John Boehner 8TH DISCTRICT OF OHIO

As the Obama administration presses ahead with the health care law, officials are bracing for the possibility that a federal judge in Virginia will soon reject its central provision as unconstitutional and, in the worst case for the White House, halt its enforcement until higher courts can rule….Virginia’s attorney general, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, a Republican who filed the Richmond lawsuit, argues that if Judge Hudson rejects the insurance requirement he should instantly invalidate the entire act on a nationwide basis.

Mr. Cuccinelli and the plaintiffs in the Florida case, who include attorneys general or governors from 20 states, have emphasized that Congressional bill writers did not include a ‘severability clause’ that would explicitly protect other parts of the sprawling law if certain provisions were struck down.  An earlier version of the legislation, which passed the House last November, included severability language.  But that clause did not make it into the Senate version, which ultimately became law.  A Democratic aide who helped write the bill characterized the omission as an oversight.

Without such language, the Supreme Court, through its prior rulings, essentially requires judges to try to determine whether Congress would have enacted the rest of a law without the unconstitutional provisions....Lawyers for Virginia have sought to turn one of the federal government’s arguments on its head.  They note that the health law explicitly refers to the insurance requirement as ‘an essential part’ of the act’s regulatory scheme, and that Justice Department lawyers — in pressing their point that the law permissibly regulates commerce — have called it the ‘linchpin.’  If it is so essential, Virginia’s lawyers have asked, why should a judge believe that Congress intended for the rest of the act to stand without it?  

Any illusion that the cases are not highly politicized was lost when Republican leaders raced this month to file friend-of-the-court briefs in Pensacola, and Democrats responded with briefs from state legislators and supportive economists.  Among the Republicans intervening in the case are Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the future speaker; 32 United States senators; and Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, a possible presidential candidate.

It’s now been five days since White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs confirmed that President Obama supports “an outright ban on earmarks” after questions were raised as to whether that was in fact the case. Unfortunately, the president has yet to call on Democratic Leaders to follow House and Senate Republicans in adopting an earmark ban in the 112^th Congress. Of course, it’s not hard to decipher the president’s hesitation, what with Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) offering “no apologies” for his support of earmarking as we know it. For her part, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has fallen silent on earmarks despite declaring in July 2006, “‘I’d get rid of all of them. None of them is worth the skepticism, the cynicism the public has . … and the fiscal irresponsibility of it.”

Under the headline “Earmark foes pressure Obama,” The Washington Times reports on how “newly emboldened earmark foes are calling on President Obama to back up his opposition to pork-barrel spending with action”:

“‘The president really is the lynchpin in all of this,’ said Steve Ellis, vice president of government watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. ‘He can talk to the Senate Democrats and say, 'Hey, it's not like I'm telling you to do something I didn't do when I was in the Senate.' So he has a bit of the moral high ground there.’ … The president has been less interested in standing up to lawmakers when it comes to pork barrel spending projects - despite vowing to crack down on them during his 2008 campaign.”

Meanwhile, support for an earmark ban continues to roll in from editorial boards around the country:

• Bismarck Tribune: “End the abuse of earmarks. As a new leaf turns in our nation’s capital, let’s take politics out of earmarks and aggressively trim unnecessary federal spending, the kind that benefits limited numbers of people or entities. … Let’s begin the restoration of better ethics, better government.” (Editorial, 11/22/10)
• Longmont (CO) Times-Call: “Listen to voters, ban the earmarks. … And whatever spending prerogatives they would lose with a ban is outweighed by what American citizens gain in a less corruptible and wasteful system of federal spending. That’s part of what American voters said they wanted earlier this month. They deserve to have it.” (Editorial, 11/19/10)
• Culpeper Star-Exponent: Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA “understands now is the time to work across party lines to restore fiscal sanity and forge a new direction. A moratorium on earmarks, which Cantor has pushed for since 2006, is a promising start.” (Editorial, 11/21/10)
• Appleton (WI) Post-Crescent: “The time has come for all of Congress to banish earmark spending from its legislation. At least, that’s what the voters have said.” ( Editorial, 11/19/10)
• Dallas Morning News: “Here’s a bit of good news for budget hawks. Congress actually may be getting serious about restricting earmarks, spending measures that mysteriously turn up in bills for sometimes dubious projects.” (Editorial, 11/19/10)

Republicans are listening to the people and standing firm on the need to take this and other critical steps to restore public trust. Shortly after House Republicans adopted an earmark ban for the 112th Congress, Speaker-designate John Boehner said, “This earmark ban shows the American people we are listening and we are dead serious about ending business as usual in Washington.” It’s now up to President Obama to prove his support for an earmark ban is serious, and not just post-election me-tooism designed to make up for nearly two years of runaway spending.

Republicans are listening to the people and standing firm on the need to take this and other critical steps to restore public trust. Shortly after House Republicans adopted an earmark ban for the 112th Congress, Speaker-designate John Boehner said, “This earmark ban shows the American people we are listening and we are dead serious about ending business as usual in Washington.” It’s now up to President Obama to prove his support for an earmark ban is serious, and not just post-election me-tooism designed to make up for nearly two years of runaway spending.

“Ms. Pelosi also spoke out against earmarking billions of dollars for home-state projects, a practice she calls a ‘monster’ that hurts Congress.  If she becomes speaker in the next Congress, she says, she would press to severely reduce earmarks. ‘Personally, myself, I'd get rid of all of them,’ she says.” (The Wall Street Journal, 7/13/06, A4)

Republicans in both the Senate and the House of Representatives have now forsworn earmarks as they eye large spending cuts in the coming year…Though earmarks account for less than one half of a percent of the federal budget, they have become a symbol of wasteful spending for many grassroots Tea Party activists who helped Republicans win big in the November 2 elections.  ‘I think it shows that this conference is serious about doing what it said we were going to be about -- limited government, spending reduction, dealing with the national debt,’ said newly elected Republican Senator Marco Rubio.

One day after Republicans challenged them to reject earmarks, Senate Democrats huddled behind closed doors Wednesday and held a ‘long discussion’ on the practice as part of a larger debate over how to balance the federal budget and erase mounting debt...But most Democrats defend the practice of funneling federal dollars to pet projects in their home states.

Q: And real quick on the earmarks, on the earmarks.  I know Obama has come out up front a lot on this, but does he want an outright ban on earmarks?

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q: He does?

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

• President Obama has yet to call on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) or Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to join Republicans in voting on an earmark ban for the 112th Congress.  (Note that the standard here is not even whether he supports an outright ban, but whether he supports holding simple up-or-down votes to determine whether to impose a ban.)
  
  
• The Obama Administration won’t commit to vetoing any spending measures this year that include earmarks, which the president said just hours ago “we can’t afford during these tough economic times.”

We are going to do everything we can to repeal and replace the health care bill.  This is a job-killing law.  We know that from the Congressional Budget Office, we know that from Suffolk University, both of whom said 780,000 jobs can be lost.  Let’s get health care reform that doesn’t cost jobs and can bend down the cost curve.  This new law does neither of that.

One of the most fundamental ideas in the new health law is that employers should offer health insurance to their workers, or else they would have to pay a penalty, beginning in 2014.  The fear has been that many businesses would opt for ‘or else,’ leaving their workers searching for coverage....Twenty percent [of small businesses] - one-fifth - told Mercer they are ‘likely’ to stop offering health plans once people have the option of buying insurance from state-run exchanges, virtual marketplaces.

In a segment that first aired last night, ABC World News with Diane Sawyer takes a look at how Congressman John Boehner’s (R-West Chester) modest, working-class upbringing in Reading, OH and experience running a small business helped shape his role as a dedicated reformer and passionate advocate for smaller, more accountable government.