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

That message could be made stronger by the fact that more than 20 percent of those surveyed are still unsure who they’ll support in the Jan. 3 presidential contest, the survey found.

The survey of 400 likely Republican caucusgoers by GS Strategy Group shows 64.5 percent are opposed to Social Security cuts, and 67.3 percent to Medicare cuts. Another 86 percent of those surveyed said Social Security benefits are important to their monthly income, and 87 percent said Medicare is essential to seniors’ health care security.

Those surveyed would much prefer withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan to cutting Medicare (67.3 percent to 9.5 percent) or Social Security (65 percent to 8.8 percent).

Of those surveyed, 76.8 percent identified themselves as conservative and 50.5 percent as very conservative.

“Opposition to these benefit cuts among Republicans across the ideological spectrum confirms what AARP has been hearing from Iowans throughout our campaign to protect Social Security and Medicare: Whether Republican, Democrat, Independent or Tea Party supporter, voters overwhelmingly oppose cuts to these programs,” said AARP Iowa State President Tony Vola.

Businessman Herman Cain led all GOP presidential candidates in the survey, with support at 25 percent. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney had 21.5 percent support, and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) had 8.3 percent.

But more than 22.8 percent of those surveyed were still undecided, suggesting the race for the Republican nomination is still wide open, at least in the Hawkeye State.

The margin of error for the survey, conducted Oct. 17 and 18, is 4.9 percent.

State and local government spending is less likely to be seen as wasted, but belief in how much of it is wasted has risen at about the same pace as belief in federal waste:

The elderly and people without postgraduate degrees are more likely to rate government waste as slightly larger, as well as self-identified Republicans, independents and conservatives.

The partisan difference over how much federal government spending is wasted is the reverse of what it was in 2001, under President George W. Bush, when Democrats on average thought more federal spending was wasted than Republicans did, suggesting who is in office affects perceptions of government waste.

The greater perception of government waste on average among those over age 65 contrasts sharply with the reality that a disproportionate amount of government spending goes to the elderly through Social Security and Medicare. As this graph from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities shows, federal government spending largely goes to defense and the military, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, safety-net programs and interest on the debt.

In the past, when pollsters have asked Americans which specific federal program they think should be cut, very little consensus emerges on which is most deserving. In January, Gallup found that bipartisan majorities of the public opposed cutting Social Security, Medicare, education and anti-poverty programs.

Foreign aid, which makes up less than one percent of the federal budget, was the most popular potential target of cuts. The biggest partisan difference was over defense spending, where Republicans are much less likely to support cuts.

As Gallup says in its own interpretation of the poll, “It is not clear whether Americans believe government wastes money because it spends on programs they believe are not needed, or because it does not spend money efficiently on programs, whether needed or not.” Nor does the poll say whether Americans believe mandatory or discretionary spending is more wasteful.

About two-thirds of state government spending is typically devoted to K-12 and higher education, Medicaid, transportation, anti-poverty programs and corrections. The remaining third varies by state, but is usually comprised at least somewhat by pensions for retired public sector workers.

The following CBPP graph shows average state government spending by area:

At the start of business on Tuesday, Aug. 2, according to the Daily Treasury Statement, the national debt subject to the legal limit was $14.293975 trillion. Obama signed legislation that day lifting the limit by as much as $2.4 trillion—with an initial and immediate increase in the limit of $400 billion. By the close of business on Friday, Aug. 5, according to the Daily Treasury Statement, the national debt subject to the limit had grown to $14.536130 trillion.

Over just four days, the debt had jumped $242.155 billion.

By contrast, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, over the ten-year period from the end of fiscal 1950 to the end of fiscal 1960, the national debt grew from approximately $257.36 billion to approximately $286.33  billion—an increase of approximately $28.97 billion.

Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, $28.97 billion in 1960 dollars equals $220.92 billion in 2011 dollars.

Thus, the $242.155 billion in 2011 dollars that the Obama administration increased the debt between last Tuesday and last Friday is more in inflation-adjusted terms than the combined debt increases of the Truman and Eisenhower administrations in the ten-year period from the end of fiscal 1950 to the end of fiscal 1960.

The figures in the article are accurate, although the author of the piece understates the amount of debt taken out during the 1950s by adjusting for the value of the dollar in 1960, and not adjusting for its value during each year in the 1950-1960 period. The claims made in the article are nevertheless misleading because they obscure the fact that any debt taken on from August 2-5, 2011, was done so in order to spend on programs and agencies whose budget was already authorized — and thus mandated — by an act of Congress.

Because the U.S. Treasury reached the debt ceiling on May 16, the budgetary obligations that accumulated during the weeks and months that followed had to be immediately paid for once the debt limit was raised. The fact that the Treasury immediately took on $242 billion doesn’t mean that the Obama administration arbitrarily took on that amount of additional debt during those four days. Rather, spending had already been authorized by Congress and the Treasury was obligated to pay for it with additional debt, or face the legal consequences of failing to do so.

In order to accurately compare the 2011 deficit with the deficit of the 1950s, it’s important to recognize that the government is currently taking in revenue at a much smaller proportion to GDP than it did in the 1950s, a fact that cannot be directly attributed to the Obama administration. The primary reason for decreased federal government revenue is the ongoing economic slump, with secondary reason being the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, federal government receipts averaged at 17.2 percent of GDP from 1950 to 1960, while in 2010, they were 14.9 percent of GDP. Federal tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is currently the lowest it’s been since the year 1950, after which it did not go below 16 percent until the year 2008, the start of the Great Recession.

As for spending, while it’s true that total federal discretionary spending averaged 17.6 percent of GDP in the 1950s and was a substantially higher 23 .8 percent in 2010, much of that can be explained by the one-time American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the 2009 stimulus law, which is already phasing out. Discretionary spending is projected to shrink in proportion to GDP in 2011 according to the Congressional Budget Office(PDF). Of course, that leaves off mandatory spending programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The latter two programs were created after the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, so including them in the comparison is also misleading.

The increase in debt during the August 2-5 period therefore reflects not an arbitrary effort on the part of the Obama administration to take advantage of increased borrowing authority, but rather a natural consequence of the profundity of the recession and the legal obligation to pay the costs of mandatory spending programs.

Yet, a highly decentralized movement and diversity of political interests within Iowa’s tea party may prove difficult for Republican candidates to make solid waves in Iowa, a key 2012 early contest.

Monday, The Family Leader chief executive and three-time gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats appeared in Washington, D.C., to speak at a press conference with William Temple, founder of the Tea Party Founding Fathers. Vander Plaats used the opportunity to call for “exceptional leadership” from the candidate who will ultimately face President Barack Obama in 2012.

“I’m telling Iowans and others across the country that America needs a President that will lead on tax reform, on reforming Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, on drastically cutting discretionary spending, and who will refuse to spend more than we take in,” Vander Plaats said Monday in D.C.

Temple is in the process of planning a tea party rally in Kansas City this fall similar to the rally he held in Washington D.C. in 2009. He contacted Vander Plaats to help, which Vander Plaats said he agreed to do.

“I think he knows Iowa is a lead-off state, and wants candidates who [also] realize that to attend this rally and really have the chance to address the core issues of the tea party movement,” Vander Plaats said of Temple.

The movement has already shown political success in 2008 and 2010 elections, said Ryan Rhodes, chairman of the Iowa Tea Party.

“In state [legislative] races, you’re starting to see more people with tea party influences,” he said.

But even with all its given momentum, the movement — both in Iowa and nationally — is hard to classify. There are many different values and interests within the group, which in turn makes it difficult to unify and have a singular voice on issues. Most who consider themselves activists agree they want limited government by repealing health care reform, returning to the basic Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution and implementing fiscally conservative measures.  Several are against Democrat-centric ideas of government spending and creating more government-funded programs.

In an April article, The Des Moines Register quoted tea party activist Steve McCoy, of Indianola, as saying “the tea party’s not a Republican arm … there’s no allegiance to Republicans.” It’s a quote McCoy said he continues to stand by.

“But it’s not just Republicans,” McCoy clarified to The Iowa Independent. “Tea party activists are just upset with the direction the country is going, and with both the Republican and Democrat parties.”

Some tea party groups rally for conservative fiscal policies, while others advocate for home schooling rights, and still others champion for immigration reform. In Vander Plaats case, it’s “pro-family” values — specifically one-man, one-woman marriage and anti-abortion advocacy.

“That’s the blessing and the curse of the movement,” Rhodes said. “It’s fairly decentralized. We’re Republicans, we’re Democrats, we have all kinds of people in the tea party movement.”

Such diversity means there is no one person who speaks on behalf of tea party values, nor is the movement unified, unlike the Republican and Democrat parties.

Though often in the spotlight advocating many shared and individual beliefs held by tea party activists, Vander Plaats said Wednesday, “I am not the voice of the tea party in Iowa. There are a lot of threads to the tea party movement; I want to make sure the family thread is represented, and if I can add to that voice or re-energize the movement here in Iowa, then that’s what I want to do.”

Unlike other political parties, which rely on unity to make a stance and influence public policy, tea party members said loose organization is just as effective.

“We’re not a structured party,” McCoy added. “There’s no organizational structure, and I hope that never happens, because then you won’t have a Tea Party group. We’re people who think for ourselves, and we don’t want a (political) party to tell us what to think.”

Rhodes said his Iowa Tea Party is a loosely organized group. The group does not endorse any candidates, or even represent all activists, though it will lend a helping hand to local groups that ask for help in facilitating advocacy efforts on a specific issue.

A bus tour being launched by Rhodes’s Iowa Tea Party in June will give presidential candidates the chance to debate and will serve as a training tool to the public on caucus procedure.

“Our goal is to give people the tools they need to advocate for their issues and to back the candidate of their own choosing,” Rhodes said.

And candidates need not be only Conservative-leaning, Rhodes added.

“Everyone is welcome,” he said. “If a Democrat wants to come debate — I mean, if Barack Obama wanted to come to Iowa and debate issues with us, I’d be OK with that.”

Even if not a unified party, tea party activists believe the movement’s impact will be noticeable come November 2012.

“The tea party will have a significant voice in 2012,“ Vander Plaats said, adding similar movements have already resulted in drastic power change in other elections, primarily one in 2010, when U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., was elected to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s seat. Brown had tea party base support to defeat Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, a Democrat.

Coakley had been believed to be favored to win the seat in heavily-Democratic Massachusetts.

“(Brown) spoke to tea party issues out there, and people rallied behind him,” Vander Plaats said. “Who would have thought he would take Ted Kennedy’s seat?”

Similar action could happen in Iowa, as former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and other potential presidential candidates sweep through the state in the coming months. As tea party activism grows from dissatisfaction of the two-party system, candidates will need to reach out, tea party members said.

“Candidates will need to address the tea party’s issues, especially where they stand on ‘Obamacare,’ (and) the role of government,” Vander Plaats said. “When people get a candidate who does that, and think the person can go against Barack Obama, they’ll rally behind that person. We welcome all voices. It’s a vetting process.”

And a diversity of tea party groups and diversity even within the pool of GOP prospects could mean trouble for establishment Conservative presidential hopefuls.

“It’s going to depend on who puts their name out there, but if the Republicans put up another John McCain, I think a lot of people will have a problem with that,” Rhodes added. “

Vander Plaats did not give a name when asked who he would support for President.

“I like different traits in many of them,” he said. “I will be examining their core values carefully.”

Rick Santorum voiced his belief that Iowans are prepared to once again play their critical role in the nation's presidential selection process. (Photo: Lynda Waddington/The Iowa Independent)

“There are a lot of people today who pull out their Constitution and hold it high and say, ‘This is how America should function. These are our constitutional principles.’ And, they are right. That’s the how of America. It’s important. It’s the process. But it is the how, and not the why. The why is in that other document that is also usually in their Constitutional book — the Declaration of Independence,” Santorum told the roughly 80 people gathered at the Clarion hotel.

“America is a moral enterprise. People say, ‘Why do you talk about the moral issues, Senator? Why don’t you just talk about jobs and the economy?’ Because America is not just about jobs and the economy. America is a moral enterprise at its core.”

Philosophers and theologians, he said, had opined for centuries about how man was endowed by his creator with certain inalienable rights, but America was the first country to put such a statement “rooted in Judeo-Christian understanding of our relationship with god” into writing and practice. Although the founding documents don’t come right out and say so, he said, the object of America, the how in the Constitution, was to create a limited government whose sole purpose — “the one thing America is about” — is to keep citizens free.

“Our founders understood that … freedom is not to do what you want to do. Freedom is to do what you ought to do — to serve god, to be your brother’s keeper and to love and support your family,” the Pennsylvania Republican said. “That’s the ‘ought to.’ That’s freedom. That’s liberty. When you hear our founders talk about liberty, that’s what they mean.”

To define freedom as people being allowed to do whatever it is they want to do “to pursue their wants and passions,” he said, would result in anarchy. And, because America’s founders had the foresight and vision to create a nation built on such unprecedented principles, Santorum took particular exception to recent remarks made by Obama that the U.S. became a great nation when it enacted programs to provide for elderly and vulnerable citizens.

“So, it offends me. It upsets me when the President of the United States says that our country was not a great country until people like him, people who believe in government, say that they are going to do things for you,” Santorum said. “That doesn’t make us great. It makes us like every other country in the world where authoritarians believe that they can better provide for you than you can provide for yourself.”

On April 13, during an address on fiscal policy, Obama said:

… Part of this American belief that we’re all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security and dignity. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff may strike any one of us. “There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves. And so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, those with disabilities. We’re a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further. We would not be a great country without those commitments. …

Many conservatives pointed out that all three programs highlighted by Obama were instituted in 1965, and have inferred that Obama was claiming the U.S. was not a great nation until that time.

Santorum also offered Obama some back-handed praise, saying that if it wasn’t for the President’s “radical agenda” citizens might have been content to sit like frogs in a slowly heating pot until they died. The policies being enacted by the Obama administration, he said, have drastically turned up the heat, causing many citizens to realize what was happening before it was too late.

“You know what’s at stake in America today? America is at stake in America — what we are all about, what generations of veterans have fought and died for, the ideals that made us different,” said Santorum.

Calling the upcoming 2012 election the most important since that of Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, Santorum pleaded with local activists to do their due diligence in vetting presidential candidates. In addition to selecting a candidate that can win the general election, Republicans also need to be true to their conservative principles, and they need to apply their energy and focus to every federal seat on the upcoming ballot.

“You want conservatives to make big changes in Washington? Then you better get about sending us the horses that can get it done,” he said, noting that during the three times in the past 100 years when Democrats held the White House with a visionary president, controlled the U.S. House and had a super-majority in the U.S. Senate that significant change occurred (such as Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society).

“Has it ever happened that we had a conservative president, a majority of the House and a filibuster-proof U.S. Senate in Republican hands? Answer: never. … So, you want to see some big changes? [In] the U.S. Senate — I served there — if you don’t have 60 votes, you need Democrats to pass almost anything. If America wants to see a big change, it can’t just be electing a president. We have to elect United States senators across this country.”

Santorum visited Cedar Rapids as part of the Iowa GOP Chairman’s Speaker Series. On Monday, Santorum will again be in eastern Iowa when he keynotes an event at the University of Iowa for The Family Leader, a religious conservative organization led by Bob Vander Plaats.

Speaking at Legend’s Bar & Grill before a dozen students from Iowa State University, largely members of the College Republicans, told them he supported Democrat Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primaries. Karger said he would support a Democrat if they fell in line with his beliefs, and he supported Barack Obama when he became the eventual nominee. But he also said Obama has been a disappointment to him and the gay community, and that’s what pushed him into the race.

Karger has always been a Republican and worked on the campaigns of former presidents Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Over the past 10 years, Karger — who is openly gay — spent most of his time as an activist for gay rights, especially fighting the Mormon church over Proposition 8.

He said part of the reason he’s running is to try to influence the debate among the Republican party, to get them away from an ideological divide over social issues and become a “big tent party” once again. That’s why he’s trying to visit with college students.

“Reince Priebus is making that a big part of his initiative is to bring in younger people into the Republican party,” Karger said of the new head of the Republican National Committee. “And I’ve heard him say that — and I’ve talked to him about that — and I’m clearly the only Republican running who is actively trying to bring new and younger members into the party.”

Karger won a straw poll at a college campus recently in New Hampshire, beating former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. He attributed that to spending a week at a time in the Granite State repeatedly, meeting with voters. He said college students are typically more accepting of his sexuality and are able to get around it to talk about policy and other larger concerns.

Karger admits he’s taking a page out of Obama’s playbook by targeting youth voters, but believes Obama is “vulnerable” in 2012 despite a “bleak field” of GOP candidates emerging.

When students asked him about the size of government, Karger said some social programs will have to stay because some people just can’t take care of themselves. But he said the size of entitlements needs to be on the table.

Photo by Tyler Kingkade/The Iowa Independent

“I’m not making any finite recommendations but … I’m not running from it,” Karger later told The Iowa Independent. “Because of health care [improvements], people are living far longer than they were when Medicare was passed, when Social Security was passed.”

Along with him, Karger brought frisbees that read “Fred Who?” to pass out. He said the frisbees are intentional because it’s part of his initiative to get people healthy. “It may not be throwing frisbess,” he admitted, but he wants to encourage people to take small steps like walking up stairs, going for short runs and making an effort to live healthy. That’s part of why health care costs are so high, he claimed.

Karger said part of his campaign will be focused on listening to ideas from potential voters rather than simply throwing out his policy ideas right away. But he will focus on fiscal issues over social issues, such as gay rights or a woman’s right to choose.

“I want to bring back that entrepreneurial spirit and get people to stop relying on government,” Karger said.

He also declared he would not accept any matching dollars from the federal government for his campaign. He said there has been too much money being raised.

Raising nearly hundreds of millions of dollars just before entering the White House, as Obama did, makes health care reform packages and stimulus programs with price tags near $1 billion seem like no big deal, Karger asserted.

The ad, embedded below, is scheduled to appear in the upper northwest quadrant Monday through Thursday of this week, and asks “What were you thinking?”

In addition to King, the organization has nearly identical ads airing in criticism of U.S. Reps. Ryan, Chip Cravaack (R-Minn.) and Sean Duffy (R-Wis.). In total, the ad buys are costing five figures and are being done in conjunction with an automated call campaign in 23 Congressional districts throughout the country that began last week.

In Iowa the automated calls follow this script:

I’m calling from Americans United for Change.

On April 15th, your Congressman Steve King voted to end Medicare and its guaranteed health care benefits. Instead, he wants to give seniors a voucher, forcing them to go out and find coverage from private insurance companies. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates this proposal will increase seniors’ out-of-pocket costs by $6,000 each year — and Congressman King is using the savings to give corporations and millionaires another tax break. Congressman King even voted to slash Medicaid funds that pay nursing home care for seniors and the disabled.

Call Congressman King at 202-225-4426 and tell him that cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to pay for tax cuts for corporations and millionaires is just wrong. Tell him to keep his hands off our Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

While there has been little shortage over the years of progressive outrage directed at King, it hasn’t been commonplace for national groups to spend money in an effort to target him. This has been because the existing 5th District hasn’t been considered competitive. This particular ad buy signals that either national organizations view the newly remapped 4th District as being somewhat more competitive or that they believe a high-profile Democrat could make inroads come 2012 — or perhaps a bit of both.

“If Republicans have their way, there would be no more guaranteed Medicare benefits for America’s seniors, only a guarantee of paying more and more out of pocket for less care after being left to the mercy to the private insurance industry,” said AUC executive director Tom McMahon in a statement. “There would only be a guarantee that millions of Americans would lose their jobs – only a guarantee that America’s poor and disabled will live sicker and die younger while millionaires get another tax break they don’t need and the nation cannot afford.”

He added, “This is not a path to prosperity, only a path to bankrupting seniors so Paris Hilton and BP can have another tax break. And there’s nothing courageous about that.”

In addition to Cravaack, the ad buy targets Rep. Steve King of Iowa, as well as Wisconsin Reps. Sean Duffy and Paul Ryan. Here’s the ad targeting Cravaack:

The DCCC spent several hundred dollars in the 8th to target Cravaack last week for his vote to “end Medicare.” In response, the conservative 60 Plus Association is launching $65,000 worth of radio ads thanking Cravaack for “protecting Medicare.“