The Nov. 2 gala, to be held at the Newseum in Washington D.C., is intended to celebrate AUL’s 40th anniversary in the presence of about 80 federal lawmakers.

Co-chairing the event with Perry are U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.); the keynote speaker has yet to be confirmed.

AUL has listed as “honorary hosts” 16 U.S. senators — all Republicans — including Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), John McCain (Ariz.), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.). Among the 63 U.S. House representatives listed as “honorary hosts” are 2012 GOP presidential contenders Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.). Other attending GOP representatives influential in the anti-abortion rights movement include Reps. Trent Franks (Ariz.), Mike Pence (Ind.), Joe Pitts (Pa.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Cliff Stearns (Fla.) and Allen West (Fla.).

Reps. Renee Ellmers (N.C.), Bill Huizenga (Mich.), Randy Hultgren (Ill.) and Chris Smith (N.J.) all participated in last month’s press conference about the report AUL drafted to encourage Congress to investigate — and then defund — Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

AUL’s gala is a pricey affair: The organization is asking supporters to become sponsors — for $5,000, $10,000 or $25,000 in order to offset the costs of the event.

In a recent lengthy profile on Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life, the Christian Science Monitor describes how Yoest — who is not a physician, attorney nor lawmaker, though she has a doctorate of philosophy in government — has become “Public Enemy No. 1″ for abortion-rights advocates. In November, the group will celebrate its influence on select laws, such as defending the Hyde Amendment before the U.S. Supreme Court and establishing the “intellectual groundwork” for the fetal homicide legislation that has passed in 38 states.

Despite four decades of lobbying and drafting model legislation to enact abortion restrictions throughout the country, much of the national recognition AUL has earned has come in 2011. Yoest’s group has taken credit for 22 of 86 anti-abortion laws enacted this year, according to the Christian Science Monitor.

In February, Mother Jones blamed AUL for controversial laws cropping up in Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota that, if interpreted in a certain way, would have allegedly legalized the killing of abortion providers. AUL denied the accusation, claiming that however lawmakers might have adapted AUL’s model “Pregnant Woman Protection Act” was out of the organization’s control.

Ten days after the AUL gala, Yoest will set sail as a guest speaker on a National Review-sponsored cruise.

As of yet, Perry has not signed the Susan B. Anthony List’s highly-publicized anti-abortion pledge, but in other ways, Perry has already presented himself as an ardent abortion opponent and dedicated evangelical Christian. Perry’s relationship with AUL has been positive since he became governor of Texas in 2000. When AUL released its annual “Defending Life” publication of model legislation, Perry’s testimony was used to promote the publication:

This state-by-state scorecard of progress in the effort to defend life lets elected officials, grassroots activists and citizens know exactly where we are on our shared priority. I am proud that the report reflects the sweeping reforms we have enacted in Texas, saving thousands of lives in the process. This is not a book you leave on the shelf to collect dust. This information is ammunition in a fight that is far from over. I know you will find this guide informative and useful as you continue to promote and protect life in your state.

In AUL’s latest “State of the States” report card, Texas ranked fifth — making it one of the most restrictive states regarding abortion rights.

In May, Perry signed a controversial Texas bill into law requiring women seeking abortions to wait 24 hours after seeing a sonogram of their fetus. The law is facing litigation. He also signed into law a bill making “Choose Life” license plates available to Texas drivers, directing the revenue from those plates to state crisis pregnancy centers.

According to a recent analysis by NARAL Pro-Choice America about Perry’s abortion-related legislative record, “many of the laws he signed inject political interference into women’s private decision-making.”

Among the highlights of Perry’s record, NARAL noted that the governor signed a proclamation declaring April 2009 “Abortion Recovery Awareness Month” in Texas.

The U.S. Senate passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 on Tuesday, after the bill was approved Monday by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

Forty-five Democrats, 28 Republicans and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman voted in favor of the bill. Nineteen Republicans, 6 Democrats and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders voted against the bill.

Among those Democrats voting against the bill were Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Bob Menendez (N.J.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.), all up for re-election in 2012 (Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats, is also up for re-election). Menendez said Monday that “I cannot in good conscience support a plan where soldiers, seniors, students, and working families must endure trillions in cuts, while oil companies, billionaires, and corporate jet owners are not asked to pay their fair share.”

Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) were the Republicans up for re-election in 2012 who voted against the bill. Hatch, who could be facing a primary challenge from a more tea party-friendly candidate, said on the Senate floor Tuesday that he rejected the bill because it did not sufficiently cut spending.

Two members of the “Gang of Six,” a bipartisan group of senators that proposed their own $3.7 trillion deficit reduction package containing both spending cuts and revenue increases, voted against the final bill: Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.).

In a statement after the vote, President Barack Obama said that the bill was an important first step, but that revenue increases for further deficit reduction are necessary. He also said that he would seek a jobs bill after Congress returns from their upcoming August recess.

Last week FRC President Tony Perkins (representing lobbying arm FRC Action, of which he is also the president) and public policy group Let Freedom Ring President Colin Hanna co-hosted a webcast on the U.S. debt crisis. Invited to participate were Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Joe Walsh (R-Ill.), along with other conservative policy leaders.

“Congress has been using the country’s credit cards like an irresponsible teenager for decades,” read a press release previewing the June 23 Web conference. “But now a band of House and Senate conservatives are fighting to turn back the clock on America’s debt.”

During the 65-minute webcast, DeMint drew the morality analogy even closer.

“We’ve got to stop this spending addiction in Washington,” DeMint said. “And it really is like working with an alcoholic. First of all, they won’t admit they have a problem. And then when they do, they say, ‘We’ll quit tomorrow, but let’s have one more drink today.’”

To which Perkins, a former police officer for the Baton Rouge Police Department in Louisiana (from which he was suspended and then resigned in 1992, according to The Nation), responded, “When I was a police officer, I found one thing that really worked on those drunks that came home at night was a frying pan.”

But 20 days earlier, Perkins sent supporters an e-mail alert, asking for help closing its $1 million budget gap by June 30. He excused the organization’s financial struggle for all the work it has done during recent legislative sessions. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Family Research Council Action’s (FRC’s lobbying arm) total lobbying expenditures in 2010 was $110,000; according to the Federal Election Commission, FRC Action Political Action Committee has spent $43,143 in individual contributions for the 2011-’12 election cycle through May 31.

In his alert Perkins wrote:

Ever since last November’s watershed election, which swept a record number of pro-family conservatives into office, FRC has more friends in Congress than ever before. And the more friends we have on Capitol Hill, the greater our ability to advance your pro-family views. This demand for our expertise is a blessing, but it has outstretched our revenue. As we enter the summer months when giving historically declines, FRC faces a $1 million gap between what we’ve budgeted for our work here in Washington, DC and what we’ve received in donations. I have already made cuts to reduce our costs, and our staff is working tirelessly.

Unless supporters donate, Perkins said, FRC “will be forced to do less for the conservative cause.” Every donation up to $250,000 will be matched by a “generous family,” Perkins said. The family was not named.

FRC did not immediately return requests for comment.

The priorities mentioned during last week’s webcast: Cut the deficit, cap the spending and balance the budget. A coalition of more than 80 organizations recently formed acampaign to convince U.S. Senate and House members and future candidates to pledge to oppose any debt limit increase unless the budget has been cut, capped and balanced. Thus far, the pledge has been signed by 12 senators, 20 representatives and 28 candidates.

Throughout the hour, the United States’ fiscal situation was repeatedly compared to Greece’s, but Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) took the analogy further to draw comparisons to slavery.

“Turn your TV on, and look at what’s been happening in Greece,” Walsh said. “We are at the cusp of that. This is a huge moral issue. How dare we enslave future generations? How dare we do that?”

And later on: “I could give a darn about my reelection. I’m on a mission here to stop my kids, your kids, our grand-kids from becoming indentured servants.”

During the web conference, there was no mention of FRC’s own fiscal situation. And in the June 3 e-mail, in which Perkins was soliciting donations, nothing was mentioned of America’s fiscal situation.

“This is no time to be trimming our sails,” wrote Perkins in the alert. “We have more pro-family conservatives in Congress than ever before. Daily, they look to FRC for the facts they need to stand up for families. I have fresh hope that if we keep working and keep praying, we can change the course of this nation.”

The “key areas” FRC is working on include “shaping historic court cases regarding ObamaCare and religious liberty” and “building a powerful network of informed and motivated pastors across the nation.” But “liberals are fighting back-hard,” Perkins said.

If they sense any weakness, they’ll move in and take back the gains we’ve made. And they’ll thwart our efforts at every turn, pushing their pet causes from taxpayer funding of abortion to normalization of homosexuality to intimidating and punishing Christians who voice their objections. Frankly, some donors are on the sidelines because Republicans control the U.S. House of Representatives. Yet the Obama administration simply bypasses the legislative branch and abuses executive power to reshape major policies affecting every family and business.

Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.

Barrasso’s American Energy and Western Jobs Act (pdf) is co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee of Utah. It would require U.S. Interior Secretary and former Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar to set oil and gas production goals for federal lands and repeal his onshore leasing reforms from last year as well as this year’s Wild Lands Order, which seeks to identify U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands appropriate for wilderness protection.

Critics, including Republican members of Colorado’s congressional delegation, have blasted Salazar’s Wild Lands plan, calling it a federal land grab that would shut down oil and gas production around the West. But conservation groups point to the economic benefits of wilderness areas in terms of hunting, fishing, outdoor recreation and tourism, countering that the oil and gas industry is sitting on huge swaths of leased but undrilled public lands.

“Higher energy costs continue to make it harder for families across the country to make ends meet,” Barrasso said in a release. “The federal government controls vast energy resources in the Western United States. Responsible energy exploration in the West will create American jobs and promote American energy security. In order to increase energy production, we must streamline the process and repeal this administration’s policies that are making the pain at the pump worse.”

Barrasso’s stance couldn’t be more divergent from the positions of his Senate colleagues in neighboring Colorado, where Democrats Mark Udall and Michael Bennet voted to end subsidies for big oil. Both argue that removing environmental hurdles for companies drilling on public lands won’t lower the price at the pump or significantly promote energy independence.

“Like most Americans, I’m frustrated that once again politics are getting in the way of progress,” Udall said in a floor speech before Tuesday’s vote on subsidies. “I’d much rather that we be debating a comprehensive energy policy this week that includes a renewable electricity standard, promotes energy efficiency and encourages responsible development of domestic resources like safe nuclear power and natural gas.”

A group calling itself Taxpayers for Common Sense today launched an ad campaign against Republican Colorado Reps. Scott Tipton and Cory Gardner demanding they support ending tax breaks for the nation’s top oil and gas companies, which pulled in a record $32 billion in first quarter profits this year as gas prices have soared to more than $4 a gallon.

“We need to move beyond partisan fights and blame games,” Udall said. “Instead, we need to work toward what we all can agree are key priorities: developing energy that brings affordable prices to American families and businesses; building a sustainable long-term energy future; and doing it in a way that protects our clean air and water for future generations.”

Besides other measures aimed at streamlining the leasing process for companies looking to drill on federal lands, Barrasso’s bill also would force an immediate lease sale for oil shale development in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and implement the Bush administration’s 11th-hour oil shale leasing rules. Oil shale proponents say Salazar has been slowing a process they admit is still at least a decade away from ever producing oil.

Critics, including Udall, say oil shale production requires far too much scarce Western water and will industrialize large areas of northwestern Colorado.

“Sen. Barrasso intends to let the oil and gas industry get whatever they want, whenever they want. Ending common sense protections for our air and water would make American families pay the price,” said Matthew Garrington, Denver-based deputy director of the Checks & Balances Project. “Big Oil reported $32 billion in profits last quarter, but that doesn’t seem to be enough for Sen. Barrasso.”

http://checksandbalancesproject.org/

Regan Lachapelle, Reid’s spokeswoman, said canceling the cloture vote on the bill, set for tomorrow, in favor of continuing discussion with Republicans will give the legislation a better chance of passing before the end of the year.

Lachapelle’s full email statement:

There have been some positive discussions with Republicans about moving forward on the natural gas and electric vehicles legislation. Senator Reid has talked to Senator [Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)] and others and thinks that vitiating the cloture vote at this point would increase the chances that we’ll be able to get a bipartisan agreement to pass this important legislation  before the end of the year.

The bill is considered one of the only energy-related measures that could move during the lame-duck session. The delay raises questions about whether the bill can gain the necessary support for passage. It’s also worth noting that it’s not just Republicans who are raising questions about the bill. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has said he will oppose the bill unless provisions that encourage ethanol development are added.

Reid claims his caucus is behind him on the act, which would give some undocumented students and military service members a change to gain legal status to remain in the country. “We all support the DREAM Act,” he said on Univision in an interview that aired Sunday. “I just need a handful of Republicans to help me.”

Kirk has said he wouldn’t, despite exhaustive efforts by DREAM Act supporters to convince him otherwise. “This is not the time to do that,” Kirk said in a debate.

How important is Kirk’s vote for passing the DREAM Act? It depends on who Reid means when he says “we all support the DREAM Act.” There are 59 senators who caucus with the Democrats and 41 Republicans. Kirk will change those numbers to 58 and 42. Reid needs 60 votes to overcome a filibuster if he hopes to pass the DREAM Act.

If Reid’s right about his caucus, he would only need two Republicans to vote “yes” on the DREAM Act. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) co-sponsored the bill and would almost certainly vote for the it as a standalone measure, although he voted in September to filibuster the defense authorization bill that included it. Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) has also said he would vote for the act as a standalone bill.

But if either of them or any Democrats fall through, other Republicans are tougher to pin down. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who was one of the original sponsors of the DREAM Act, seems likely to vote against it now because he favors a borders-first approach to tackling immigration problems. “The American people want the government to secure our borders, create jobs and reduce the deficit.” Hatch said when he announced plans to vote against the DREAM Act’s inclusion in the defense authorization bill.

Lugar, Hatch and Bennett were two of twelve Republicans who voted for the DREAM Act in 2007. The others still in Senate — Sam Brownback (R-Kans.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) — have been vague about whether they would support the measure as a standalone this year.

When the bill came up as a possible addition to the defense authorization bill, a few Democrats said they were not sure they would support it this time around. Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) told The Hill in September they might vote “no” on the DREAM Act.

Reid said he expected full support from Democrats, but needed a few Republicans to vote for the bill. “I have the right to bring that up any time I want, that’s why I brought it up the first time,” he said. “I am a believer in our needing to do something. … We all support the DREAM Act. I just need a handful of Republicans to help me.”

He didn’t seem to expect support from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who once supported the bill but has since shifted far to the right on immigration issues. Reid blamed him, at least in part, for stalling the immigration reform effort this session. “As a result of his unwillingness to help, we have not had a single Republican offer to help us with comprehensive immigration reform,” Reid said. “The system is broken and all they want to do is demagogue the issue.”

Reid didn’t name names when it came to which Republicans he hoped would vote for the DREAM Act during the lame duck session. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) is an almost certain “yes” vote, but other Republicans’ positions remain unclear. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) was an original sponsor, but has since wavered in his support and voted in September for a filibuster of the defense authorization bill that would have served as a vehicle for the act. Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins also voted to filibuster, but might support the DREAM Act as a standalone bill.

In September, bill sponsor Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he hoped senators who lost their elections would vote for the bill. “Some members of the Senate who are not going to return may vote in our favor,” Durbin said. “I hope that’s the case.”

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

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

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

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

Here’s the full letter:

Dear Secretary Napolitano:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

John Cornyn, United States Senator

Jeff Sessions, United States Senator

Jon Kyl, United States Senator

Orrin Hatch, United States Senator

Chuck Grassley, United States Senator

Lindsey Graham, United States Senator

Tom Coburn, M.D., United States Senator

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.”

South Carolina’s more than 236,000 unemployed workers could have to take a drug test in order to receive jobless benefits, according to a proposal by Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley on Tuesday. [...] Haley said testing the unemployed was one of several steps in ensuring the newly restructured Department of Employment and Workforce — now a cabinet agency — only pays benefits to those who have earned them. “We will make sure, above all, that there will be no … benefits if they do not pass a drug test,” Haley said.

It is a bad idea, though not an original one; Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested the same this summer. In other class-baiting news, check this out from Newt Gingrich, perpetual almost-candidate for president:

[Gingrich] is advising Republican candidates on November’s ballots to frame the choice for voters between Democrats as “the party of food stamps” while selling the GOP as “the party of paychecks” [...] He told reporters later that Republicans can campaign as the party of opportunity. “Most Americans would like to get a paycheck,” Gingrich said. “Most Americans would not like to be forced to have food stamps handed out by liberal Democrats.”

Where to start? Haley makes the classic mistake of thinking of unemployment benefits as welfare, rather than insurance. But they don’t call it “unemployment insurance” for nothing. Recipients need to have been working, and need to be looking for work — and workers pay into the system to ensure they have some income safety in case they lose their job. The program is federally administered, of course, but so is, say, flood insurance. Consider Haley arguing that South Carolina residents whose homes were damaged by a hurricane should have to pee in a cup before getting payments to help rebuild. As for Gingrich, he seems to conflate food insecurity with joblessness. Most SNAP recipients do actually work. They just don’t make enough to feed their families. And surely no SNAP recipient would prefer bigger benefits to a better-paying job.

Both Haley and Gingrich, in their class-baiting, also forget one of the fundamental reasons the United States makes access to these programs easy: Children are primary beneficiaries of unemployment insurance and food stamps. Both programs exist not just to reward the lazy adults (as horrible a stereotype in contemporary American politics as there is), but to keep kids out of abject poverty.

And those programs aren’t doing enough. The Economic Policy Institute, for one, notes the child poverty rate has soared through the recession. One in five children still lives in poverty. And in no state is the child poverty rate lower than one in ten.