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

As was to be expected after this summer’s debt-deal deadlock, members of the congressional “supercommittee” remain hung up on tax and entitlement reform.

At the moment, Republicans and Democrats are divided by their respective plans, with each offering a mixture of spending cuts and tax revenue increases. Republicans have offered a $1.2 trillion deficit-reduction package with roughly $750 billion in spending cuts over the next decade and a $300 billion tax proposal mostly comprised of deduction eliminations. Democrats have offered to trim $2 trillion, with their proposal calling for an almost equal mix of spending cuts and tax increases. The committee was assigned to come up with $1.2 trillion in deficit savings.

Attention now has turned to other courses of action available to the committee to try and avoid the “trigger mechanism,” a fail-safe that would result in deep military and across-the-board cuts in the case a deal is not made.

Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, the panel’s Republican co-chair, told CNN’s “State of the Union” that supercommittee may punt some of the decisions about deficit reduction to individual committees — “a two-step process,” as he described it. In that scenario, the supercommittee would set the amount of increased tax revenue to be met, and individual congressional committees would then draft legislation to meet it.

The chairmen of the relevant committees — the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee — have said that they would accept that arrangement, according to reporting this morning from the New York Times.

But even if no deal is agreed to and the “trigger” is pulled, there’s still reason to believe the heavy cuts it calls for will be avoided.

The trigger’s cuts do not go into effect until January, 2013, so Congress would have a year to legislate their reversal. That would likely “launch a heavy lobbying effort on K Street, where defense firms in particular would be eager to prevent automatic cuts,” according to The Hill. Senator Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) addressed the possibility on “Fox News Sunday,” saying, “In the very, very unfortunate event that we don’t [make a deal] I think it’s very likely that Congress would reconsider the configuration.”

President Obama has told the committee that it needs to “bite the bullet,” and has floated the possibility that he may block any attempt to create a workaround from next week’s Thanksgiving deadline.

Education Week, published by the nonprofit Editorial Projects in Education, asks: So who in the education world has given a lot of money to these supercommittee members?

According to the publication, “the National Education Association, NEA gave $297,650 to supercommittee members from 1989 to 2011. Eighty-nine percent of that money went to the Democrats on the supercommittee, while just about 10 percent of it went to Republicans.” Education Week adds: “The American Federation of Teachers wasn’t far behind, with $215,950 in donations, all of it to the committee’s Democrats. That puts the AFT at 68th on the list of top 100 donors.”

Education Week also reports that “the Club for Growth, a political action committee that supports candidates who favor low-taxes and slimmed down government” is the top contributor, with more than $1 million given from 1989 through 2011. All of its contributions went to the committee’s Republicans. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., is a committee member and a former president of the Club for Growth.

OpenSecrets — a website of campaign contribution data run by the Center for Responsive Politics — shows that the top 100 contributors to supercommittee members include agribusiness, communications/electronics, construction, defense, energy/natural resources, finance, bankers, Realtors, health, lawyers, lobbyists and transportation industries.

The supercommittee is co-chaired by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas.

Senate members include: Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., John Kerry, D-Mass., John Kyl, R-Ariz, and Rob Portman, R-Ohio (former head of the Office of Management and Budget).

Education Week adds that other House Republican members include Reps. Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Dave Camp, R-Mich. House Democrats on the committee include Reps. Xavier Becerra of California, James Clyburn of South Carolina, and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland.

The three Republican politicians heaped praise on Hoekstra.

“Pete Hoekstra and I stood side by side as we reformed welfare, fought government spending, balanced the budget, and implemented pro-growth tax policies,” said Kasich. “I am proud to support him and know that he will make an excellent United States Senator.”

And from Toomey:

“Pete Hoekstra and I served together in Congress and he was one of my best pro-growth allies,” said Toomey. “We need him in the United States Senate so that we can fight together to cut government spending and reduce the debt.”

Hoekstra is drawing a lot of endorsements from Michigan’s GOP mainstream, but Clark Durant has also drawn large endorsements, including former Sen. Spencer Abraham, as well as former Michigan GOP chairs Betsy DeVos and Saul Anuzis. Former Governor John Engler has encouraged Durant to drop out of the race to make way for Hoekstra, who had originally declined to run.

This was reported in dozens of blogs and online publications as a chink in the tea party armor, an admission from Bachmann that she, despite being one of the more aggressive conservatives in Congress, was willing to scrap amendments like the one defunding Planned Parenthood if it meant averting a government shutdown. Here’s what Bachmann actually said, via a (partial) transcript:

That’s why, today, I voted no on the bill, because we heard from President Obama this morning, he was going to vote no on the Republican bill. Knowing that, I think it’s important that we do what I think 100 percent of Congress should be able to vote for, and that’s ensure full paycheck protection for all of the military.

We need to do that bill alone. That’s just a policy bill, it’s not even a continuing resolution. We should pass that bill and at least take the troops off the table. From there, we can go back and fight about all the other portions of this appropriations, but I think the troops should not be a political football. That should not be a game.

Bachmann, therefore, was saying the opposite of what’s reported: She’s all for upholding the budget impasse so that the policy riders can eventually get pushed through, but she wants an entirely separate bill that would fund only military salaries so that they’re not affected by the shutdown.

Other Republicans, however, have come out and said exactly what Bachmann was inaccurately quoted as saying. On MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) conceded:

I’d like to defund Planned Parenthood, but I understand that Republicans don’t have complete control of the elected government. I think what we should do is cut spending as much as we can, get the policy changes that we can, but move on, because there are other, bigger battles that we are fighting.

Meanwhile, the staunchly anti-abortion, avowedly conservative Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said to MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan:

My recommendation to my friends in the House is, you know, it’s highly unlikely that many riders are going to get passed with a Democrat president and a Democrat Senate, so why don’t you take the spending and let’s get on to the budget?

Of course, all budget provisions must originate in the House, so no matter how conservative a given senator is, his or her words have little impact on what will actually happen with the continuing resolution. But as the shutdown looms, senators like Toomey and Coburn will need some allies in the House if the government is to run at full capacity after Friday night.

On the anniversary week of the passage of the Obama administration’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Gingrich went on the Hugh Hewitt radio talk show and said House Republicans need to continue pushing the repeal of the health care reform law (a measure that was approved by the House but has gone nowhere in the Senate), by packaging the repeal with the debt ceiling increase. The strategy, he said, should be to put political pressure on vulnerable Senate Democrats.

Gingrich told Hewitt:

“I personally favor passing the repeal of Obamacare, putting it on the debt ceiling, going to the country. The House Republicans have the votes to put it in the debt ceiling. They should do it very early. And then they should go to the country and focus attention on the Democrats in the Senate. There are 23 Democratic seats up in 2012. And we ought to try to bring enough pressure to bear on individual Democrats like Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Bill Nelson of Florida, that we are able to actually get the repeal of Obamacare through the Senate, and then say to the President, if you want to meet your Constitutional obligations and avoid a crisis on the debt ceiling, you either have to sign the repeal of Obamacare, or you have to provide a comparable $2 trillion dollars in savings.”

On the show, Hewitt pointed to the Health Care Compact Alliance, which is being used as a strategy for states to fight back against the federal health care law. The alliance, which is chaired by Eric O’Keefe, a private investor from Wisconsin, provides “tools that enable citizens to exert greater control over their government” and “was developed to offer Americans more influence over decisions that govern health care.” The alliance keeps donors identities confidential. (Read more about the Health Care Compact Alliance at The Texas Independent.)

Last week, the Health Care Compact passed in Georgia, Gingrich’s home state and the first state out of the 12 where it’s been introduced to pass both the state House and the Senate.

Gingrich told Hewitt that he was “aware” of the HCC and that he “thinks it’s a good idea.”

Gingrich also said he’s in favor of a government shutdown unless Congress agrees on a long-term spending plan, which Roll Call points out could happen April 9.

A day after Hewitt’s conversation with Gingrich and after speaking with Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Pat Toomey (R-Penn.), the talk show host posted the following on his blog:

I am alarmed that both of these senators seem willing to vote for a debt ceiling hike in exchange for legislative language on future spending caps, when what is needed immediately and urgently are deep cuts in current spending and entitlement reform. Both men are serious, thoughtful conservatives, and no doubt spending caps are a good idea, but I don’t see how promises of future good behavior will work to control the deficits we are piling to the sky right now.

If there is a genuine fiscal crisis in the land brought about by trillions and trillions in deficits, the Congressional Republicans ought to be more willing to confront the president and Senate Democrats, even to the point of impasse and a partial government shut-down.

If the peril is real, they have to be willing to make a difficult argument to the public.

Nobody wants a partial government shut-down, but nobody wants surgery or chemo when cancer is discovered either. If federal spending is the cancer in the body politic that is threatening the nation’s viability, currency and growth, then the GOP has to be willing to do what it takes to remedy the problem.

(Emphasis in the original)

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) is pressing his Republican colleagues to put a moratorium on earmarks. (UPPA/ZUMApress.com)

With a fight brewing between Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Tea Party ringleader Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) over the practice of requesting earmarks in the Senate, most Republican Senators have been desperately hoping to avoid picking sides. But Tea Party groups, which are eagerly monitoring a closed-door Republican Party vote on the issue next Tuesday, have decided to make sitting on the sidelines that much more difficult.

[GOP1] “It might not ever be known, but if somebody won’t come out and say they’ll vote against earmarks, then we’ll be pretty sure we know they voted for allowing them,” said Mark Meckler, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, a national network of Tea Party groups. “And if that’s what they’re going to do, then a lot will see themselves facing primary challenges.”

The added pressure leaves many Republican senators between a rock and a hard place in the lead-up to Tuesday’s vote. On the one hand, they don’t want to undermine McConnell’s leadership or appear hypocritical should they continue the routine practice of requesting earmarks in the next Senate session. But they risk finding themselves on the wrong side of the GOP’s anti-spending campaign and alienating Tea Party groups that have made earmarks an important symbol of all that’s wrong with Washington.

Between now and Tuesday, Republican senators must weigh the dangers of speaking out versus straying mum and then cast a decisive, albeit non-binding vote that activists are looking to as a first sign of the character of next year’s Senate Republican caucus.

Following last week’s elections, DeMint wasted no time in capitalizing on the anti-spending fervor in Washington — and the anti-earmarks platforms on which many Senate Republicans had run — to announce a new push for a vote to place a year-long moratorium on the practice of earmarking at the upcoming Republican Conference meeting among Republicans. The issue quickly drove a wedge between the Tea Party and McConnell, who pushed back against DeMint’s proposal on television and in private. Tea Party leaders like Meckler couldn’t believe it.

“I think McConnell’s a perfect example of what’s wrong with the GOP and has been wrong for a long time,” said Meckler. “Following the election, he has a chance to be a hero and he’s being a zero. It’s very clear that the vast majority of Americans are anti-earmark. He’s a classic example of the arrogance of the ruling class.”

DeMint released a letter indicating that he had gathered the signatures of ten fellow Republican senators, including six fresh faces — Marco Rubio (Fla.), Pat Toomey (Pa.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Mike Lee (Utah), Ron Johnson (Wis.) and Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) — many of whom had run on explicitly anti-earmark platforms.

But many Republican senators hoped to avoid declaring either way, buoyed by the prospect that Tuesday’s vote would remain anonymous. The last time Senate Republicans had voted on a moratorium to end earmarks was in March, when DeMint led an open vote of the full Senate, and while a majority of Republicans had voted for the measure then, they had the benefit of knowing that with most Democrats voting against it, it had little chance of passing.

“It got a majority of the Republican conference last time, but like Bob Dole once said, you never get in trouble for voting for something that fails or against something that passes,” said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group that advocates for reforming the congressional earmark process.

The secret ballot in Tuesday’s vote appeared to make approval of DeMint’s resolution that much less likely. “If you have a closed-door vote, then certainly there are people who can talk one way and vote another or won’t worry about the pressure back home or whatever else,” Ellis said.

The news that Tea Party groups will consider silence on the issue an admission of guilt, however, has thrown GOP senators’ previous calculations into flux and brought increased pressure on them to reveal their intentions. DeMint’s office confirmed on Wednesday that two more senators — Richard Burr (R-N.C) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) — have signed on as cosponsors to his proposal and Sen. Bob Corker’s (R-Tenn.) office responded via email on Wednesday night to say that he, too, had signed the letter. Tea Party groups across the country, meanwhile, have rallied to DeMint’s cause.

“We support it because we would like for our elected officials to vote on the bills at hand and not attach other things to it that might cause them to vote for bad legislation,” said Phillip Dennis, who sits on the steering committee for the Dallas Tea Party. “Let them vote on each bill on its own merits.”

As for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), who voted against DeMint’s proposed moratorium in March and has yet to signal a position on the upcoming vote, Dennis added that his group will be “very interested in what she’s doing.”

Indeed, Hutchison is considered among the most vulnerable of GOP incumbents who are being scrutinized and asked to take a stand. She, Richard Lugar (Ind.), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and Roger Wicker (Miss.) all voted against DeMint’s earmark moratorium in March, and all are facing re-election in 2012. All four offices have refused to reveal their positions this time around, but by doing so they risk incurring renewed calls by the Tea Party to run primary challenges against them in two years’ time.

“We’ll do what we always do,” said Meckler. “Our members will put immense pressure on every senator to vote against earmarks. This is a fundamental issue — it’s both substantive and symbolic. Will they vote against the politics of the past or are they still stuck in it? This is a vote that will never go away, like TARP. Tea Partiers have long memories. Politicians have always taken advantage of the fact that voters have short memories, but we’ll know, we’ll remember, and in 2012 when they have aggressive, well-funded primary challengers, they’ll know why.”

One Republican Senate office, which asked to remain anonymous, urged Tea Party groups not to make assumptions about the senator’s lack of public commitment at this time. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who is also up for re-election in 2012, will wait until talking with his colleagues next week before coming to a decision. The office of Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.), who has also thus far declined to indicate how he will vote, did not return requests for comment.

Staying silent, however, no longer seems like the safest option.

In a series of one-on-one conversations with incoming and sitting senators, McConnell is encouraging his colleagues to keep an open mind and not to automatically side with DeMint, whose plan calls on Senate Republicans to unilaterally give up earmarks in the 112th Congress, according to several people familiar with the talks.

While McConnell is not demanding that rank-and-file Republican senators vote against the earmark ban, he’s laying out his concerns that eliminating earmarks would effectively cede Congress’ spending authority to the White House while not making a real dent in the $1 trillion-plus budget deficit. And McConnell is signaling his concern about the awkward politics of the situation: even if the DeMint moratorium passes, Republican senators could push for earmarks, given that the plan is nonbinding and non-enforceable.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), for one, is siding with McConnell. “They should quit worrying about this phony issue,” he told Politico.“The ban doesn’t accomplish anything.”

But if the issue is so insignificant, others on the right are wondering why McConnell is risking a fight over it so soon after the election of six new Republican senators, many of whom ran on an explicitly anti-earmark platform. From the conservative blog Hot Air:

Again, the fact that the resolution’s nonbinding and that tea partiers like DeMint will continue to speak out against earmarks anyway means that there’s virtually nothing to be gained by McConnell in opposing the measure. He’s still going to infuriate the base if he continues to earmark; he simply won’t be in technical violation of any “sense of the caucus” resolution if he does it. In fact, Rand Paul has already reminded his supporters that he’ll have no problem demanding Kentucky’s fair share of pork so long as it’s appropriated through normal procedural means, not snuck into a bill at the last moment. Which is yet another reminder that this is mainly a symbolic measure, so why not get behind it? Especially since opposing this measure is apt to intensify calls for McConnell to be replaced as minority leader — possibly with Jim DeMint. I don’t get it.

The addition of new faces like Senators-elect Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) should be sufficient, in theory, to give the proposal enough votes, assuming all the Republican senators who voted for a similar DeMint plan in March do so again. But we already know that won’t be the case, because Sen. McConnell was among those voting for DeMint’s proposal the last time it was raised. And because the ballot on Tuesday will be secret, a number of GOP senators might feel less pressure to vote for the measure than they would were the vote to be held in the open.

Winning candidates in elections in which power changed hands were aided by average spending of $764,326 by independent groups, while losing candidates were aided by average spending of $273,268, a ratio of nearly 2.8 to 1. The analysis deemed outside spending as aiding candidates if it either praised them or criticized their opponents. It does not include outside spending for primaries.

The most blatant disparities, the report notes, occurred in the tight Senate races in Illinois and Pennsylvania:

The Republican winners in the Pennsylvania and Illinois Senate races received by far the greatest advantage over their opponents in outside spending. In Illinois, Rep. Mark Kirk (R) benefited from nearly $8 million in spending over opponent Alexander Giannoulias, chiefly due to $5.6 million in anti-Giannoulias spending by Karl Rove’s American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS entities, and to $1.7 million in anti-Giannoulias spending by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In total, Kirk enjoyed an advantage in outside spending of greater than 11 to 1.

In Pennsylvania’s Senate contest, victorious former Rep. Pat Toomey (R) enjoyed an advantage of nearly $5.3 million—a ratio of nearly 4 to 1—over Rep. Joe Sestak (D). Toomey was aided by $2.5 million in anti-Sestak spending by the Club for Growth Action Fund, an independent expenditure committee of the organization of which Toomey previously served as president. Also spending more than $1 million against Sestak were the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($1.7 million) and the Republican Jewish Coalition ($1.1 million).

When the independent expenditures of the traditional party committees like the NRSC and the DSCC are added in, however, outside spending in these races becomes a lot more equitable. And political scientists will reasonably ask whether the outside spending provided momentum for Republican victories or whether the impetus to give cash to conservative outside groups was simply a reflection of that pre-existing political momentum.

The report remains worthwhile, however, because we haven’t seen a swing in the House this big since the 1930s — and many would argue that the surge in unlimited outside spending has dramatically reduced the power of incumbency. If you believe that corporate and deep-pocketed donors are simply more likely to give to Republicans, then you might also conclude that Democrats will not enjoy the same favor when they are out of office. But both parties have been the beneficiaries of corporate PACs and well-to-do individuals in the past, making it equally as likely that the new normal of outside spending will cause the House to behave increasingly like a seesaw, flipping between parties every two years. Whether that’s a good or a bad phenomenon, on the other hand, is a question for the political scientists…