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

Luján stood staunchly against the bill in his proposal.“You have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that their bill offers protection for the sacred, traditional, and cultural sites in the proposed area to be exchanged, but I don’t believe that to be true,” he said. “If it were true, then why is every major tribal organization in the country opposing this bill?”

Luján cited the National Congress of American Indians, the All-Indian Pueblo Council of New Mexico, the San Carlos Apache Tribe (whose 2,400 acres of land on the Tonto National Forest is most affected by the Act), and the Jicarilla and Mescalero Apache tribes of New Mexico, among many other U.S. tribes as having spoken out against the land swap. “We have a Trust responsibility to our tribal brothers and sisters, and those who oppose this responsibility will dismantle it piece by piece with a scalpel and not all at once with an axe,” he said.

Among those who voted against Luján’s proposed amendment were fellow New Mexico Representative Steve Pearce, who, according to MapLight, a website that tracks the voting records and campaign contributions of U.S. Congressmen, received $9,600 from mining interests. Similarly, Representatives Jeff Flake and Ben Quayle of Arizona also voted down the amendment, and received, respectively, $5,000 and $2,500 each from the mining industry.

Rep. Luján sent the New Mexico Independent this statement:

“It was unfortunate that my amendment to protect Native American sacred and cultural sites was not adopted.  Adoption of this simple amendment would have shown respect for the religious and cultural sites that are important to the many tribes in the region, in addition to recognizing that we have a responsibility to work with our tribal brothers and sisters on issues that impact their communities.  Opponents of my amendment will say that tribal consultation is part of the exchange, but frankly what is outlined in the bill is not sufficient to ensure protection of sacred sites.”

The campaign, which largely targets states where Republicans won control of legislatures or governorships, has garnered the support of Republican political superstars such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.), Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Jon Kyl (Ariz.), and Rep. Trent Franks (Ariz.). The groups intend to pass anti-gay marriage amendments, curtail abortion rights and, in at least one case, ban “transgender bathrooms.”

Family policy councils — a creation of Focus on the Family in the 1980s — have launched the Ignite plan in 15 states. Each family policy council has a three-prong plan to achieve their legislative goals over the next two years: lobbying for legislation, mobilizing pastors and social conservatives and supporting candidates that have backed their initiatives. Each group has used a stock brochure containing nearly identical wording to explain their plan and to solicit funds. In many cases, an Ignite plan was launched with an anonymous matching-grant donor.

Requests for information from many of the policy councils were denied, and Focus on the Family told The American Independent that they have no involvement, declining to offer information on any organization that might back the plan.

Focus on the Family says that while the groups are “fully associated” with FoF, they “are independent entities with no corporate or financial relationship to each other or to Focus on the Family.”

While Form 990s — revenue and expense documents that nonprofits file with the IRS — don’t provide detailed information on political organizing expenditures, The American Independent has provided each group’s average yearly revenues for comparison to their two-year spending under the Ignite plan.

Already, the groups are seeing success in their respective states.

The South Dakota Family Policy Council is spending $72,600 in the next two years as part of the Ignite campaign (PDF), specifically to pass legislation that would force women seeking an abortion to speak to counselors at religious-based crisis pregnancy centers.

SDFPC lobbied heavily for the bill in the media, testified before the South Dakota legislature and organized a pastor’s day at the state Capitol in Pierre in February to advocate for the bill. It passed the legislature and was signed into law in late-March.

The SDFPC is also pushing legislation that would ban surrogate mothers, but thus far the bill has yet to get out of committee. The group lists “Defeat Equality-SD’s radical gay-rights legislation,” as a goal of the Ignite campaign.

All told, SDFPC plans to spend $72,600 under the campaign, a small chunk of the average $304,000 the group took in as normal operating revenue each year over the last 5 years.

SDFPC did not return a request for information about the campaign.

Anti-gay marriage amendments on the ballot in 2012

In several states — such as Indiana, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and West Virginia — Ignite plans seems to be targeted at getting anti-gay marriage amendments passed.

The Family Policy Council of West Virginia (FPCWV) plans to spend $168,000 through 2012  (it’s average yearly budget is $132,000) during its two-year Ignite campaign to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, and also to defeat laws that would prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians.

In West Virginia, both houses of the legislature are overwhelmingly held by Democrats, and Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin is a Democrat. The planned anti-gay marriage amendment there was voted down in the House of Delegates in February, even though many of the Democrats in the state oppose gay marriage.

FPCWV did not return a request for information about the Ignite campaign.

The Pennsylvania Family Institute plans to spend $1.5 million through 2012 on anti-abortion rights measures as well as a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage in the state. The average yearly revenue for the group over the last three years was $1.4 million.

The group also received a matching donation of $7,500 at the end of 2010.

On Tuesday, Pennsylvania Republicans introduced the anti-gay marriage amendment that PFI says they’ll push over the next two years.

“Ignite may well be the most important plan we’ve ever undertaken,” wrote PFI president Michael Geer in a message to supporters about the plan. “We want to ensure that Pennsylvania’s pro-family citizens don’t ‘go home’ thinking election results alone will stop those who undermine the timeless values you and I share. Our plan is designed to take back lost ground in the areas of life, liberty, marriage, and the family.”

Indiana Family Institute plans (PDF) to spend $498,000 to defund Planned Parenthood and to pass an anti-gay marriage amendment. IFI’s revenues have averaged $313,896 over the past three years.

The IFI did not respond to a request for comment on the Ignite plan.

In Minnesota, the Ignite plan calls for adding an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution banning gay marriage; the Minnesota Family Council is planning to spend $4.71 million in the next two years. The group averaged $832,000 in revenue over the last three years between the Council and it’s affiliate, the Minnesota Family Institute. If the Ignite campaign goes according to plan, the group will spend more than twice its historical average in working to abolish gay marriage in the state.

Big endorsements

Family Foundation of Virginia plans to spend $1,170,277 over the next two years to push legislation on “wrongful death for the unborn,” school choice and religious liberty protections.

The group’s revenues over the last four years have averaged $510,000. They did not return a request for information on the campaign and increased spending.

Like many of the family policy councils, the Family Foundation got a year-end bump from a matching grant:

“In order to get us off to a strong start in implementing this plan, a small group of The Family Foundation’s donors have offered to match every contribution The Family Foundation receives before December 31 — up to $25,000!” the group said in a recent fundraising pitch.

And the group has been busy this year. It’s former executive director, Martin Brown, was tapped by Gov. Bob McDonnell to head Virginia’s Social Services Department. Under Brown’s leadership, the state social services board has tightened adoption rules so that agencies may discriminate against gay and lesbian couples.

The Family Foundation lobbied heavily for the pro-discrimination policies.

Its plan (PDF), which was sent to donors, includes this endorsement from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor: “It is difficult to imagine how Virginia would look today without The Family Foundation’s vigilant grassroots programs and the dedicated men and women who are the heart and soul of this proud institution.”

The Massachusetts Family Institute also had a message to its supporters last fall: “We must ensure Massachusetts’s pro-family movement doesn’t ‘go home’ after a tough election. We must work to ensure the “moment” that was the 2010 elections, both the January Special Election and the general in November, becomes a “movement” that takes back lost ground in the areas of life, liberty, marriage, and the family.”

MFI plans to spend $148,000 to defeat a “transgender bathroom bill,” to pass a student religious freedom bill and to pass anti-abortion rights initiatives, all uphill battles in a heavily progressive state.

The group’s website includes an endorsement of their Ignite plan from presidential candidate Mitt Romney. “MFI has a track record of getting things done on behalf of Massachusetts families and is uniquely positioned to accomplish even more in the years to come.”

The Louisiana Family Forum got a big endorsement from Gov. Bobby Jindal, a rumored candidate for president in 2012. “LFF had another great year, scoring an impressive 31 legislative victories,” Jindal wrote in support of LFF’s Ignite plan (PDF). “[LFF president Gene Mills] and his entire group do a great a job day after day, month after month, year after year showing up on behalf of Louisiana’s families. We look forward to many more pro-life, pro-family victories in the years ahead.”

LFF plans to spend $225,000 under its Ignite plan to defeat “homosexual adoption and marriage” and to “shrink the size and scope of government.” The group’s average revenue over the last two years was $600,000. The group received a $50,000 matching grant from an anonymous donor to launch the plan.

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida loaned his name to the Florida Family Policy Council’s Ignite plan, which calls for spending $300,000 to mandate that women view an ultrasound before having an abortion and to “defeat the radical homosexual agenda.”

The group averaged revenues of $384,000 over the last three years.

FFPC president John Stemberger told his supporters that their plan was meant to stave off victories by “non-religious right friendly legislators.”

“The people who work to undermine the values you and I share may have suffered a historic defeat in this year’s election, but both you and I know they won’t just go home,” he wrote. “As a matter of fact, they’re already planning how to turn things around in the next election. The “Ignite Plan” that I’m working on right now… is focused on making sure that doesn’t happen.”

Sen. Rubio wrote in support of the the group’s Ignite plan (PDF), saying, “FFPC’s successes in education, legislation and accountability have made them an indispensable asset in promoting and defending traditional values.”

The Center for Arizona Policy’s Ignite plan (PDF) has the endorsements of Rep. Trent Franks and Sen. Jon Kyl.

“With all the external challenges that we face in this country, the internal one is the greatest,” Franks wrote in support of the plan. “And I believe that a few people can make the vital difference. Center for Arizona Policy is the flagship of that effort here in Arizona.”

Sen. Kyl added, “It is very clear that Center for Arizona Policy has become an important force to influence public policy here in the state of Arizona.”

CAP doesn’t list its legislative goals on its website. CAP did get an anonymous donor to provide a matching grant for $115,000 for the plan. The group did not return a request for information about the plan.

Activity in other states

Other state groups include the New Jersey Family Policy Council, which is spending $1.326 million to defeat any same-sex marriage laws and to pass a parental notification law for minors seeking an abortion. The group’s average yearly revenue has been $864,000 over the last three years.

Cornerstone Family Council of Idaho is also using the Ignite plan, and got a matching grant from an anonymous donor for $6,300. Cornerstone did not return a request for comment. Neither did Wisconsin Family Action, which got a $13,000 matching grant.

Family Action Council of Tennessee and the Kansas Family Policy Council both have adopted the Ignite strategy.

Evan Smith, CEO and editor-in-chief of the Texas Tribune, an Austin-based nonprofit news organization, sat down with Cornyn today and quizzed him on his party’s attack on social programs in general and Planned Parenthood specifically.

When Smith asked Cornyn, chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, about Kyl’s inaccurate statistic, Cornyn took the tactic favored by high-profile birthers of asserting a keen desire to “learn more” about a controversial notion, about which there is already abundant evidence. On whether he agreed with Kyl’s initial claim, Cornyn had this to say:

Well, I’m not so sure. Here I am in the middle of the debate and I’m not so sure. I’ve been told that 98 percent of the services they offer to pregnant women are abortion-related services. I’m not sure, but I think we ought to find out.

[...]

I actually went on Planned Parenthood’s website yesterday to try and see if I could get some good info, and I came up empty.

In fact, Planned Parenthood’s most recent annual report (PDF) is freely available on its website and is easily accessed in the site’s “About Us” section. The report includes full disclosures of where Planned Parenthood allocates resources, as well as the exact information Cornyn claimed he couldn’t find, in a handy visual format. The report’s statistics on Planned Parenthood’s activities — and indicating that just 3 percent of what Planned Parenthood does is offer abortion services — were given new life by a pie chart passed around recently by The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein.

Incidentally, Smith’s joke that Planned Parenthood would appreciate getting Cornyn’s IP address may have been a dig at the senator’s 2009 introduction of a bill that would have forced Internet Service Providers to create fixed IP addresses for all users and log their activities. Cornyn claimed the bill was meant to aid in the fight against child sexual abuse, but critics said it would have favored telecoms by doing away with public wireless in restaurants and public buildings, and could have paved the way for selective censoring of online content. Cornyn laughed at the quip anyway.

Arizona’s Sen. Jon Kyl announced in February that he would not seek re-election in 2012. Palin would be seeking to fill his seat, presumably counting on the senior senator from Arizona, her erstwhile running mate in 2008 John McCain, for public support in the campaign.

Like many states, Arizona has residency requirements on the books that would bar someone like Palin from moving to the state to join the legislature — a candidate for Arizona state Senate has to have lived in the state for at least three years. But the U.S. Senate still sticks to the language in Article I of the Constitution, which only requires that a candidate be an “inhabitant” of the state in which he or she seeks office at the time of the election.

So Palin would have no legal problem running for U.S. Senate in Arizona and certainly may be able to garner some help from still-popular Sen. McCain, who defeated Democratic opponent Rodney Glassman in the 2010 election 59 to 35 percent. But could she win?

Well, she may have lost out on her chance to be “in charge of the Senate” back in 2008, but even just joining their ranks would an uphill struggle for Palin. The New Times’ King contends that Arizona’s trend toward conservatism and Palin’s fundraising prowess could make her a formidable candidate, and that “if Palin were to run for Senate in Arizona, there’s a pretty good chance she’d win.” Yet the most recent Public Policy Poll on Palin suggests that Palin is even less popular in Arizona than in the United States at large: 57 percent of Arizonans have an unfavorable view of Palin, compared to 56 percent of all Americans.

Who are some of the senators who are still wavering? Raju collects some of their comments:

Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, the vice chairman of the Senate Republican Conference who voted for the ban in March, said he’s “going to go at every angle possible to cut spending and limit the debt.”

Asked if that meant he’d vote for the DeMint proposal, Barrasso told POLITICO: “I want to see everything that comes up. I don’t know how many different proposals we’re going to have.”

Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 GOP senator in leadership, won’t make any earmark requests this year and didn’t last year. But his spokesman said the senator would wait until next week to view all the ideas on the table before taking a position on the moratorium.

South Dakota Sen. John Thune, a prospective 2012 presidential candidate and No. 4 in GOP leadership, has “supported in the past and continues to support an earmark moratorium,” a spokesman said. But it’s unclear if that means he’ll back DeMint’s plan on Tuesday.

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, who voted for the ban in March, said through a spokeswoman that he had just received the plan and was still reviewing it.

It’s clear from the quotes above and a review of the senators’ past records that their stance on requesting earmarks is only one part of the equation in their decision-making process about whether to speak their mind before Tuesday’s vote. Kyl, for instance, is no friend of earmarks, but he’s also a part of Republican leadership. A number of senators are clearly weighing the cost of openly defying McConnell against the cost of appearing to disavow the desires of the Tea Party.

All of the races listed below could go either way, but it’s worth speculating on where the election could have an effect on immigration policy:

Majority leader: The Senate race between Sen. Harry Reid (D) and Sharron Angle (R) could open up the position of majority leader, which Reid currently holds. It’s unlikely Republicans will take over a majority of the Senate, but losing Reid would put another Democrat in charge of the push for immigration legislation. Luckily for reform supporters, both of the senators likely to take over as majority leader if Reid loses are equally strong supporters of immigration reform as Reid — perhaps even stronger.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), currently second in command, is the chief sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would provide legal residency states to some undocumented students and military service members, and supports comprehensive immigration reform. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is considered the favorite to take over as majority leader because of his past success as chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. He also supports comprehensive immigration reform, and wrote a blueprint for comprehensive immigration reform this spring with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

Immigration subcommittee: Schumer heads the Judiciary subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, which will remain in the hands of Democrats unless Republicans take over a majority of the Senate. The committee could see some shifting if the current members lose their seats, but most who are up for re-election have comfortable leads. Schumer looks certain to win against Republican challenger Jay Townsend, while Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) looks like he’ll be safe against Republican candidate Len Britton and his five other challengers. The other Democrats on the committee — Durbin, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse — aren’t up for re-election this year.

On the Republican side, only Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is up for re-election. He is favored to win over Democratic challenger Roxanne Conlin. The other GOP members of the subcommittee — Texas Sen. John Cornyn, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl and Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions — aren’t up for re-election. In the very unlikely event that Republicans win control of the Senate, Cornyn would be the chairman of the subcommittee on immigration.

Other immigration-related races: In the Senate especially, every member’s views on a given issue are important for passing legislation. A few races between pro- and anti-immigration reform candidates could make the difference for passing comprehensive immigration reform or, in lieu of that, smaller-scale legislation such as AgJOBS to create paths to legalization for some farm workers.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) faces a challenge from Republican Carly Fiorina, who supports the DREAM Act and reform of the guest worker system but argues against “amnesty” for illegal immigrants — the derisive term used by conservatives to refer to efforts to allow some undocumented immigrants already in the United States to earn legal status. Boxer, on the other hand, has been a consistent supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, arguing Congress should pass a bill increasing border security and enforcement efforts while also allowing some illegal immigrants in the country to remain here legally.

In New York, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who was appointed to Hillary Clinton’s old seat, is favored to win over Republican Joseph J. DioGuardi. Gillibrand was originally considered an anti-immigrant pick for the Senate seat, but has since shifted to a pro-immigration reform view and advocates legislation that would allow some undocumented immigrants in the country to become legal residents.

Open seats could see the addition of some immigration hardliners. Rand Paul, a Republican running for Senate in Kentucky against Democrat Jack Conway, supports state-led solutions to illegal immigration such as Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law. He also wants to built an electric fence between the United States and Mexico and move overseas military bases back to the country to man the border. Conway, on the other hand, said he supports more border agents but also paths to legalization. “Let’s take people out of the shadows and turn them into taxpayers,” he said during a debate.

Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Alexi Giannoulias are facing off for Obama’s former seat in Illinois. If Giannoulias wins, the Democrats will have a nearly sure vote for comprehensive immigration reform as well as the DREAM Act. But Kirk has said that the Senate should tackle border security first, and that he would vote against the DREAM Act and other immigration reform.

The letter claims ICE releases illegal immigrants who have been arrested for sex crimes, domestic violence and driving under the influence. ICE, though, argues it must to something to address the growing backlogs in immigration courts and that it only releases non-criminal and low-level offenders — not including misdemeanor convictions involving DWI, sex crimes or domestic violence — and those with pending applications for legal status. Napolitano and ICE Chief John Morton have claimed the agency focuses on the “worst of the worst” so it can best use its limited resources.

In response, Republicans said the agency should request more money. “[W]e have not seen any efforts by ICE, your Department, or the Administration to request an increase in ICE funding sufficient to address staffing shortages, detention capacity, and coordination of enforcement efforts nationwide to achieve a streamlined and robust immigration removal system,” the senators wrote in the letter. “As a result, it appears that your Department is doing the very thing that we have raised concerns about in several letters – allowing illegal aliens to evade the law.”

The entire controversy points to the difficult balance the Obama administration must try to reach on immigration enforcement. On one side, the administration favors comprehensive immigration reform that would allow many of the 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the country to stay here and become legal residents. This would seemingly point to an immigration enforcement policy that would deport fewer people, particularly among the non-criminal illegal immigrant population. But perhaps due to heavy pressure to seem tough on immigration, the Obama administration increased enforcement to record levels, deporting more non-citizens than Republican predecessors.

The idea, according to some immigrant rights advocates, was for the Obama administration to prove its commitment to immigration enforcement and border security so it could later broker a deal on comprehensive immigration reform with the right. By the looks of the senators’ letter, the GOP is not convinced.

Here’s the full letter:

Dear Secretary Napolitano:

Recently, media reports have revealed that pending removal proceedings are being dismissed in record numbers.  That sharp increase in dismissals is the result of a directive from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John T. Morton to all ICE attorneys to review pending cases and seek dismissal if the cases do not involve Level I offenders (aliens convicted of aggravated felonies or two or more felonies).  Specifically, ICE attorneys are directed to seek dismissal of cases involving Level II and Level III criminal aliens so long as the aliens have no felony convictions and no more than two misdemeanors.  As we understand it, cases involving aliens with misdemeanors involving domestic violence, sexual crimes, or driving while intoxicated would not be dropped.

Though the reports focused only on cases pending before Houston immigration judges, our understanding is that the ICE directive applies nationwide. Numerous criminal aliens are being released into society and are having proceedings terminated simply because ICE has decided that such cases do not fit within the Department’s chosen enforcement priorities.

The ICE directive, along with other recently announced detention and removal policies, raises serious questions about your Department’s commitment to enforce the immigration laws.  It appears that your Department is enforcing the law based on criteria it arbitrarily chose, with complete disregard for the enforcement laws created by Congress.  The repercussions of this decision extend beyond removal proceedings, because it discourages officers from even initiating new removal proceedings if they believe the case ultimately will be dismissed based on the new directive.

Even more disturbing is the fact that your Department has chosen to dismiss cases against criminal aliens, including aliens who have committed crimes involving moral turpitude, crimes of violence, assault, theft, fraud, drug offenses, driving under the influence, and illegal entry.

To be sure, ICE has cited a lack of resources as one of the reasons for its prioritization of cases and for its selective enforcement.  But to date, we have not seen any efforts by ICE, your Department, or the Administration to request an increase in ICE funding sufficient to address staffing shortages, detention capacity, and coordination of enforcement efforts nationwide to achieve a streamlined and robust immigration removal system.  As a result, it appears that your Department is doing the very thing that we have raised concerns about in several letters – allowing illegal aliens to evade the law while waiting, without much concern about removal, to one day obtain legal status. Though Congress has been slow to reach a comprehensive immigration solution, your Department is charged with enforcing the law as written and it should not be adopting a lax approach to immigration enforcement or selectively enforcing the laws against only those aliens it considers a priority.

We would like a detailed list of the number of cases that have been dismissed since January 2010 to the present.  If the case involved a criminal alien, we also would like you to identify which crimes the aliens were convicted of and in which jurisdiction.  In addition, we want you to detail exactly how much funding your Department would require to ensure that enforcement of the law occurs consistently for every illegal alien encountered and apprehended by ICE or U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  Please respond by November 15^th.

Sincerely,

John Cornyn, United States Senator

Jeff Sessions, United States Senator

Jon Kyl, United States Senator

Orrin Hatch, United States Senator

Chuck Grassley, United States Senator

Lindsey Graham, United States Senator

Tom Coburn, M.D., United States Senator

The whole piece is worth a read, but I’ll break it down into the concerns it raises about Operation Streamline:

Cost: It’s unclear exactly how much Operation Streamline costs, because it pulls money from various involved agencies rather than having its own budget. But studies have found the program could cost as much as $1 billion per year. Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl, both Republicans, have argued for additional funding of Operation Streamline as part of their proposed 10-point border security plan.

Strategies: In part due to the high cost of prosecuting so many migrants, an Operation Streamline court in Tuscon, Ariz., only sees 70 of the 1,000 migrant apprehensions per day. The Phoenix New Times reported the group of 70 migrants is generally about 70 percent first-timers and 30 percent migrants who had been apprehended for crossing the border before — meaning they face felony illegal re-entry and misdemeanor illegal entry. The punishments for these offenses are very different: Misdemeanor illegal entrants can serve as few as three days, while felony illegal re-entry can earn a migrant up to twenty years in prison.

What happens to the approximately 930 migrants apprehended each day but not chosen for Operation Streamline hearings? They are sent back to Mexico, which means some migrants who re-entered illegally — the criminal illegal immigrants the Department of Homeland Security claims are its priority — are passed over by the supposedly “zero tolerance” program.

Operation Streamline courts also see a fair number of people who were apprehended on their way back to Mexico, which critics argue is a Border Patrol tactic to drive up enforcement data. “They’re boosting [the Border Patrol's apprehension] numbers,” Federal Public Defender Matthew Johnson told the Phoenix New Times, “by arresting the people going southbound.”

Effectiveness: The piece also points to concerns about the effectiveness of Operation Streamline as a deterrent. While proponents of the program argue it will keep migrants from crossing the border illegally, this seems to not fully be the case — at least anecdotally. The Phoenix New Times spoke to many migrants who were prosecuted under Operation Streamline who said they planned to return to the United States. While Border Patrol claims there is little recidivism, the possibility that migrants return without detection means actual data on illegal return is hard to come by. Overall, experts argue the program lacks consistent review and oversight to ensure it’s doing its job.

Justice: Operation Streamline courts usually operate through mass hearings, where a public defender represents a large number of clients and judges issue questions and decisions en masse.  Defendants sign away their right to an individual judge to enter Operation Streamline, because the process promises to be much faster: a couple of days in jail, typically, rather than months awaiting a trial. Still, critics argue the program creates criminal prosecutions without adequate defense (many defendants cannot communicate with their public defender due to language barriers) and unjust court procedures.

Such a review threatens to “chill the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights,” wrote two Republican senators, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Jon Kyl of Arizona, in a letter sent to the I.R.S. on Wednesday.

Republicans were quick to point out that the I.R.S. was put under tight restrictions about access to Americans’ tax returns as a result of political shenanigans by the Nixon administration involving tax audits.

Kyl and Hatch’s request also comes on the heels of an allegation by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) that the Obama administration improperly disclosed the confidential taxpayer information of Koch Industries during a background call with journalists:

Mr. Grassley called the matter “a very serious allegation.” The White House said it was a simple misunderstanding.

It grew out of a briefing that officials held for reporters in August in discussing possible changes in the tax code for corporations.

A administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity in the background briefing, pointed to Koch Industries as an example of “multibillion-dollar businesses that are structured as partnerships in ways that allow them to avoid paying sizable corporate taxes.”

Mr. Grassley, in requesting an investigation, said that the official’s statement implied “direct knowledge of Koch’s legal and tax status,” in possible violation of taxpayers’ privacy laws, and may have been “politically motivated.” The White House, in a statement, denied any improper accessing of confidential taxpayer information. “The official’s statement was not based on any review of tax filings and we will not use this example in the future,” the White House said.

The White House, in other words, claims it was simply pointing to Koch Industries as an example of a broad phenomenon, much like the president did when he discussed Koch’s brainchild, Americans for Prosperity, and the possibility that it could be receiving foreign funding. It wasn’t actually sifting through Koch’s taxpayer information. But Grassley’s accusation has been sufficient to prompt an investigation by the Treasury Department’s Inspector General into the issue.

Sens. Hatch and Kyl, for their part, are apparently afraid that Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus’s request for the IRS to investigate will be a partisan process. In response, they wrote in their own letter to the IRS on Wednesday that, ”I.R.S. audits and investigations are specifically intended to be separated from the political process. We expect the I.R.S. will adhere to those standards despite requests to the contrary from high-level political officials.”