Should Governor Bruce Rauner have a primary debate with State Rep. Jeanne Ives, he'll have a good point to use against her.
While the governor vetoed the income tax increase (SB 9), Ives was the Chief House Sponsor of it. She filed the bill in May.
In this interview (at the bottom), she says, "I am the chief sponsor of a tax increase bill."
Her rationalization for sponsoring the bill which raised corporate and individual income tax reminded me of a quote.
There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.
In the interview, she says she filed the bill because even though she was against raising taxes she wanted "to be part of that conversation." This is the kind of logic politicians use that just doesn't make sense to ordinary voters. How did that "conversation" go? I bet Mike Madigan and the Democrats were really receptive to her ideas (sarcasm).
Additionally, Rauner (or William Kelly, the other challenger) can point out that Ives missed the veto override vote. She could rebut by saying it had 71 yeas anyway (the minimum necessary amount to override a veto), so her vote was inconsequential, but missing votes on important issues never looks good. She could also point out that she did in fact vote no on the bill itself. The trouble is, she voted no on a bill that she was the Chief House Sponsor of. Awkward.
Ives seems to be selling herself as an individual with the pugnacity to take on figures like Madigan or Rauner, but some are going to question if she knows the ropes well enough to effectively do so. We already have a governor who misunderstood and underestimated Madigan.