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

“It is deeply disturbing that one in five veterans under the age of 25 is unemployed. The men and women who fought for our nation in Iraq and Afghanistan have to fight for a job when they return home — and the odds are stacked against them” Harkin said Thursday during a conference call with reporters.

“We have a solemn obligation to do right by the men and women in uniform who put their lives at risk for our nation.”

Government officials estimate that roughly 240,000 veterans who served in the Middle East are currently unemployed. The bill approved by the Senate provides tax breaks of up to $9,600 to businesses that put them to work.

The tax breaks were included in the Obama administration’s American Jobs Act, a $447 billion package that was wholly refused by Republican lawmakers last month. U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley says the initiative dates back to May 2010 and this past January, when he and U.S. Sen. Max Baucus introduced and reintroduced the Veterans Employment Transition Act, or the VETs Jobs bill.

“These men and women are extremely capable,” Grassley said. “They have a lot of skills to offer in the workplace. The legislation that Senator Baucus and I put together clears some bureaucratic hurdles and adds a financial incentive to encourage employers to seek out veterans.”

The legislation reinstates a tax credit that expired at the end of 2010, and makes it easier for veterans and small businesses to use. The credits will range from $2,400 to $9,600 in 2012, depending on the veteran hired. Tax exempt organizations are eligible for the credit.

• $9,600 for veterans with service-connected disabilities unemployed for 6 months or longer in the past year
• $5,600 for veterans unemployed for 6 months or longer in the past year
• $4,800 for service-disabled veterans hired within 1 year of being discharged
• $2,400 for veterans who do not fit any of the above categories and are unemployed for between 4 weeks and 6 months in the past year

Any veteran who has left active duty in the past five years who has discharge paperwork showing 180 days of qualified active duty would be eligible for the credit. This would include those men and women who were activated by their states as members of the National Guard. The bill also helps service members market themselves to prospective employers by requiring the military to educate service members about how the credit works.

The only senator to vote against the Vow to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 was South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint, who indicated the measure gave veterans an unfair advantage.

“I cannot support this tax credit because I do not believe the government should privilege one American over another when it comes to work,” DeMint said on the floor Thursday.

The U.S. House is expected to take up the measure next week, and U.S. Rep. Dave Loebsack is optimistic that the bill will be quickly passed.

“Tomorrow, we set aside time to honor the men and women who have served our great country in uniform. As we pause to pay tribute to them, we must also remember that we have a moral obligation to serve our troops and veterans with the same dedication and honor with which they serve us. Yet our troops are returning home from the battlefield to face the same economic reality that families across our country are facing,” Loebsack said in a Thursday statement.

“The World War II generation returned home and became part of our nation’s economic recovery. Today, as we work to recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, it is up to all of us as a grateful nation to ensure that those who have fought for us overseas do not have to fight for a job here at home. This generation of veterans can and will be part of our economic recovery, but we must give them the opportunity to do so. This bipartisan legislation demonstrates the progress we can make when both sides of the aisle work together.”

Two members of Iowa’s federal delegation are veterans. Harkin served as an active-duty jet pilot in the U.S. Navy from 1962 to 1967. U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell served 20 years in the U.S. Army, including two one-year tours of duty as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam.

According to a January 2011 report by Jennifer Rizzo of CNN, only 20 percent of the members of Congress have served in the military — 25 from the Senate and 90 from the House. It is the lowest level since World War II.

But what it lacks in legal compliance, it at least makes up in creativity, running one ad in the form of a mock sales pitch for a commemorative coin that honors President Obama and various Democratic congressmen for increasing the national debt:

“They’ve probably run some of the more entertaining ads this cycle,” says Evan Tracey, who tracks political ads for a living at the Campaign Media Analysis Group. “They don’t look like a lot of the ads that are being shown over and over and over, by candidates and the parties and the other groups in a lot of these races.”

The “commemorative coin” ad is running against candidates in several states. It follows the Republicans’ broad strategy this year of linking the local Democrat to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the national debt.

The Commission indicated in its March IRS filing that it had no plans to spend any money to influence elections, yet its ads, nearly any way you slice it, are political. They don’t explicitly say to vote for or against a candidate, but they criticize Democratic incumbents facing tight re-election races and compare them unfavorably to their Republican opponents.”There’s not a whole lot of gray area as to whether these are about issues,” Tracey told NPR. “They’re strictly about politics and elections.” Maybe the Commission believes that the ads’ satirical nature exempts them from basic reporting practices, but this seems like a dubious legal strategy at best.

A group like this seems like an ideal candidate for the IRS or the FEC to single out and make an example of following the campaign season, but most news accounts are pessimistic about the chances of either agency doing much about it. Before Congress departed for recess, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) asked the IRS to undertake a thorough investigation of nonprofit groups that appear as if they may be in violation of their tax-exempt status, but since then there’s been little word of progress from the agency and Sen. Baucus’ office.

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.”

That’s what the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) urged today in a letter to Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which CREW notes has the jurisdiction to hold hearings or launch its own independent investigation into such organizations.

The accompanying press release says, “No Need to Punt to the IRS,” and includes the following from the group’s director, Melanie Sloan:

“Senator Baucus has correctly identified the gaping hole in our tax code that allows these faux tax-exempt groups to circumvent the law thanks to the flawed Citizens United decision,” said Melanie Sloan, CREW Executive Director. “Yet, as Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus can do something about this. He does not need to punt the matter to the IRS; rather, the Finance Committee can and should immediately begin its own investigation.  The committee has the jurisdiction and authority to subpoena witnesses and documents to get a handle on the extent of the abuse of the tax code and begin working towards a legislative solution.”

The letter submitted by CREW points out numerous instances in which the Senate Finance Committee has launched similar investigations in the past, including a thorough investigation into The Nature Conservancy’s non-cash charitable contributions in 2003. In recent years, the committee has also conducted investigations into groups affiliated with ACORN, the tax-exempt ministries of six televangelists, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, and others.

Now that Congress is on recess, of course, there’s little chance that anything will happen before the midterm elections. But a slate of hearings during the lame duck session is entirely possible.

Under federal tax law, these groups can’t be engaged in political activity as their primary purpose, nor can they be used by individuals to advance their own private political interests. But recent media reports, Baucus notes, have indicated that such laws are being flouted:

“Political campaigns and powerful individuals should not be able to use tax-exempt organizations as political pawns to serve their own special interests.  The tax exemption given to non-profit organizations comes with a responsibility to serve the public interest and Congress has an obligation to exercise the vigorous oversight necessary to ensure they do,” said Baucus.  “When political campaigns and individuals manipulate tax-exempt organizations to advance their own political agenda, they are able to raise and spend money without disclosing a dime, deceive the public and manipulate the entire political system.  Special interests hiding behind the cloak of independent non-profits threatens the transparency our democracy deserves and does a disservice to fair, honest and open elections.”

In his letter (below), Baucus asks Shulman to review all major 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) organizations engaged in political campaign activity and make sure that they are operating within the guidelines of their declared tax-exempt purpose. He goes on to ask Shulman to draw up a report for the Finance Committee on the IRS’s findings as soon as possible.

Revoking an organization’s tax exempt status is a notoriously tricky and rare occasion. For one, such groups are often incorporated with impossibly vague mandates like putting forth a “pro-growth, pro-jobs message” (Americans for Job Security) or “educating citizens about economic policy and mobilizing those citizens as advocates in the public policy process” (Americans for Prosperity).

Second, the IRS as an agency is not currently staffed, equipped, or particularly motivated to enforce federal election law and, on the occasions that it has acted against groups, the decisions tend to get mired in lengthy court proceedings. But maybe Baucus’s request will light the necessary fire beneath the agency before midterms.

Here’s a copy of the letter:

September 28, 2010

The Honorable Douglas H. Shulman

Commissioner

Internal Revenue Service

1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC  20224

Via Electronic Transmission

Dear Commissioner Shulman:

The Senate Finance Committee has jurisdiction over revenue matters, and the Committee is responsible for conducting oversight of the administration of the federal tax system, including matters involving tax-exempt organizations.   The Committee has focused extensively over the past decade on whether tax–exempt groups have been used for lobbying or other financial or political gain.

The central question examined by the Committee has been whether certain charitable or social welfare organizations qualify for the tax-exempt status provided under the Internal Revenue Code.

Recent media reports on various 501(c)(4) organizations engaged in political activity have raised serious questions about whether such organizations are operating in compliance with the Internal Revenue Code.

The law requires that political campaign activity by a 501(c)(4), (c)(5) or (c)(6) entity must not be the primary purpose of the organization.

If it is determined the primary purpose of the 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) organization is political campaign activity the tax exemption for that nonprofit can be terminated.

Even if political campaign activity is not the primary purpose of a 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) organization, it must notify its members of the portion of dues paid due to political activity or pay a proxy tax under Section 6033(e).

Also, tax-exempt organizations and their donors must not engage in private inurement or excess benefit transactions.  These rules prevent private individuals or groups from using tax-exempt organizations to benefit their private interests or to profit from the tax-exempt organization’s activities.

A September 23 New York Times article entitled “Hidden Under a Tax-Exempt Cloak, Private Dollars Flow” described the activities of the organization Americans for Job Security.  An Alaska Public Office Commission investigation revealed that AJS, organized as an entity to promote social welfare under 501(c)(6), fought development in Alaska at the behest of a “local financier who paid for most of the referendum campaign.”   The Commission report said that “Americans for Job Security has no other purpose other than to cover money trails all over the country.”  The article also noted that “membership dues and assessments … plunged to zero before rising to $12.2 million for the presidential race.”

A September 16 Time Magazine article examined the activities of Washington D.C. based 501(c)(4) groups planning a “$300 million … spending blitz” in the 2010 elections.  The article describes a group transforming itself into a nonprofit under 501(c)(4) of the tax code, ensuring that they would not have to “publically disclose any information about its donors.”

These media reports raise a basic question: Is the tax code being used to eliminate transparency in the funding of our elections – elections that are the constitutional bedrock of our democracy? They also raise concerns about whether the tax benefits of nonprofits are being used to advance private interests.

With hundreds of millions of dollars being spent in election contests by tax-exempt entities, it is time to take a fresh look at current practices and how they comport with the Internal Revenue Code’s rules for nonprofits.

I request that you and your agency survey major 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) organizations involved in political campaign activity to examine whether they are operated for the organization’s intended tax exempt purpose and to ensure that political campaign activity is not the organization’s primary activity. Specifically you should examine if these political activities reach a primary purpose level – the standard imposed by the federal tax code – and if they do not, whether the organization is complying with the notice or proxy tax requirements of Section 6033(e).  I also request that you or your agency survey major 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) organizations to determine whether they are acting as conduits for major donors advancing their own private interests regarding legislation or political campaigns, or are providing major donors with excess benefits.

Possible violation of tax laws should be identified as you conduct this study.

Please report back to the Finance Committee as soon as possible with your findings and recommended actions regarding this matter.

Based on your report I plan to ask the Committee to open its own investigation and/or to take appropriate legislative action.

Sincerely,

Max Baucus

Chairman

The number of small changes to programs and taxes is dizzying. The bill re-ups the Build America Bond programs. It includes tax breaks for small businesses. It modifies dozens of other taxes. It reinstates the research and development tax credit. It provides funding for jobs for 350,000 youths. It provides continued funding for a national study of child welfare. It gives money to the National Housing Trust Fund. It provides disaster-relief funding and helps workers in the Gulf. It includes dozens of incentives for green vehicles and retrofitting. It makes changes to the health-care law and has some provisions for Native Americans and the timber industry.

It also lifts the oil-spill liability cap: “Analysts estimate that the cost of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico could exceed $14 billion. The companies that caused this oil spill are responsible for all of the costs of cleanup and up to $75 million of additional damages. These companies are responsible for all additional damages if they are found to be grossly negligent, to have engaged in willful misconduct, or to have violated an applicable Federal safety, construction or operating regulation. To the extent that costs are not borne by the parties responsible for the spill, up to $1 billion of additional damage costs.”

And it creates an “Office of the Homeowner Advocate,” which would “assist homeowners, housing counselors, and housing lawyers in resolving problems with the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), a temporary program to help homeowners who are struggling to keep up with payments on their mortgages.”

The payfors? It changes the taxing of carried interest: “The bill would prevent investment fund managers from paying taxes entirely at capital gains rates on investment management services income received as carried interest in an investment fund.” That raises more than $13 billion.

Then, it cuts food stamps, as Senate Democrats have already done twice in recent months, angering their colleagues in the House. The summary notes: “[E]ffective January 31, food stamp benefits will return to the levels that individuals would have received in 2014 under pre-Recovery Act law. This modification reduces the cost of the bill by $13.79 billion over ten years.”

The House has reauthorized TEF funding twice, and the White House wants the program OKed for another year. But the Senate has not managed to get the funding through.

Today, 30 Democratic senators wrote a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the head of the Senate Finance Committee, asking for them to include another year of TEF funding — estimated to cost about $2.5 billion — in any upcoming legislation. Here’s the full text:

Dear Majority Leader Reid and Chairman Baucus:

We appreciate the many months you have spent working to pass legislation that would provide critical tax cuts and support for American workers.  Thanks to your leadership, the United States Senate has passed key provisions from the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010, including an extension of expiring unemployment insurance benefits, an extension of expiring FMAP assistance, and an extension of the Medicare physician payment rates.

As you continue your efforts to bolster the economy and create jobs, we ask that you include a one-year extension of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Emergency Contingency Fund in any upcoming legislative packages.  We further request $2.5 billion to ensure the TANF Emergency Contingency Fund is adequately funded through fiscal year 2011; the original $5 billion appropriated for 2009 and 2010 is nearly exhausted.

As you know, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) created a new Emergency Contingency Fund under the TANF block grant. States have used this fund to create subsidized jobs in the private and public sectors. By the time it expires at the end of September, the fund will have created approximately 250,000 jobs for low-income individuals (parents and older youth) who would otherwise be unemployed. States are also using this fund to provide basic cash assistance and short-term benefits to increasing numbers of poor families with children as unemployment remains high and more workers exhaust their unemployment benefits.

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund is set to expire on September 30, 2010 and states are in the process of eliminating their employment programs and considering reductions in assistance for very poor families.  As states continue to struggle with the recession, we believe the extension of the TANF Emergency Contingency Fund would create jobs in the near term and stimulate the economy. At least thirty-six states (including the District of Columbia) have received approval to receive TANF Emergency Funds for new or expanded subsidized employment programs. And the number of unemployed parents and older youth in subsidized jobs would grow even more substantially if states had an additional year to operate the program.

We have just a few weeks before the successes of the TANF Emergency Contingency Fund experienced across the country are reversed.  Without immediate Congressional action, tens of thousands of jobs will be lost in the coming days and weeks.  Job losses in the states and counties with the large subsidized employment programs could see substantial increases in their unemployment rate.  Small businesses that have relied on the fund to expand during the recession and rehire laid-off employees will once again face financial uncertainty.  And states may implement reductions in cash assistance, assistance which is effective in stimulating the economy because the poor families receiving it spend virtually every cent in their local economy immediately to meet basic needs.

History tells us that even as the economy begins to grow again, it takes time for jobs to follow.  Allowing the TANF Emergency Contingency Fund to expire is simply not a viable option for our current economy.  We once again ask for your help to immediately extend the TANF Emergency Contingency Fund which will bolster job creation, keep much-needed income in local economies, support local businesses, and make it possible for low-income parents to cover basic expenses.

Thank you for your important work to help American families who are struggling amid this historic recession.  We look forward to working with you to ensure that state governments have the necessary resources to assist poor families with employment programs and other basic needs.

The signers are: John Kerry (Mass.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Jack Reed (R.I.), Jeff Bingaman (N.M.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Bob Casey (Penn.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Ted Kaufman (Del.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Chris Dodd (Conn.), Tom Harkin (Ohio), Daniel Akaka (Ha.), Tom Udall (N.M.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Roland Burris (Ill.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Bernie Sanders (Vt.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Benjamin Cardin (Md.), Barbara Mikulski (Md.), Al Franken (Minn.) and Arlen Specter (Penn.).

“It’s inconceivable to pull the rug out from under the same families who have been devastated by this recession,” Kerry said in a statement. “It makes no sense to shred a program that’s been creating jobs and helping low-income parents make ends meet for the last two years.”

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) is trying to hand over $24 billion in much needed Medicaid funding for states, known as FMAP. A Senate Finance Committee aide writes, “Chairman Baucus continues to work to build the support of 60 Members needed to pass the FMAP funding and is in close contact with [Sen. Harry] Reid on a potential vehicle to extend that policy.”

And House members including Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) are working to try to re-up funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Emergency Fund. (Senate Republicans blocked a reauthorization of TANF funding in March.) Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the Speaker of the House, has continued to pressure the Senate to pass House bills authorizing and offsetting the spending.

Speaking earlier this week, Pelosi said that these initiatives have been “paid for, but they have not passed yet: enhanced FMAP funding — paid for; a comprehensive jobs bill — paid for; assistance for teachers – paid for.” She argued:

America’s state legislators and governors have been clear that one of the best ways Congress can help the budgetary crises our states are facing is enhanced FMAP funding.  That’s because it is fungible and flexible. Enhanced FMAP has been both an opportunity and a challenge for you. When Congress included $87 billion in enhanced FMAP investments in the Recovery Act, it helped keep cops on the beat and teachers in the classroom and helped address the health needs of your constituents.  Many of your state budgets have been predicated on continued enhanced FMAP funding.

As you all know, the House passed an extension of FMAP last December in our comprehensive jobs bill. And now, FMAP is stalled in the Senate, even though it has a majority of support in that body.  In order to pass, it must have bipartisan support. You are the most eloquent and persuasive voices on this subject; you know best why this is necessary.  I urge you to tell Republicans in the Senate about the real cost to your communities of their opposition — cuts to hospitals, nursing homes, and public safety, elimination of domestic violence and homelessness initiatives, and slashed budgets for mental health and child welfare services.

She also pushed for edujobs funding, passed by the House and dropped from the Senate supplemental war-funding bill.

The wrangling comes as local government say they might slash as many as 500,000 workers in the next year if Congress does not provide Medicaid, TANF and education-jobs funding for states. A report released yesterday by the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and United States Conference of Mayors says that local governments might slash up to 9 percent of their workforces due to congress reneging on promised funds.

“Local governments across the country are now facing the combined impact of decreased tax revenues, a falloff in state and federal aid and increased demand for social services,” the report says. “In this current climate of fiscal distress, local governments are forced to eliminate both jobs and services.”