Bradley: “Republicans don’t want compromise”
Wednesday, Jun 10, 2015 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From a press release…
Good morning. Please find below a news release on the Illinois House of Representatives’ repeated attempts Tuesday to pass property tax relief for Illinois homeowners. For more information, please contact Rep. John Bradley at xxx-xxx-xxxx.
Rauner Property Tax Relief Proposal Debated in Illinois House, Rejected by House Republicans
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – For the third time in less than a month, Illinois House Republicans refused to support legislation to freeze property taxes statewide. This time, one of the measures included the exact property tax language Gov. Bruce Rauner has proposed.
“I’m disappointed that House Republicans would again turn their backs on middle-class families and homeowners who struggle to pay their property taxes,” said state Rep. John Bradley, D-Marion, who sponsored one of the tax relief measures. “The record is clear: House Republicans have rejected freezing property taxes not once, not twice, but three times in less than one month’s time.”
On Tuesday, the House debated two measures to freeze property taxes statewide, including House Bill 691 proposed by Bradley. Even though Bradley’s proposal was identical to property tax relief language proposed by Gov. Bruce Rauner, the failure of House Republicans to support the measure led to its defeat.
“House Republicans don’t want compromise, they don’t want to help struggling homeowners and they don’t want to strengthen Illinois’ middle class,” Bradley said. “Three times within a month the House voted to freeze property taxes, and all three attempts were overwhelmingly opposed by House Republicans, including a bill that included Governor Rauner’s own proposal.”
Bradley said he expects the House to continue debating property tax relief for Illinois homeowners, hoping at some point House Republicans will find a proposal they can support.
“The simple question to House Republicans is: are you loyal to your political party, or are you going to vote for taxpayers and homeowners?,” Bradley said.
Rep. Bradley is expected to be a Tier One target next year, so that explains much of this.
But, as we’ll get into more today, the Statehouse atmosphere took a turn for the worse yesterday and this just continues it.
- Shocked and Appalled - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 9:20 am:
Where were you, Rep. Bradley, the last several years? Suddenly a crusader for property tax relief, huh? Sure. What a waste of space these guys are.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 9:21 am:
If by “identical” he means “different”, then I suppose he’s correct.
- Juvenal - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 9:24 am:
=== House Republicans don’t want compromise ===
Governor Rauner doesn’t want compromise, actually.
My theory: despite all the backroom promises, Rauner can’t actually produce 43 Republican votes in the Illinois House to raise the income tax by a percentage point.
Atleast 10 House Republicans signed the Norquist pledge, and I cannot imagine Bellock, McSweeney, Kay and the rest will renege.
But hey, maybe some reporter will call them and ask them.
- A guy - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 9:26 am:
Read it while looking in the mirror Representative. Then you may see at least one person who believes you. But, probably not. The sham continues.
- A guy - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 9:28 am:
===My theory: despite all the backroom promises, Rauner can’t actually produce 43 Republican votes in the Illinois House to raise the income tax by a percentage point.====
I suggest he can. But not for nothing.
- Joe M - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 9:29 am:
I think Senate President Cullerton has the right idea. When meeting with Rauner yesterday, he suggested a compromise of dealing with school funding and then dealing with property taxes - the two are joined at the hip.
Since the vast majority of property taxes go towards local schools, despite the fact that the Illinois Constitution states that the State shall be the primary funder of public education - Cullerton is on the right track. Tying property tax relief with new school funding mechanisms makes more sense that tying property tax relief with political union and prevailing wage issues.
Also, just limiting property taxes will soon hurt the schools. For those who say, so what - try and sell your house in a neighborhood with bad schools.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 9:33 am:
=I suggest he can. But not for nothing.=
At least he is not doing business like that corrupt Madigan? Oops. /snark
- Obamas Puppy - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 9:33 am:
Does Rauner realize his own hypocrisy? The guy made millions off of public employee pension systems that was making money off of government!!! Take a look in the mirror and maybe you cant accept money from that guy.
- Wordslinger - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 9:35 am:
So what are they waiting on? I thought the TV spots were good to go. Do it, already.
- PublicServant - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 9:35 am:
So Rauner has what he’s calling his property tax freeze bill, that is cluttered up with some of his turnaround agenda stuff in it too…but he’s calling it a property tax freeze bill. The dems introduce a clean property tax freeze bill with Rauner’s exact wording (for the property tax freeze), just excluding the non-property-tax-freeze turnaround clutter, and Rauner says it’s just nibbling around the edges. Here’s some advice Bruce, call the bill by what it contains. If the property tax freeze is “just nibbling around the edges” when it contains just property tax freeze language, do us all a favor Bruce, and quit trying to hide your turnaround agenda stuff inside a bill whose name has nothing to do with what you think is critical, and not just “nibbling around the edges”. Here’s a suggested name for your bill. Call it the Prevailing Wage elimination and property tax freeze act. After all, that is what it is, and what you want right?
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 9:36 am:
=== ===My theory: despite all the backroom promises, Rauner can’t actually produce 43 Republican votes in the Illinois House to raise the income tax by a percentage point.====
I suggest he can. But not for nothing.===
Madigan will require 47 now. It’s THAT toxic.
Rauner must deliver 47 GOP votes that include a revenue angle.
I’m sure McSweeney willove that, but, Rauner owns the Caucuses, and Rauner told all 67; you’re with me, you don’t want a $&@#% problem.
McSweeney is super wealthy, but Rauner’s $20 million will require all to think twice.
Many HGOP members are going to be “green” for revenue, all 47 now. It’s malpractice on MJM’s part, especially now, not to require it.
- Arsenal - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 9:37 am:
The continued refusal to take “Yes” for an answer exposes this for the sham it is (Crap, do I owe Sandack money for saying “sham”?) It’s solely another turf war with Madigan.
- Life After - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 9:37 am:
Blatant GOP hypocrisy aside, it is pretty hilarious to watch Bradley’s attempts to carry the property tax relief banner — considering he has bottled up nearly every prop tax related bill (relief and otherwise) since taking the helm of the R&F Committee.
- Norseman - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 9:39 am:
The Raunerbot word of the month is “sham.” It joins the other frat boy buzz words in the Rauner repertoire that makes them giggle, but doesn’t actually help them govern.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 9:39 am:
Keep coopting the Turnaround Agenda. Lets see who really wants reform. The GOP doesn’t have the votes, so they will need bipartisan support. They could have had it yesterday. The GOP chose to call it a sham, because that is what they are making it into.
- nadia - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 9:40 am:
Wasn’t House Floor Amendment #2 to HB691 identical to what Rauner wants? It eliminated bargaining rights and prevailing wage for local governments and public schools plus had a property tax freeze. Why did the House Repubs vote present on adoption of HFA #2?
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 9:47 am:
If the Republicans truly cared about property tax relief for homeowners, they should have put their differences aside and get it done. This was the exact language that Rauner was proposing regarding the property tax freeze. Republicans could have helped get it done. They chose not to because it didn’t include all the other stuff wholly unrelated to property taxes. They threw out the baby with the bathwater. With present vote by present vote, they are losing credibility.
- A guy - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 9:51 am:
JSM, is there a conflict, real or perceived, in attempting to get some structural reform? I can sense your frustration, but I think the comparison is a bit off.
- Very Fed Up - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 9:57 am:
If Rep Bradley is concerned for middle class how has he lead on issues of graduated income tax, minimum wage, paid sick time, increasing minimum level for OT pay etc?
- Phenomynous - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 9:58 am:
Nadia,
Bradley would still control the bill and could never call it, or call it before a grand bargain is struck. The end compromise will require a supermajority to hold their nose and vote green. Piecemeal approaches don’t work in a grand compromise. HDems are willing to deal on property tax relief as a standalone (and politically easy) issue but don’t want to touch the other stuff.
The compromise, as I see it now, is property tax relief, some form of prevailing wage, causation on workers comp, revenue increases (income/service tax) and finally, a budget (maybe with Capital).
If these items aren’t covered then the budget is vetoed, services are cut and then we find out whether prevailing wage and causation or more important than many essential state services.
- econ prof - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 10:00 am:
Bradley’s days are numbered.
- anon - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 10:29 am:
As far as the Norquist pledge goes, other Reps have violated it over the years. One example is most Republicans voted for the revenue enhancements to fund the last two major capital plans.
- nadia - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 10:33 am:
Still why wouldn’t a Repub vote “yes” to adopt the amendment and then put the ball in Bradley’s court? If he does “hold” the bill then he takes the heat, not the House Repubs for voting present on Rauner’s language. Even if there is a “grand ” bargain they just had an opportunity to vote for something their Governor says he must have without, at this point, giving up anything for it. Just say’n.
- walker - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 10:47 am:
Obvious this is neither about the budget, nor about a property tax freeze.
The hang up is the prevailing wage demand of the Governor.
Or maybe it’s just not time yet for any agreement, because the “attack the career politicians” campaign has yet to run its course.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 10:50 am:
@ a guy- Change is needed. I would stay away from “reform” since most of the time it is used it is actually being used as a synonym for “reduction and theft” as is the case with “pension reform”.
Change is needed in a big way. Our state government is completely dysfunctional and totally lost to warring factions. The collective “they” are not interested in governing in the best interests of the citizens of Illinois. Madigan and Cullerton have been at it the longest and own the greatest share but many, many others are responsible as well. Rauner has jumped into the pool in a big way and owns more of the mess everyday. But, no one is free of blame.
=but I think the comparison is a bit off.=
In my simple view buying votes is wrong, no matter who does it. That is clearly what the Rauner war chest is for and it is wrong. I believe it is an apt comparison. Not more wrong than Madigan’s, just the same.
And, that is business as usual. I would have given him a pass had he simply stated he was going to beat them at their own game, but he didn’t. Rauner tried to claim the moral high ground.
- John A Logan - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 11:03 am:
I remember when Bradley raised all kinds of stink about Ameren and Electrical rate hikes 4 or 5 years ago. Held a town hall meeting and berated executives from Ameren. Residents of the district showed up to play a part in the public tar and feathering. Then, because Bradley is concerned about the middle class he votes for the 67% tax increase. Selective publicity, little results. That is John Bradley.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTeWD-2mLZg
- TheRealWorld - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 11:03 am:
Here in the real world we need relief from high property tax rates, not games. Somebody should float a constitutional amendment to dissolve both houses of the legislature and adopt a form of government that can be re-elected every two years if we like them.
- Juvenal - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 11:09 am:
I’ll wager if Riopell calls McSweeney and Bellock today, he will find they are solid No votes on any tax increase.
OW, I could be wrong, but ATR has a lot more juice than Rauner. And Republicans didn’t sign those pledges just to have something pretty to hang on their wall, they signed them because they are hugely popular in their district.
If you are McSweeney, what is the point of voting in favor of a property tax freeze on Tuesday and an income tax increase on Wednesday?
- Wordslinger - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 11:11 am:
– Somebody should float a Constitutional amendment to dissolve both houses of the legislature…..–
That’s from The Real World, who likes to talk about “real world” problems and solutions.
What world is that, cousin? Tralfamadore?
- ReadingIsFundamental - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 11:12 am:
==
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 9:21 am:
If by “identical” he means “different”, then I suppose he’s correct. ==
READ THE BILLS, please, BEFORE YOU COMMENT.
Durkin filed house bill 4224 and Radogno filed senate bill 1046. They publicly said the language came from the Governor. Those are the Governor’s bills.
Bradley filed amendments 1 and 2 to house bill 691. The language is EXACTLY the same as the language in House bill 4224 and senate bill 1046. Word for word, with the exception of one typo in Rauner’s bill.
Take a look and then explain how they are different.
- ReadingIsFundamental - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 11:13 am:
Amendment 1 has the property tax freeze and amendment 2 has the other items. It’s all there. Word for word.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 11:16 am:
- Juvenal -,
With respect.
It’s not what someone like McSweeney wants, it is about what Rauner demands.
After yesterday, MJM and Cullerton will demand all 67 be ‘green’, just like the FY2015 Fix.
The GOP GA lost any hope of autonomy or dispensation yesterday. It’s not Rauner’s to give, but MJM’s and Cullerton’s to hold over the heads.
It’s 67, it’s Caucus politics, it’s even Caucus Governing, at it’s most polarizing.
No one wants a $&@#% problem, and Rauner needs a budget, and Rauner told all he owns 67 votes.
All true.
- Phenomynous - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 11:30 am:
Nadia, because then union friendly republicans would have an anti-union vote. They aren’t going to make that vote until a final deal is made that can explain it away.
- TheRealWorld - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 11:37 am:
Yes WS, the real world sees this entire fiasco as an expensive nuisance, something that we pay for that provides nothing of value.
- walker - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 11:37 am:
==Amendment 1 has the property tax freeze and amendment 2 has the other items. It’s all there. Word for word.==
How do Republican legislators reasonably respond to the fact that they refused to support Rauner’s exact property tax bill?
Which reporter will press that question until it is answered?
Which story about the vote will ignore this fact — it was Rauner’s exact bill.
Obviously this is not about meeting Rauner’s publicly stated requests for agreement. It is about waiting for his campaign to finally end.
Any agreement at this point would undercut Rauner’s imminent ad campaign. That has to run its course, before Rauner is willing to come to any agreement, on anything, I’m afraid.
Always hopeful, and was willing to give Rauner the benefit of the doubt, until today.
- ReadingIsFundamental - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 1:03 pm:
==- walker - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 11:37 am:
==Amendment 1 has the property tax freeze and amendment 2 has the other items. It’s all there. Word for word.==
How do Republican legislators reasonably respond to the fact that they refused to support Rauner’s exact property tax bill?
Which reporter will press that question until it is answered? ==
Exactly. Reporters aren’t asking those questions or reporting this story at all. If Rauner wanted to compromise, he would have told the GOP to vote for the amendments.
- Raunerbot - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 2:13 pm:
No compromising with incompetent corrupt Democrats…let them whine all they want.
- A guy - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 2:43 pm:
===Exactly. Reporters aren’t asking those questions or reporting this story at all. If Rauner wanted to compromise, he would have told the GOP to vote for the amendments.===
That’s some pretty deep thinking there. It’s so simple, how could we not have seen this? Oy.
- walker - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 3:26 pm:
Raunerbot: you missed the point on the Bradley bill. It wasn’t a compromise. It gave Rauner exactly what he asked for, and his Republican caucus refused to support it.
The point is that Rauner doesn’t want any agreement right now, even if it’s not a compromise at all.
- Wordslinger - Wednesday, Jun 10, 15 @ 6:25 pm:
Guy, rather than weak drive-bys, perhaps you should demonstrate your deep-thinking on the substance of the points that are being made by those who have actually read the material.
You clearly have not.
The points being made i