Salvaging property tax reform

You're probably wondering what happened this week when the Pennsylvania House of Representatives took a vote on a plan to eliminate property taxes. How could the plan have been defeated by a 148-47 margin?

The entire 203-member House is up for reelection this year and every incumbent wanted to go before the voters saying they supported property tax relief. How did House Bill 1275, sponsored by Rep. Sam Rohrer, go down in flames? It's complicated.

The version of HB 1275 that was voted on last Tuesday was not the original plan Rohrer introduced two years ago. Tuesday's vote was on an amendment to House Bill 1600, sponsored by Rep. Dave Levdansky, the Democratic chairman of the House Finance Committee.

Levdansky's bill is a warmed-over version of Act 1, which was rejected by Pennsylvania voters in 2007. HB 1600 would temporarily reduce property taxes while permanently increasing the state sales tax and the income tax.

Rohrer's original bill would have ended school property taxes in Pennsylvania. House Bill 1275 could have passed had it been allowed to work its way through the committee process. But Levdansky wouldn't clear the bill out of his committee, forcing Rohrer to introduce it as a take-it-or-leave-it amendment. Too many lawmakers had problems with the amendment or didn’t understand it so they voted against HB 1275.

Instead the House approved the Perzel amendment, offered by Republican John Perzel of Philadelphia. The Perzel plan was approved by a 159-36 margin. On the surface, the Perzel amendment would deliver all property tax relief to senior citizens.

The Perzel amendment basically reverses the Act 1 concept of using the gaming revenues for the miniscule property tax relief for all homeowners and use that revenue to eliminate school property tax for seniors making under $39,999 and who are 65 and older.

But that's not why so many lawmakers voted in favor of it. Perzel is a master at manipulating parliamentary procedure. That's why he ruled over the House for so many years before he was ousted from his post as Speaker of the House by his fellow Republicans.

Say what you will about Perzel, but nobody knows how to navigate the floor of the House better than he does. From a strategic standpoint, Perzel's plan was a "gut and replace" amendment. It killed House Bill 1600.

Not only did the lawmakers who voted for the Rohrer amendment support Perzel, but conservative lawmakers from western Pennsylvania who did not want to raise the income tax also joined the coalition. The rest of the votes came from Democrats who wanted no part of House Bill 1600.

The Democratic leadership was left in a daze by Perzel's maneuvering. It decided to adjourn until Feb. 4 to figure out what hit them.

Will both sides stop playing games and attempt to work out a plan to eliminate school taxes? We'll find out next week. Political careers are on the line here. The party that delivers property tax reform will take control of the House. And right now, it's not looking good for Democrats.