and slashed spending on public schools by more than $4 billion. Nearly half the refund would be taken from public schools, and those in cities where the refineries are based would be hurt the most.[...]

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is evaluating 16 requests for the refund, which concerns a piece of pollution-controlling equipment. If granted, the refund total for those requests could add up to more than $135 million, according to county tax data and application documents analyzed by The Associated Press. What’s more, agency documents show that if the commission grants the requests, at least 12 other refineries that have not sought a refund also could qualify.

The commission has signaled its support for the refund in the past, and Perry has indicated he will fully support the $135 million tax break at the expense of public education. One of the companies that stands to profit the most from the refund, Valero, just happens to be one of Perry’s biggest all-time contributors. Valero, the company that has most persistently lobbied for the refund, could get more than $92 million from the commission. Perry has received more money from the company than any other politician in the country except one.

Texas schools are already plagued by under-funding, low graduation rates, and high childhood poverty. Millions of Texas students began the school year without new textbooks and other essential school supplies because of the cuts Perry approved.

It’s disturbing that during an education and budget crisis in the state, government officials would prioritize the profits of the oil industry over the needs of children and communities. By accepting the refunds, oil companies are taking money away from nearby schools — which should disappoint Texans who place a premium on being good neighbors.

Last week, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham that he largely agreed with Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s (R) characterization of Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme,” saying that Ponzi schemes and Social Security “work” the same way:

“It’s not a criminal enterprise, but it’s a pay-as-you-go system, where earlier investors — or say, taxpayers — get a positive rate of return, and the most recent investors — or taxpayers — get a negative rate of return,” he said. “That is how those schemes work.”

But in an interview with Bloomberg’s Al Hunt that aired over the weekend, Ryan was asked the same question, and this time, he refused to agree with Perry’s assertion that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, instead calling Social Security a “critical program” that is merely “going bankrupt”:

HUNT: Final question. Rick Perry says Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Mitt Romney says that’s inflammatory language that makes him unelectable to be president. Who’s right?

RYAN: Well, I don’t know if – who’s unelectable or not. It’s not the word I would choose to describe it. Ponzi was a criminal enterprise. Obviously, that’s not the case with Social Security. But there are problems with it, with Social Security, that we all acknowledge. It’s going broke. If we do nothing, an across-the-board benefit cut hits current seniors, a critical program that millions of people rely on, and the next generation will get a bankrupt program, and so let’s save it.

Watch it:

As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ Jared Bernstein explained, Social Security is absolutely not a Ponzi scheme. “Social Security is pay-as-you-go. Ponzi’s scheme was not as it depended on continuous doubling the ratio of contributors to investors,” he wrote.

Ryan’s refusal to double-down on his comments may be due to the fact that the GOP is starting to get a little nervous about its leading figures constantly deriding Social Security. As Politico noted today, “Florida Republicans want the GOP presidential field to tread lightly on the subjects of Social Security and Medicare. Very, very lightly.” Fifty-eight percent of Floridians say it is “unfair” to call Social Security a Ponzi scheme.

The Daily Beast’s Howard Kurtz has an inside look at Fox News today that focuses on its 71-year-old president, Roger Ailes. In one passage, Kurtz revealed that Ailes is the brains behind a new Fox News series — Regulation Nation — that is meant solely to attack the very idea of regulations:

Ailes raises a Fox initiative that he cooked up: “Are our producers on board on this ‘Regulation Nation’ stuff? Are they ginned up and ready to go?” Ailes, who claims to be “hands off” in developing the series, later boasts that “no other network will cover that subject … I think regulations are totally out of control,” he adds, with bureaucrats hiring Ph.D.s to “sit in the basement and draw up regulations to try to ruin your life.” It is a message his troops cannot miss.

The point of the series is supposedly to “expose how excessive laws are drowning American businesses.” So far, Fox has used the campaign to bash everything from financial regulation and environmental protections to labor law. In one segment, Fox framed a new law in Seattle requiring businesses provide workers with paid sick days as something that will inevitably lead to job loss. Watch it:

Here’s a screenshot from the top of the segment:

Of course, study after study has shown that requiring paid sick days, far from killing jobs, is a good deal for both workers and employers. In the same vein, new research last week showed that environmental regulations are not the boogey-man that the right makes them out to be, but can actually boost the economy. But at the same time that the GOP has decided that regulations are one of the key things holding back job creation, Ailes decided that the time was ripe for Fox to launch a series based on the same exact premise.

A new poll from Winthrop University finds that a plurality of self-identified Republican voters from the state of South Carolina do not think it’s possible to balance the U.S. budget without the use of tax increases. One of the poll’s directors called the finding “shocking,” given the media narrative that people who identify as Republicans are opposed to any and all tax increases:

Forty-seven percent of S.C. Republican and Republican-leaning voters surveyed said they did not think it was possible to balance the budget without a tax increase, while 45 percent said a tax increase is not necessary. Seven percent said they were not sure.

“That is surprising, simply because it goes against the echo chambers and punditry who are constantly saying, ‘No Republicans believe in any tax (hikes),’ ” said Scott Huffmon, a Winthrop University political science professor and director of The Winthrop Poll.

One local Republican, South Carolina’s own Rep. Mick Mulvaney, had some sympathy for the views of these voters. He told a local paper that he was not surprised by the results and that he thought it was politically impossible to deal with the budget deficit without raising taxes. Mulvaney stressed that he intends to do this mostly through eliminating tax loopholes, even if that does bother “the extreme right wing of the party” that just wants to “starve the beast”:

However, U.S. Rep. Mick Mulvaney, a Republican from Indian Land, said the results did not surprise him. “I don’t think it’s possible to fix this problem politically without raising taxes,” he said. But that position hinges on Mulvaney’s definition of a tax increase. Mulvaney said removing loopholes in the tax code that benefit some companies – but not others – would require those companies to pay more taxes. But he doesn’t see that as a tax increase.

“If we do our job on fixing the tax code, lowering the rates but broadening the base, it may result in more revenue to the government,” Mulvaney said. “And that does bother the extreme right wing of the party sometimes, who just want to try and starve the beast. “(But) we are trying to bring fairness to the tax code and equity to the tax code.”

The poll of South Carolina’s self-identified Republican voters and Mulvaney’s stance are a refreshing reminder that there are many conservatives who do not align with the anti-tax orthodoxy preached by the leaders of the Republican Party and right-wing activists like Grover Norquist.

Despite making promises not to do so, House Republicans are holding disaster relief funding hostage, demanding the money be offset by spending cuts elsewhere so as to not increase the deficit, even though this has never been done in the past. House Republicans finally passed a bill to fund FEMA and the rest of the government last week, but only days after the Senate passed their own version without offsets and after House conservatives killed an earlier version with slightly fewer spending cuts.

But speaking this morning on CNN, GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain said Congress should fund FEMA now and worry about the offsets later, drawing a sharp line against lawmakers using the funds as a “political football” while people are suffering:

CAIN: I would make sure that FEMA got the money it needed, and if I had to go find the offsets later, go find it later. Stop playing with peoples’ tragedies — these are real people we’re talking about.

HOST: So you’re saying, right now we should just fund FEMA and forget about the offsetting spending cuts, and maybe later, if we find them, then go back and get the deal done that way.

CAIN: Yes. … We’re going to have a gentleman’s agreement that we will find the offsets, rather than finding the offsets right in the middle of it and making it a political football.

Watch it:

Asked about Sen. Mark Warner’s (D-VA) comments yesterday that the Tea Party faction in the House is to blame for the hold up, Cain said the conservative lawmakers need to pick their battles better. “I would not make this a battleground, Cain said. “This is one that I would basically try to, you know, fall on my sword for — go ahead and do what’s right for the people.”

Cain added that Congress “should put politics aside” and fund FEMA because “people should not have to suffer because of the political bickering.” Congress returns to work today to try again, with FEMA money running out soon and funding for the rest of the government ending Friday.