TAI analyzed statistics from each state the super committee members represent to see how dependent, on average, the states’ residents, and their women, are on some of the entitlement programs they are proposing to cut. TAI predominantly relied on state-by-state information compiled by the National Women’s Law Center.

(Read more about how the current super committee plans would impact women.)

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Washington), committee co-chair:

Sen. Patty Murray (Wikimedia Commons)

• One in six Washington residents (PDF) -– 1,089,900 people -– received disability, survivor and/or retirement benefits from Social Security in 2010.
• Social Security reduced the poverty rate for women 65 and older from 43 percent to 10 percent and lifted 14,000 children out of poverty.
• In 2008, 307,300 non-elderly women relied on Medicaid, some for pregnancy assistance or due to permanent disability. In addition, 60,600 non-elderly women were on Medicaid because not all of their health-care services were covered by Medicare.
• About 839,000 people in Washington receive benefits from Medicare; 54 percent of them are women.
• In 2009, Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) program –- which helps low-income working families afford child care -– served an average of 27,100 Washington families (PDF) with 46,400 children each month.
• In 2009, Head Start and Early Head Start preschool programs -– which provide grants for child development and early-education programs for low-income children -– served 11,300 young children in Washington.
• In 2010, 474,700 Washington households used the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly referred to as food stamps.
• Between 2007 (PDF) (before the recession began) and 2010 (PDF), unemployment for Washington women has increased from 4.4 percent to 8.9 percent.

Sen. Max Baucus (Wikimedia Commons)

• One in five Montana residents (PDF) -– 192,700 people -– received Social Security benefits in 2010.
• Social Security reduced the poverty rate for women 65 and older from 60 percent to 6 percent and lifted 1,000 children out of poverty.
• In 2008, about 25,700 non-elderly women and 7,200 elderly women in Montana relied on Medicaid.
• Approximately 177,000 individuals in Montana use Medicare; 53 percent of them women.
• In 2009, the CCDBG served approximately 2,400 Montana families (PDF), with 4,000 children, each month.
• In 2009, Head Start and Early Head Start preschool programs served 2,900 Montana children.
• In 2010, 51,100 Montana households were beneficiaries of the SNAP program.
• Between 2007 and 2010, unemployment for women in Montana (PDF) increased from 3.4 percent to 5.9 percent.

Sen. John Kerry (Wikimedia Commons)

• One in six Massachusetts residents (PDF) -– 1,140,800 people -– received Social Security benefits in 2010
• Social Security reduced the poverty rate for women 65 and older from 46 percent to 11 percent and lifted 21,000 children out of poverty.
• In 2008, about 494,500 non-elderly women and 111,800 elderly women in Massachusetts were on Medicaid.
• Approximately 1,094,000 individuals in Massachusetts use Medicare; 53 percent of them are women.
• In 2009, the CCDBG served approximately 18,300 Massachusetts families (PDF), with 24,800 children, each month.
• In 2009, Head Start and Early Head Start preschool programs served 12,700 young children in Massachusetts.
• In 2010, 407,300 Massachusetts households were beneficiaries of the SNAP program.
• Between 2007 and 2010, unemployment for women in Massachusetts (PDF) increased from 4.1 percent to 7.5 percent.

Rep. James Clyburn (Wikimedia Commons)

• One in five South Carolina residents (PDF) -– 924,700  people -– received Social Security benefits in 2010.
• Social Security reduced the poverty rate for women 65 and older from 55 percent to 14 percent and lifted 25,000 children out of poverty.
• In 2008, about 244,200 non-elderly women and 61,700 elderly women in South Carolina were on Medicaid.
• Approximately 785,000 individuals in South Carolina use Medicare; 55 percent of them are women.
• In 2009, the CCDBG served approximately 11,800 South Carolina families (PDF), with 20,400 children, each month.
• In 2009, Head Start and Early Head Start preschool programs served 12,200 young children in South Carolina.
• In 2010, 359,500 South Carolina households were beneficiaries of the SNAP program.
• Between 2007 and 2010, unemployment for women in South Carolina (PDF) increased from 6 percent to 9.6 percent.

Rep. Xavier Becerra (Wikimedia Commons)

• One in eight California residents (PDF) -– 4,979,100 people -– received Social Security benefits in 2010.
• Social Security reduced the poverty rate for women 65 and older from 42 percent to 11 percent and lifted 100,000 children out of poverty.
• In 2008, about 3,969,600 non-elderly women and 619,600 elderly women in California were on Medicaid.
• Approximately 4,421,000 individuals in California use Medicare; 56 percent of them are women.
• In 2009, the CCDBG served approximately 68,200 California families (PDF), with 106,900 children, each month.
• In 2009, Head Start and Early Head Start preschool programs served 97,900 young children in California.
•  In 2010, 1,391,400 California households were beneficiaries of the SNAP program.
• Between 2007 and 2010, unemployment for women in California (PDF) increased from 5.2 percent to 11.3 percent.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Wikimedia Commons)

• One in seven Maryland residents (PDF) -– 850,400 people -– received Social Security benefits in 2010.
• Social Security reduced the poverty rate for women 65 and older from 39 percent to 10 percent and lifted 11,000 children out of poverty.
• In 2008, about 217,100 non-elderly women and 52,700 elderly women in Maryland were on Medicaid.
• Approximately 703,000 individuals in Maryland use Medicare; 59 percent of them are women.
• In 2009, the CCDBG served approximately 14,400 Maryland families (PDF), with 24,400 children, each month.
• In 2009, Head Start and Early Head Start preschool programs served 10,300 young children in Maryland.
• In 2010, 265,800 Maryland households were beneficiaries of the SNAP program.
• Between 2007 and 2010, unemployment for women (PDF) in Maryland increased from 3.9 percent to 7.4 percent.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Wikimedia Commons)

• One in seven Texas residents (PDF) -– 3,440,400 people -– received Social Security benefits in 2010.
• Social Security reduced the poverty rate for women 65 and older from 48 percent to 15 percent and lifted 102,000 children out of poverty.
• In 2008, about 791,800 non-elderly women and 295,600 elderly women in Texas were on Medicaid.
• Approximately 2,730,000 individuals in Texas use Medicare; 55 percent of them are women.
• In 2009, the CCDBG served approximately 66,200 Texas families (PDF), with 121,600 children, each month.
• In 2009, Head Start and Early Head Start preschool programs served 67,600 young children in Texas.
•  In 2010, 1,407,100 Texas households were beneficiaries of the SNAP program.
• Between 2007 and 2010, unemployment for women in Texas (PDF) increased from 4.8 percent to 7.9 percent.

Rep. Dave Camp (Wikimedia Commons)

Reps. Dave Camp(R-Mich.) and

Rep. Fred Upton (Wikimedia Commons)

Fred Upton (R-Mich.)

• One in five Michigan residents (PDF) –- 1,964,900 people –- received Social Security benefits in 2010.
• Social Security reduced the poverty rate for women 65 and older from 54 percent to 9 percent and lifted 34,000 children out of poverty.
• In 2008, about 534,900 non-elderly women and 97,600 elderly women in Michigan were on Medicaid.
• Approximately 1,454,000 individuals in Michigan use Medicare; 56 percent of them are women.
• In 2009, the CCDBG served approximately 37,000 Michigan families (PDF), with 71,800 children, each month.
• In 2009, Head Start and Early Head Start preschool programs served 34,200 young children in Michigan.
• In 2010, 865,500 Michigan households were beneficiaries of the SNAP program.
• Between 2007 and 2010, unemployment for women in Michigan (PDF) has increased from 7.1 percent to 9.9 percent.

Sen Jon Kyl (Wikimedia Commons)

• One in six Arizona residents (PDF) –- 1,067,700 people people -– received Social Security benefits in 2010, according to the National Women’s Law Center.
• Social Security reduced the poverty rate for women 65 and older from 46 percent to 13 percent and lifted 18,000 children out of poverty.
• In 2008, about 433,200 non-elderly women and 63,900 elderly women in Arizona were on Medicaid.
• Approximately 848,000 individuals in Arizona use Medicare; 58 percent of them are women.
• In 2009, the CCDBG served approximately 19,900 Arizona families (PDF), with 32,700 children, each month.
• In 2009, Head Start and Early Head Start preschool programs served 12,900 young children in Arizona.
• In 2010, 439,400 Arizona households were beneficiaries of the SNAP program.
• Between 2007 and 2010, unemployment for women in Arizona (PDF) increased from 4.0 percent to 9.4 percent.

Sen. Pat Toomey (Wikimedia Commons)

• One in five Pennsylvania residents (PDF) –- 2,577,700 people people -– received Social Security benefits in 2010.
• Social Security reduced the poverty rate for women 65 and older from 54 percent to 12 percent and lifted 49,000 children out of poverty.
• In 2008, about 610,600 non-elderly women and 168,400 elderly women in Pennsylvania were on Medicaid.
• Approximately 2,060,000 individuals in Pennsylvania use Medicare; 57 percent of them are women.
• In 2009, the CCDBG served approximately 54,900 Pennsylvania families (PDF), with 93,900 children, each month.
• In 2009, Head Start and Early Head Start preschool programs served 35,300 young children in Pennsylvania.
• In 2010, 740,200 Pennsylvania households were beneficiaries of the SNAP program.
• Between 2007 and 2010, unemployment for women in Pennsylvania (PDF) increased from 3.7 percent to 7.6 percent.

Sen. Rob Portman (Wikimedia Commons)

• One in five Ohio residents (PDF) -– 2,124,700 people -– received Social Security benefits in 2010, according to the National Women’s Law Center.
• Social Security reduced the poverty rate for women 65 and older from 53 percent to 10 percent and lifted 47,000 children out of poverty.
• In 2008, about 570,500 non-elderly women and 131,200 elderly women in Ohio were on Medicaid.
• Approximately 1,802,000 individuals in Ohio use Medicare; 54 percent of them are women.
• In 2009, the CCDBG served approximately 29,800 Ohio families (PDF), with 51,700 children, each month.
• In 2009, Head Start and Early Head Start preschool programs served 37,100 young children in Ohio.
• In 2010, 751,300 Ohio households were beneficiaries of the SNAP program.
• Between 2007 and 2010, unemployment for women in Ohio (PDF) increased from 5.1 percent to 8.5 percent.

Photo: Flickr/longislandwins

In the case of today’s long-term deficit-reduction negotiations in Congress –- currently being deliberated by the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, or “super committee” –- Congress is Dwight, Nov. 23 is Dwight’s 5 p.m. (the sequester deadline, i.e., the trigger mechanism that would make $1.2 trillion across-the-board cuts), and both scenarios can be nipped in the bud by their respective creators.

Time is running out for the super committee, appointed to cut at least $1.2 trillion from the federal deficit over the next decade, and if — as many news outlets are predicting — they fail to come up with a solid plan within the next nine days, Congress will plan to slash $600 billion from defense spending and $600 billion from domestic programs excluding Social Security and Medicaid, including cuts to Medicare payments to hospitals and other providers, come the 2013 budget.

The American Independent recently reported on how certain GOP presidential candidates’ proposed tax-policy plans would disproportionately affect women, who tend to earn lower wages and depend more on entitlement programs than men. This week, TAI takes a look at how the super committee’s proposal could disproportionately impact women.

What’s on the table?

Reporting that has emerged from the closed-door super committee meetings reveals the six Democrats on the panel are generally insistent on raising revenues from tax increases; wish to end the Bush-era tax cuts; and preserve Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The six Republicans, meanwhile, have slowly begun to discuss revenues but are opposed to achieving them through tax cuts; want to make permanent the Bush-era tax cuts; and are pushing to restructure how Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are paid for in the future.

Roll Call details the latest in negotiations: Last week panel member Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) proposed a $1.2 trillion plan comprising $700 billion in cuts and $500 billion in revenues (half of the revenues would come from $250 billion in “tax code reform’). The most recent Democratic offer is a $2.3 trillion reduction plan over 10 years involving $1 trillion in revenues (including tax hikes) and $400 billion in “entitlement reform.”

Still they remain at an impasse.

But as Politico recently reported, despite having the power to dismantle the doomsday device, the president won’t take it. According to a White House statement, on Friday Obama called super committee co-chairs Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Jeb. Hensarling (R-Texas) to tell them he will refuse attempts to override the automatic cuts if the panel can’t complete the task. (In the “Office” episode, Dwight makes the same promise after the staff does fail, but he caves at the 11th hour.)

“The sequester was agreed to by both parties to ensure there was a meaningful enforcement mechanism to force a result from the Committee,” Obama said in the statement. “Congress must not shirk its responsibilities.”

Lobbying ladies

One prediction if the super committee fails is that industries and special-interest groups will spend a year before the trigger takes effect lobbying Congress to reconsider cuts to specific programs. The Hill forecasts heavy lobbying from the Pentagon, defense contractors, liberal activists and labor unions.

Women’s advocacy groups have already begun voicing suggestions as to how to trim spending without devastating the neediest Americans, many of whom happen to be single women with children.

Early this month, National Organization for Women (NOW) President Terry O’Neill blasted the super committee’s “irresponsible proposals,” referring to assumptions the Republican members on the committee are pushing for Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan-style changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security while, at the same time, opposing tax increases on corporations and millionaires. O’Neill similarly censured proposals she had heard from the Democratic side:

[I]t’s beyond distressing to see some Democrats knuckling under and now embracing plans that would cause great hardship on retirees — mainly women, particularly women of color, as well as people with severe disabilities and our oldest seniors. The Democrats’ proposal would change the [Social Security Cost-of-Living adjustment] (COLA) so that monthly benefits are dramatically reduced, further impoverishing the millions of seniors who depend exclusively on their Social Security check. Medicare would be cut by $400 billion (on top of the $500 billion savings adopted in the Affordable Care Act), and Medicaid would be cut by $75 billion. … There’s not much worse than taking from the most vulnerable in society to pay for a deficit caused by a failure to tax millionaires and billionaires and waging two unfunded wars.

So what does NOW want the super committee to do?

• Preserve COLA and minimize cuts to programs that disproportionately serve and employ women, among them Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly referred to as food stamps; college-tuition-assistance programs, child care; and family planning programs.
• End Bush-era tax cuts.
• Eliminate the payroll tax cap, which would raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

The Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR), a think thank that focuses on women’s domestic issues, has ideas of how to improve women’s economic standing in this country — ideas that likely contradict proposals the super committee members have been tossing around. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, although men have regained nearly 30 percent of the jobs they lost during the recession, women have regained only 10 percent of the jobs they lost. In July, men earned 136,000 jobs; women lost 19,000.

Among IWPR proposals, as laid out in a September 2011 report titled “Recommendations for Improving Women’s Employment in the Recovery”:

• Make federal transfers available to state and local governments to replace lost revenues and allow them to hire back the teachers, case workers, nurses and others they have laid off.
• Expand the length of the school day and school year.
• Create an “Urban Conservation Corps” — programs partnering labor unions with inner-city youth with the goal of bring skills and employment opportunities to young women and men.
• Fund child care.
• Adopt tax incentives for businesses that offer their employees “work-life balance.”
• Expand unemployment insurance benefits for workers with reduced working hours.
• Expand employment for women in male-dominated fields, such as construction, transportation and green energy
• Increase funding for jobs that provide direct care to children, disabled adults and the elderly. (According to the Economic Policy Institute (PDF), investments in physical infrastructure and human capital, such as early childhood development, education, health care, job training, would create jobs for women and men and contribute to long-term economic growth.)

Over at the National Women’s Law Center, the general position on the super committee proceedings is that the panel should promote job growth and strengthen the economy while simultaneously protecting programs that women and their families depend on now and in old age — women in general depend on Medicare and Medicaid at higher rates than men, and two-thirds of SNAP recipients are female, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (PDF).

Specifically the NWLC wants:

• Reduced tax breaks for oil and gas industries and corporations that move jobs and profits overseas.
• New tax brackets for annual income starting above $1 million and taxing income from capital gains and dividends at the same rate as income from work for taxpayers with income above $1 million.
• A small tax on financial transactions such as stock trades — to raise revenue but also to discourage short-term speculation. According to the Economic Policy Institute and the Century Foundation, a 0.5 percent tax on stock transactions would raise about $77 billion per year; a 0.5 percent tax on all financial transactions (options, futures, swap transactions) would raise approximately $150 billion per year.
• An extension on federal emergency unemployment benefits.

But for now, what women want — what all Americans want, and they all want different things — is in the hands of 12 under-pressure representatives and senators. And the clock is ticking.

Photo: Flickr/AMagill

If Sen. Kyl and the Fox News friends are shaky on the facts about Planned Parenthood, Kyl’s women colleagues in the Senate can enlighten them.

One in five American women will have visited a Planned Parenthood in their lifetime. The vast majority of those women have gone to Planned Parenthood for checkups and consultations, not to receive abortions. No tax money pays for Planned Parenthood abortion services.

More Planned Parenthood facts:

Three million women and men in the United States annually visit Planned Parenthood affiliate health centers.

Planned Parenthood health centers focus on prevention: 83 percent of clients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy.

Planned Parenthood services help prevent more than 612,000 unintended pregnancies each year.

Planned Parenthood provides nearly one million Pap tests and more than 830,000 breast exams each year, critical services in detecting cancer.

Planned Parenthood provides nearly four million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.

Three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services.

Sotomayor attempted to align her comment about how a “wise Latina” would in some circumstances reach “a better decision” than a white male judge with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s earlier statements that “a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.”“I don’t think that anyone would think we intended to say that we would make wiser decisions,” said Sotomayor today, after Kyl read portions of her 2001 speech at Berkeley back to her. “I intended to talk about the value that life experiences had,” she said. “The words I chose, taking the rhetorical fluourish, was a bad idea. I do understand that there are some who have read this differently, and I understand why they are concerned. But I have repeated, more than once, and if you look at my history on the bench I do not believe that any gender or race group has an advantage in sound judging. And I also believe that every person regardless of their background can be good and wise judges.”

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

The day after President Obama signed the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) took to the airwaves to offer voters a different kind of new deal.

“If the American people will let the Republicans back in charge,” said Gohmert on the Feb. 19 episode of Sean Hannity’s Fox News show, “the 60 percent of this bill that won’t be spent until after the next election, we’ll cut it off and let it go to the Americans.”

Image by: Matt Mahurin

That idea didn’t immediately take. In February, support for the economic stimulus package that passed with no Republican votes in the House and only three (including that of Sen. Arlen Specter, who later switched parties) in the Senate, was above 50 percent. The March 31 special election for New York’s upstate 20th congressional district, an early test of a hard-edged Republican message opposing the stimulus, ended with an upset victory for now-Rep. Scott Murphy (D-N.Y.).

But as unemployment numbers rise, and as the Obama administration is forced to admit that its early projections of what the stimulus package would achieve were overly optimistic, Republicans are returning to that February vote and hanging it around the necks of vulnerable Democrats. Increasingly, they are echoing Gohmert’s enthusiastic pledge to scrap whatever stimulus money is left in January 2011. On Monday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the Republican whip in the Senate, said that he agreed with a recent poll that suggested Americans want to “cancel the rest of the stimulus spending.” On Wednesday, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) took to Twitter to make a similar argument: “Admin spent $110B of the $787B and job loss abounds. They should give the remaining $687B back to the taxpayers and stop this terrible idea.” Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kans.), who is running for U.S. Senate in 2010, has offered multiple amendments to bills aimed at cancelling all of the remaining stimulus money. And the Republican National Committee gave its first-ever Grassroots Logic Award to Matthias Shapiro, a Utah IT consultant who directed a viral video that portrayed the spending and job growth promises of the stimulus as stacks of pennies being shoved off of a coffee table.

The return of the stimulus as a political weapon for Republicans as members in both houses of Congress have pre-emptively pushed back against the unpopular idea of a second crack at an economic rescue bill. It also comes as the party and its candidates grow increasingly confident that the stimulus, by failing so far to meet the projections of President Obama and congressional Democrats, is the key to a midterm election argument that the majority party is making matters worse by spending so much money.

“We’re hitting this message every day,” said one House Republican aide, who boiled the party’s mantra down to three words. “Where’s the jobs? Where’s the jobs? Where’s the jobs? [Democrats] can’t answer that.”

There is some variance in the anti-stimulus mantra. Not all Republicans are going as far as Gohmert, Hatch, or Kyl. On a Thursday conference call that was organized to rebut Vice President Joe Biden on his trip to Ohio, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), would only say that Republicans would “certainly revisit” the stimulus, and the money left to be allocated, if they won a majority in the 2010 elections. “Whatever is left in January 2011 ought to get a lot of scrutiny,” Boehner said. “I would suggest to you that a lot of it could be cut, because at the end of the day, most of the stimulus money was about creating more government, not creating more jobs.”

At an event promoting his book “Saving Freedom,” Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said Republicans would miss an opportunity if they didn’t talk about the stimulus in those terms. “We need to start talking about it,” DeMint said, referring to the money that might be left to be allocated in 2011, “because we need to turn it into tax cuts instead of government spending.”

According to Republican pollster John McLaughlin, Republicans are benefiting from an “evolution” in the way voters view the stimulus, and the way that it has become blurred with banking industry bailouts, foreclosure prevention plans, and other Democratic plans as a wave of spending that has failed to stem rising unemployment. “Initially,” said McLaughlin, “in February, if you asked people if they were against a stimulus program, it was like asking: Are you against stimulating the economy? Since then there’s been more of a consensus that the level of spending is too high.” Voters aren’t grateful for the small tax cut included in the stimulus, said McLaughlin, because “very few people will say they got it, and it’s been overwhelmed by the state taxes they pay, which have been going up.”

Republicans such as DeMint have argued that doubts about the stimulus reflect increasing doubts about the growth of government and increases in spending. Dan Schnur, a Republican strategist who is now a lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley, said that a much more simple worry was at play. “It’s never been clear that people vote on the deficit,” said Schnur, who worked for Ronald Reagan’s 1984 re-election campaign. “Right now, anti-deficit concerns may be a placeholder for broader concerns about the economy. For the Democrats to take this back and get credit for the stimulus, the economy doesn’t have to be recovered, but voters have to believe it’s recovering. You can be a mile inside of hell as long as you’re heading out.”

Steve Stivers, a Republican who lost a congressional race by a razor-thin margin in Ohio last year in a district carried by Barack Obama, is one of the 2010 candidates betting that voters won’t be taking the Democrats’ side on the stimulus. He launched his bid this month, attacking Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D) for “spending trillions, growing the size of government” and creating a debt that “our children can’t afford.” In an interview with TWI, Stivers declined a chance to say, like Hatch or Kyl, that he would cancel the rest of the stimulus money. “There were good parts and bad parts of the stimulus,” Stivers said. “Some of the spending eased human suffering, and no one wants that, regardless of where you are on the political spectrum. What you need to stay focused on is how to improve the economy in the long term. Government spending is not going to do that unless you want a bigger government sector, and that’s not something that creates wealth for the rest of the economy.” Stivers debated a recent argument made by Christina Romer, the chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, that cutting back on spending during a recession led to disaster when it was tried in 1937. “I don’t think too many historians will argue that anything brought us out of the Depression except for World War II.”

Republican pollsters and strategists agreed that opposing the stimulus is a safe bet for Republicans; Schnur suggested that unless some recovery was visible by March 2010, the electorate would decided that the president’s policy had failed and be more receptive to Republican attacks on spending and deficits. Liberal-leaning economists don’t disagree. “Obama hurt himself politically from the outset,” said Dean Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “I don’t think he ever clearly made the case for the stimulus. Also, Democrats have been demagoguing about the deficit for years. It would have been very difficult for them to turn around and explain why they didn’t want small deficits right now. They decided that they couldn’t make the case.”

The National Republican Congressional Committee has confirmed those worries, dogging Democrats in vulnerable seats with attacks on their votes for the stimulus. On Thursday, NRCC spokesman Paul Lindsay pointed to a special election in upstate New York — a district being vacated by Rep. John McHugh (R-N.Y.) which, as it happens, borders the district Democrats won on March 31 — as the next test to see how the stimulus will play politically.

“Democrats have painted a large target on NY-23,” Lindsay said. “It’s district they see as competitive. They see it as one they can win. So you’ll probably see a lot of signs there as to whether they want to make stimulus an issue or not.”

The Senators also say the found Hill’s work in the Six Party talks “deeply troubling.” The charge Hill with engaging in “evasive and unprofessional activities, including sideling key officials at the State Department and breaking commitments made for the record before congressional committees.” This will be the crux of the opposition to Hill, though obviously it is the overall course of the North Korea talks that drive suspicion of his appointment.

None of these senators are on the Foreign Relations Committee, though, and today the committee’s GOP leader, Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), came out in favor of Hill while all the other Republicans on the committee kept quiet. So who’ll be the one to play opposition point man at Hill’s confirmation hearing on March 25? Goldfarb suggests that Brownback will filibuster the nomination if it passes committee, but it’s harder to see how the GOP keeps a filibuster on Hill than it is for Democrats to overcome one, even if it comes to that.

Though not discussed in the mainstream media nearly as much as the nomination of Attorney General Eric Holder, the confirmation hearing of Kagan and Associate Attorney General-nominee Tom Perrelli was eagerly anticipated in the legal world, and with good reason. Besides likely becoming the first female solicitor general, Kagan — who for the last few years has been the dean of Harvard Law School — has been on just about everyone’s short-list as a possible appointment to the Supreme Court. After the news of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s battle with pancreatic cancer came to light last week, the legal blogosphere lit up with talk about Kagan’s potential sooner-than-expected ascent to the bench.

That’s something the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were undoubtedly aware of while they questioned Kagan and Perrelli. While some of the minority members, particularly Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), quibbled briefly over Kagan’s lack of experience as a litigator, most seemed in awe of her reputation as not only an incredible legal mind, but also at her heralded skill at brokering discussion between partisan parties.

While Perrelli received his share of questions, the committee’s attention seemed to rest squarely on Kagan. She joked with Arlen Specter (R-Penn.), the committee’s ranking Republican, over some or her past legal writing — going so far as to call one of her own memos “the dumbest thing I’ve ever read,” and saying that the position of Solicitor General, which is sometimes called the “10th seat on the Supreme Court,” is more like being the “37th clerk.”  Both Kagan and Perrelli, like Holder before them, emphasized their commitment to running the Justice Department without politics and righting the course from the last eight years.

Both Kagan and Perrelli still need to respond to some of the senators’ questions in writing, so a committee vote to send the nominations to the full Senate is not expected until sometime next week. The hearing lasted slightly more than two hours — and if speed is an indicator of the committee’s prerogative on these nominees, things are looking very good for the Obama administration.