Frerichs, who has since walked back his statement, had been scheduled to address his “misleading” comments in a press conference Tuesday, in which he aimed to “reassure senior citizens that the proposal will not tax retirement income.” That appearance was abruptly canceled just 10 minutes before it was set to begin. […]
Speculation swirled over why Frerichs suddenly canceled his Tuesday appearance, but it appears Pritzker may have played a role.
“Earlier today, Gov. Pritzker put the muzzle on Treasurer Frerichs who was minutes away from telling the people of Illinois the truth: Pritzker has a plan to tax retirement income in Illinois and needs the constitutional amendment to get it done” Illinois Republican Party Chairman Tim Schneider said in a statement.
A spokesperson for the governor’s office did not deny Pritzker’s involvement in the decision.
* So, I asked the governor’s office for a response. Here’s Jordan Abudayyeh…
The Governor speaks regularly to allies and stakeholders about policy. The decision on his media availability is ultimately up to the Treasurer.
Heh.
*** UPDATE *** Quentin Fulks told WCIA’s Mark Maxwell the reality about the prospects for a tax on retirement income. “It’s political suicide,” Fulks said (correctly, I would add). “It’s an extremely unpopular topic in Illinois”…
=== “Earlier today, Gov. Pritzker put the muzzle on Treasurer Frerichs who was minutes away from telling the people of Illinois the truth: Pritzker has a plan to tax retirement income in Illinois and needs the constitutional amendment to get it done” Illinois Republican Party Chairman Tim Schneider said in a statement.===
As i said yesterday;
=== - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:39
…
Raunerites tell misleading things.
If that were at all true, what is Schneider’s source? Was he in the room?
Total buffoonery, why Raunerites will lose more seats in the General Assembly, and why dishonesty is a Raunerite calling card.===
Its *not* good enough that it may have happened (well played by Jordan Abudayyeh, lol), no, y’all have to *pretend* that it’s this or that.
Likely?
“You’re not helping, you think this will help. We’ll take it from here, you’ll thank us, for not letting you Rutherford yourself”
Or…
“Have your press conference. You think things are bad now? You choose how much more bad you want this, and us mad too”
Or maybe this…
“Mighty nice office you have, would be a shame if you’d have to go thru a primary to keep it”
The silly of the “muzzle to retirement income”, my goodness, that’s playing small ball… with marbles.
Extremely bad look, both for the Guv and Frerichs. Both know they want discussion and likely implementation of taxing retirement income, they just don’t want to be put on the spot.
==discussion and likely implementation of taxing retirement income==
I’d like to see the US Defense budget reduced by 75%. Both of these things are never going to happen.
- essentially working - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 2:59 pm:
I don’t think Frerichs is a bad guy. My guess is he wasn’t willing to completely lie and walk back his statement totally. He knows the truth. He is in a no win situation now; can’t be intellectually honest with the citizens without contradicting the “fair tax” advocates.
Personally, I like to see the top dog bark a little sometimes. Over the past 6 months, I think he has been too nice to people who really deserve a time out or a shut down.
=== He knows the truth. He is in a no win situation now===
(Sigh)… this truth?
=== “One thing a progressive tax would do is make clear you can have graduated rates when you are taxing retirement income,” he said. “And, I think that’s something that’s worth discussion.”===
That’s the truth. Mike Frerichs stands tall for taxing retirement income. The rest isn’t this;
=== can’t be intellectually honest with the citizens without contradicting the “fair tax” advocates.===
No one is going to make taxing retirement income a thing, it’s, as Quentin Fulks told WCIA’s Mark Maxwell the reality about the prospects for a tax on retirement income. “It’s political suicide.”.
You have the play, why this phony way to make it seem worse, Frerichs already made it murky, something that’s an impossibility, taxing retirement income.
Poor politics.
- essentially working - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 3:15 pm:
I think, someone can correct me here, but what he said is factually true. Maybe not politically possible or wise today, but not an “impossibility”. Conventional wisdom at one point was that marijuana would never be legalized and promoted by the State. It was “impossible”, they didn’t have the votes, etc… Yet, here we are. The State needed the money.
=== Conventional wisdom at one point was that marijuana would never be legalized and promoted by the State. It was “impossible”, they didn’t have the votes===
How does Cannibis poll?
How does taxing retirement income poll?
Is/was cannibis the 3rd rail of Illinois politics?
- thechampaignlife - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 3:24 pm:
“The ‘cover up’ is worse than the crime.”
Obviously no crime here, and I support the amendment, but this issue is doing them no favors.
Seriously?
JB plans to tax the upper tier, AND retirees. Of course he does… NOT
Sadly, the misinformation being thrown at the elderly to get them to vote against the amendment is desperate, untrue, and likely has some chance at success. I’m not naive… untruths have always been part of the elective process. Haven’t we learned anything from the last 4 years? Is honor and integrity of no value? Say whatever it takes to try and win?
From Rich’s column, posted here 2 days ago, October 5th, citing the Paul Simon Poll;
=== Those results weren’t all that different from the same poll’s question on whether Illinoisans supported a new state tax on retirement income. Seventy-three percent opposed it while 23 percent supported — a 50-point margin.===
“Anyway, the last time the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute polled Speaker Madigan’s job approval rating was last year. It found 71% disapproved of the way Madigan did his job while only 20% approved — a 51-point difference.
Those results weren’t all that different from the same poll’s question on whether Illinoisans supported a new state tax on retirement income. Seventy-three percent opposed it while 23 percent supported — a 50-point margin.”
You keep confusing the issue of taxing ALL retirement income with taxing only the “Pension Millionaires.” That’s what I’m talking about.
=== You keep confusing the issue of taxing ALL retirement income with taxing only the “Pension Millionaires.” That’s what I’m talking about.===
That’s still not happening.
With polling over 70% against, you think you’re gonna move 30 points?
Hmmm
I don’t need another poll, I’m quite confused what you added or changed by bringing in the not-the-question Madigan part… but… if it makes you feel better.
The constitution doesn’t say anything about the taxation of retirement income. The constitutional amendment doesn’t address retirement income. The General Assembly doesn’t need a constitutional amendment to tax retirement income; it could pass a bill to do so tomorrow (if it were in session).
=== I’m quite confused what you added or changed by bringing in the not-the-question Madigan part… ===
(Since you asked) Your quote made reference to “Those results weren’t all that different…” which could be interpreted as “Those results” being taxation on pension millionaires. I just wanted to clarify that it wasn’t the case.
just a minor clarification. Nothing to see here… keep moving. I’ll get back on my “turnip truck” and head down to “Facebook land’
==The constitution doesn’t say anything about the taxation of retirement income==
The constitution begs to differ:
Pension Protection Clause of the Illinois Constitution–
“Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.”
Taxing THIS retirement income has been found, by the Illinois State Supreme Court, to be diminishing the benefits.
Without ANOTHER constitutional amendment to get rid of the pension clause, state pensions are NOT taxable.
=== which could be interpreted as “Those results” being taxation on pension millionaires. I just wanted to clarify that it wasn’t the case.===
Did you… read… the column?
How about the title of the post?
=== The Republicans have another weapon as powerful as “Madigan“===
The weapon is…
=== “One thing a progressive tax would do is make clear you can have graduated rates when you are taxing retirement income,” Treasurer Michael Frerichs, a Democrat, told the Daily Herald back in June. “And, I think that’s something that’s worth discussion.”
Frerichs’ quote has opened the door to House Republican attack mailers in numerous districts against Democrats who voted “Yes” on the graduated income tax last year and also against Democratic House candidates in general.===
… using the threat of taxing retirement.
Like;
===… “Her Springfield pals admit the amendment would open the door to a brand-new tax on retirement income. That means your pension, your 401(k) plan, and your retirement plan would be taxed and sent straight to Springfield.”===
$2… $2,000… $200K… the weapon is taxing retirement.
It’s all good. I’m only clarifying as well.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 5:15 pm:
Teacher Lady 5:09- pension experts I have read are generally in agreement that taxing retirement income, including state pensions, would pass a constitutional challenge as long as the tax were applied equitably across all income, instead of being targeting specifically at state/university/teacher pensions.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 2:45 pm:
=== “Earlier today, Gov. Pritzker put the muzzle on Treasurer Frerichs who was minutes away from telling the people of Illinois the truth: Pritzker has a plan to tax retirement income in Illinois and needs the constitutional amendment to get it done” Illinois Republican Party Chairman Tim Schneider said in a statement.===
As i said yesterday;
=== - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:39
…
Raunerites tell misleading things.
If that were at all true, what is Schneider’s source? Was he in the room?
Total buffoonery, why Raunerites will lose more seats in the General Assembly, and why dishonesty is a Raunerite calling card.===
Its *not* good enough that it may have happened (well played by Jordan Abudayyeh, lol), no, y’all have to *pretend* that it’s this or that.
Likely?
“You’re not helping, you think this will help. We’ll take it from here, you’ll thank us, for not letting you Rutherford yourself”
Or…
“Have your press conference. You think things are bad now? You choose how much more bad you want this, and us mad too”
Or maybe this…
“Mighty nice office you have, would be a shame if you’d have to go thru a primary to keep it”
The silly of the “muzzle to retirement income”, my goodness, that’s playing small ball… with marbles.
- Petey L. - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 2:52 pm:
Extremely bad look, both for the Guv and Frerichs. Both know they want discussion and likely implementation of taxing retirement income, they just don’t want to be put on the spot.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 2:53 pm:
=== they want discussion and likely implementation of taxing retirement income, they just don’t want to be put on the spot.===
Only Frerichs does.
Can you cite where the Governor has?
Thanks.
- Jocko - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 2:54 pm:
==discussion and likely implementation of taxing retirement income==
I’d like to see the US Defense budget reduced by 75%. Both of these things are never going to happen.
- essentially working - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 2:59 pm:
I don’t think Frerichs is a bad guy. My guess is he wasn’t willing to completely lie and walk back his statement totally. He knows the truth. He is in a no win situation now; can’t be intellectually honest with the citizens without contradicting the “fair tax” advocates.
- Jibba - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 3:01 pm:
Personally, I like to see the top dog bark a little sometimes. Over the past 6 months, I think he has been too nice to people who really deserve a time out or a shut down.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 3:05 pm:
=== He knows the truth. He is in a no win situation now===
(Sigh)… this truth?
=== “One thing a progressive tax would do is make clear you can have graduated rates when you are taxing retirement income,” he said. “And, I think that’s something that’s worth discussion.”===
That’s the truth. Mike Frerichs stands tall for taxing retirement income. The rest isn’t this;
=== can’t be intellectually honest with the citizens without contradicting the “fair tax” advocates.===
No one is going to make taxing retirement income a thing, it’s, as Quentin Fulks told WCIA’s Mark Maxwell the reality about the prospects for a tax on retirement income. “It’s political suicide.”.
You have the play, why this phony way to make it seem worse, Frerichs already made it murky, something that’s an impossibility, taxing retirement income.
Poor politics.
- essentially working - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 3:15 pm:
I think, someone can correct me here, but what he said is factually true. Maybe not politically possible or wise today, but not an “impossibility”. Conventional wisdom at one point was that marijuana would never be legalized and promoted by the State. It was “impossible”, they didn’t have the votes, etc… Yet, here we are. The State needed the money.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 3:18 pm:
=== but not an “impossibility”===
Show your 71 and 36… by name.
=== Conventional wisdom at one point was that marijuana would never be legalized and promoted by the State. It was “impossible”, they didn’t have the votes===
How does Cannibis poll?
How does taxing retirement income poll?
Is/was cannibis the 3rd rail of Illinois politics?
- thechampaignlife - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 3:24 pm:
“The ‘cover up’ is worse than the crime.”
Obviously no crime here, and I support the amendment, but this issue is doing them no favors.
- jim - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 3:26 pm:
that’s a classic non-denial denial.
- Go Big - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 3:59 pm:
I am confident Frerichs regrets saying what he said out loud in public.
That said, the current President has said things that were not thought through, what, 25,000 times?
Not sure why the press conference would be cancelled. He said it once, walked it back, was prepared to walk it back again. Meh.
Should have probably held the press conference 45 days ago.
- retiree - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 4:09 pm:
=== How does taxing retirement income poll? ===
How does taxing only retirement income > $100K poll?
Pretty darn well, I’d guess. Not enough affected individuals to make it a “3rd rail.”
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 4:12 pm:
=== Pretty darn well, I’d guess.==
Narrator: They don’t know.
If you don’t know…
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 4:20 pm:
- retiree -
You find a poll on retirement income yet?
Thanks.
- 14th ward - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 4:21 pm:
It`s pritzker vs whitey herzog, the no vote is stealing this one base at a time, not good at this point
- Lincoln Lad - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 4:22 pm:
Seriously?
JB plans to tax the upper tier, AND retirees. Of course he does… NOT
Sadly, the misinformation being thrown at the elderly to get them to vote against the amendment is desperate, untrue, and likely has some chance at success. I’m not naive… untruths have always been part of the elective process. Haven’t we learned anything from the last 4 years? Is honor and integrity of no value? Say whatever it takes to try and win?
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 4:28 pm:
Ok, I’ll help.
From Rich’s column, posted here 2 days ago, October 5th, citing the Paul Simon Poll;
=== Those results weren’t all that different from the same poll’s question on whether Illinoisans supported a new state tax on retirement income. Seventy-three percent opposed it while 23 percent supported — a 50-point margin.===
- retiree - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 4:43 pm:
- Oswego -
Here’s the full passage:
“Anyway, the last time the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute polled Speaker Madigan’s job approval rating was last year. It found 71% disapproved of the way Madigan did his job while only 20% approved — a 51-point difference.
Those results weren’t all that different from the same poll’s question on whether Illinoisans supported a new state tax on retirement income. Seventy-three percent opposed it while 23 percent supported — a 50-point margin.”
You keep confusing the issue of taxing ALL retirement income with taxing only the “Pension Millionaires.” That’s what I’m talking about.
Have you seen any polls for that?
Thanks.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 4:47 pm:
=== You keep confusing the issue of taxing ALL retirement income with taxing only the “Pension Millionaires.” That’s what I’m talking about.===
That’s still not happening.
With polling over 70% against, you think you’re gonna move 30 points?
Hmmm
I don’t need another poll, I’m quite confused what you added or changed by bringing in the not-the-question Madigan part… but… if it makes you feel better.
:)
- Lucky Pierre - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 4:51 pm:
What tax to fill the 4 billion dollar deficit in next year’s budget does poll well?
Crickets
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 4:56 pm:
===What tax to fill the 4 billion dollar deficit in next year’s budget does poll well?===
The one that always polls well: The tax on someone else. Ergo, graduated income tax
- duck duck goose - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 4:59 pm:
The constitution doesn’t say anything about the taxation of retirement income. The constitutional amendment doesn’t address retirement income. The General Assembly doesn’t need a constitutional amendment to tax retirement income; it could pass a bill to do so tomorrow (if it were in session).
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 5:01 pm:
=== it could pass a bill to do so tomorrow (if it were in session).===
Why won’t it?
Would it be signed?
- retiree - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 5:07 pm:
=== I’m quite confused what you added or changed by bringing in the not-the-question Madigan part… ===
(Since you asked) Your quote made reference to “Those results weren’t all that different…” which could be interpreted as “Those results” being taxation on pension millionaires. I just wanted to clarify that it wasn’t the case.
just a minor clarification. Nothing to see here… keep moving. I’ll get back on my “turnip truck” and head down to “Facebook land’
- Teacher Lady - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 5:09 pm:
==The constitution doesn’t say anything about the taxation of retirement income==
The constitution begs to differ:
Pension Protection Clause of the Illinois Constitution–
“Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.”
Taxing THIS retirement income has been found, by the Illinois State Supreme Court, to be diminishing the benefits.
Without ANOTHER constitutional amendment to get rid of the pension clause, state pensions are NOT taxable.
STATE pensions are the pension debt.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 5:14 pm:
=== which could be interpreted as “Those results” being taxation on pension millionaires. I just wanted to clarify that it wasn’t the case.===
Did you… read… the column?
How about the title of the post?
=== The Republicans have another weapon as powerful as “Madigan“===
The weapon is…
=== “One thing a progressive tax would do is make clear you can have graduated rates when you are taxing retirement income,” Treasurer Michael Frerichs, a Democrat, told the Daily Herald back in June. “And, I think that’s something that’s worth discussion.”
Frerichs’ quote has opened the door to House Republican attack mailers in numerous districts against Democrats who voted “Yes” on the graduated income tax last year and also against Democratic House candidates in general.===
… using the threat of taxing retirement.
Like;
===… “Her Springfield pals admit the amendment would open the door to a brand-new tax on retirement income. That means your pension, your 401(k) plan, and your retirement plan would be taxed and sent straight to Springfield.”===
$2… $2,000… $200K… the weapon is taxing retirement.
It’s all good. I’m only clarifying as well.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 5:15 pm:
Teacher Lady 5:09- pension experts I have read are generally in agreement that taxing retirement income, including state pensions, would pass a constitutional challenge as long as the tax were applied equitably across all income, instead of being targeting specifically at state/university/teacher pensions.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 8:44 pm:
=== I am confident Frerichs regrets saying what he said out loud in public.
That said, the current President has said things that were not thought through, what, 25,000 times?===
lol, if you need to compare Frerichs to Trump to prop up Frerichs, that’s admitting how bad this is.
The Governor saved Frerichs from himself.
They can’t stop Frerichs saying he’s open to discussion on retirement income.
It’s who Frerichs is now, the person open to discussing taxing retirement income.
- Very informed. - Thursday, Oct 8, 20 @ 7:22 am:
Really enjoying the Oswego Willy blog today. The only guy in Illinois with all the answers, all the time.
- SIU - Thursday, Oct 8, 20 @ 8:23 am:
- Very informed.
Amen
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 8, 20 @ 8:35 am:
- Very informed. -… - SIU -
Can’t add to the debate?
Can’t be that Very Informed.
Trolling - SIU -, again? Hmm.
Be well, stay safe, wear masks.