Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Support High-Performing Charter Schools
Next Post: *** UPDATED x2 - Kennedy responds - Pawar responds *** Pritzker, Biss respond to Senate budget votes
Posted in:
* From the Illinois Policy Institute’s radio network…
State Rep. Jeanne Ives, R-Wheaton, said she prefiled to be a sponsor of the tax increase bill “because I think there’s a bigger conversation that needs to happen before there’s a tax increase.”
Ives said she’s not on board with any tax increase.
“There’s a lot of tax increases in here we shouldn’t even have a conversation about until we talk about cutting spending and doing more for the business community rather than making them the highest tax in the United States,” Ives said.
However, she says her attempts to control it in the House could be taken away from her through procedural moves.
She would love nothing more than a fight over sponsorship of SB 9, and that’s why I really doubt the House Democrats will do anything. Why make her into a national cable TV and talk radio martyr in her courageous and lonely battle against the entrenched Speaker Madigan? So, she’d better milk this for all it’s worth right now because at the end of the session she will almost undoubtedly still be the chief House sponsor of a huge tax increase.
* Politico…
Now the bill moves to the House and into the safe hands of the staunch GOP anti-taxer state Rep. Jeanne Ives.
Screeeeech! Say what? Yup. Ives, a Republican, stealthily filed paperwork early in the session ensuring that the revenue bill to come out of what was then the so-called grand bargain would end up in her lap. So the Dems’ SB9 is slated to come to the same House member who told POLITICO last night she believes the state needs a “tax revolt.”
If the House Dems do decide to run a tax hike bill, they can shell out a Senate bill and amend it with their language. Or, they could use a House bill.
Remember, the Senate removed all the “if and only if” language from the grand bargain package that inextricably tied all those bills together. When Rep. Ives pre-filed for sponsorship back in February, that language was still in the grand bargain bills so her motion would’ve been a more important move. As it stands now, she’s merely sitting on a bill that can be easily copied.
No doubt this has great comedic value, and I’m all for that in times like these. But Ives’ move means nothing.
* Rep. Ives…
“I want to be a part of the conversation when it comes to taxes and how any tax increase would impact hardworking Illinois families and job creators. Senate Bill 9 would give Illinois the highest taxes on employers of any state in the nation and make it more difficult for middle-income families to make ends meet. There is a bigger conversation that needs to be had before the state considers a tax increase; specifically on real property tax relief, responsible spending cuts and pro-business reforms to help create jobs in Illinois. I believe the best way for me to have a voice in that discussion is to control the bill in the House of Representatives as its sponsor.”
This sounds reasonable until you realize that no matter what sort of “bigger conversation” is had on property taxes, budget cuts and pro-business measures, Rep. Ives won’t be voting for a tax hike anyway.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 10:09 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Support High-Performing Charter Schools
Next Post: *** UPDATED x2 - Kennedy responds - Pawar responds *** Pritzker, Biss respond to Senate budget votes
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
She could offer an amendment to provide that SB 9 takes effect if and only if some reform or another becomes law or she could amend it to reduce the income tax rate. Either maneuver would remove the taint of being the sponsor of a tax increase bill.
Comment by SAP Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 10:17 am
Just when you think you’ve seen it all….
Comment by A guy Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 10:20 am
===SB 9 takes effect if and only if some reform===
That would still put her on the hook for a tax hike and there’s no way she’d do that.
===she could amend it to reduce the income tax rate===
She could also introduce her own bill to do that. Yes, it would have symbolic value, but not much more than that. This is show, not go.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 10:22 am
SAP - But democratic leadership is under no obligation (I believe) to call and approve the amendment. I’m pretty sure all amendments are subject to approval, which means if the dems let her keep it and just never bring it up she’s stuck with it.
Comment by PJ Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 10:22 am
Would this make her the bill’s “baby daddy”?
Comment by Fax Machine Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 10:25 am
===…she’d better milk this for all it’s worth right now because at the end of the session she will almost undoubtedly still be the chief House sponsor of a huge tax increase.===
It actually makes me laugh out loud. Why…
Oh, see, that’s the setup of the joke, you laugh at the absurdity, all out there, but like all good comics, Ives still hasn’t delivered the punchline, the payoff for the humor TO that big ole belly laugh…
===Rep. Ives won’t be voting for a tax hike anyway.===
… and there it is.
How is that NOT restaurant-quality comedy?
“I want to be the catalyst of the tax increase discussion. Yep… I do… So after I embarrass my self I can vote against my own bill…”
Carrot Top gets paid big dollars for this…
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 10:25 am
==This is show, not go.== Agreed and either of the alternatives I offered would similarly be all show, no go. I didn’t mean to imply that she has plans for solving anything.
Comment by SAP Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 10:26 am
Good to see that SB 9 has bipartisan support.
Comment by Anon3 Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 10:30 am
We all needed a laugh. Thanks Jeanne!
Comment by Anon221 Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 10:31 am
Kind of reminds me of a Wile E. Coyote scheme.
Comment by Decaf Coffee Party Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 10:31 am
Glad to see the generally accepted conservative code words for “good white people” made it into Ive’s quote. “Hardworking families” and “job creators” are most assuredly more deserving of favorable government treatment than the less fortunate among us who likely, at least in Ive’s view, are morally deviant thus resulting in their position in life.
Comment by Swift Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 10:34 am
Ives, a West Point Grad and past ROTC instructor, is beloved in an around her Wheaton district. She will pay no price for this move. It does however, clearly point to ineptitude of the House Dem’s on a technical issue of great importance.
Comment by Texas Red Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 10:36 am
Without the $5.4B in new revenue, the proposed budget isn’t “balanced”.
Rep. Ives, please detail the $5.4B in budget cuts you are supporting to balance the proposed budget.
Is it going to be cutting school funding?
Is it going to be tossing the elderly to the side of the road?
Is it going to be closing all the prisons?
Is it going to be no road construction or repair?
Are you going to cancel DoIT?
Which universities are you going to close?
How much more are you going to short the 5 pension funds?
How much more of the local revenue sharing are you going to grab back for the State?
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 10:37 am
Channeling my best Honeybear, the perfidy of Ives is sad.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 10:39 am
I think that Representative Ives is trying to weasel her way into acceptability so that she can then start to push her agenda down into the schools, because this gives her some sort of legitimacy, and we can’t allow that to happen.
Comment by LizPhairTax Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 10:41 am
@Texas Red
“It does however, clearly point to ineptitude of the House Dem’s on a technical issue of great importance.”
New here?
Comment by LizPhairTax Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 10:43 am
==Ives, a West Point Grad and past ROTC instructor, is beloved in an around her Wheaton district==
You obviously don’t live in Wheaton. She is safe in a general election, but there are grumblings of a primary challenge. She has stuck her nose in too many local races and made lots of GOP enemies.
Comment by Memo From Turner Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 10:43 am
It’s hard to decide which is more laughable:
1)We need to have a bigger conversation before there is a tax increase–one that I admit I will never support before having that conversation. Eerily similar to the senate GOP since at least Jan 11.
-or-
2) Jeanne Ives’ constant complaint that bills she favors don’t get a “fair hearing”, then she hijacks a bill that would fund the government because she doesn’t agree with it–in order to deny it a fair hearing.
On the one hand, you have pre-meditated bad faith process, and on the other you have abject hypocrisy.
Comment by unspun Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 10:45 am
===ineptitude of the House Dem’s===
The responsibility falls on the Senate sponsor.
Bill-jacking is a common occurrence. You gotta line up your House sponsor right away on stuff like this.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 10:45 am
“she’d better milk this for all it’s worth”
I’m bettin’ Rauner gives her a Cookie too! /s Of Course!
Comment by WhoKnew Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 10:50 am
“Ives, a West Point Grad and past ROTC instructor”
Why are we only now learning this about Ives??!?
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 11:25 am
I’ve got a tax hike for you
Comment by Rabid Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 11:35 am
Ives had a primary challenge last time and beat it easily.
Comment by Winfield Joe Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 11:42 am
Sorry, I meant 2014. 2016 she ran unopposed in the primary. Ives won 60/40 in the general.
Comment by Winfield Joe Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 11:50 am
With Peter Roskam looking very vulnerable in 2018
with the 6th Congressional District voting Democratic in the last three Presidential elections one might wonder if someone is
trying to put down the foundation for 2020
without securing a building permit.
Comment by Illinoisvoter Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 1:11 pm
Still waiting for answers …
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 1:29 pm
Heard she had it since Jan–Senate should have moved it to a different bill and pre-filed a friendly. Maybe they can vote again
Comment by anon Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 2:20 pm
Poison Ivey!
Comment by Biker Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 2:31 pm
-Winfield Joe-
“Hell hath no fury”, like a well educated and ticked off suburban woman at the voter box. (See recent Naperville and Lisle township election results)
Comment by DuPage Chick in the Middle Wednesday, May 24, 17 @ 3:02 pm