Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Our latest headlines

About Us

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Books

California Congressional District 4: Mr. Limited Government, Tom McClintock, At the Trough Taking $306,000 of Public Money

By David Dayen
d-day

This is going to leave a mark.

Tom McClintock, California's Alan Keyes, is supposed to be this rock-ribbed conservative who never voted for a budget and who rails against "wasteful spending." I guess it's OK if it's McClintock doing the wasting:

“State Sen. Tom McClintock, a fierce critic of government spending, has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax-free per diem payments from the state that are meant to help legislators who, unlike McClintock, live far from the capital.

“The Republican lawmaker said he is entitled to the $170-a-day payments because his legal residence is a family home in his Senate district of Thousand Oaks, where he is registered to vote.

“McClintock and his family live year-round in Elk Grove, 14 miles from the state Capitol. He moved to the Sacramento suburb in 1996, when he was elected to the state Assembly, and he bought a five-bedroom, 4,090-square-foot home in 2004. His children attend Elk Grove schools and his wife works at a Baptist church there.

“The intent of the payments is to help defray the living costs of lawmakers attending the eight-month legislative session far from their homes.

“Legal experts say McClintock is taking advantage of a loophole that gives him a right to the tax-free payments even though he lives near the Capitol.

“"This certainly strikes me as an example of the abuse of the per diem system," said Derek Cressman, government watchdog director for California Common Cause.”

Honestly, this is going to KILL McClintock. His entire rationale is as a critic of government spending. For him to show hypocrisy on this issue undermines his entire argument. Nobody is more at risk on something like this than he is. Not to mention the fact that this kind of looks like he's been carpetbagging in his own district all along, when in fact he's a creature of the capital.

We're talking about $306,000 in TAX-FREE per diem money over the last eight years, on top of his $116,000 annual salary. Whaddya know - Tom McClintock is a welfare recipient. Charlie Brown's campaign wasted no time capitalizing on this.
"For 30 years, Tom McClintock has railed against government spending while living well at taxpayer expense," said Todd Stenhouse, a spokesman for Democratic congressional candidate Charlie Brown, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel.

McClintock's spin, that he's "entitled" to the money to help defray the cost of a second home, isn't going to fly. Tom McClintock arguing for an entitlement?

Meanwhile, Charlie Brown is getting great press in the district, just this week presenting $17,500 in donation money to nonprofit groups servicing veterans. Quite a contrast.

Dave is a writer, comedian and TV/film editor based in Santa Monica. He is an elected member of the Democratic State Central Committee from the 41st Assembly District. He blogs on state and national politics at http://d-day.blogspot.com/

Posted on March 23, 2008

Comments

I support Charlie Brown, but I don't buy this criticism against McClintock. Per diem is a flat rate paid to anyone who has to maintain a second residence, and he has to. It doesn't matter if he lives primarily in Sacramento or not. One residence is in Thousand Oaks, the other is in Sacramento, and he's entitled to reimbursement of the costs of maintaining a second home

Posted by: Ben at March 23, 2008 10:50 AM

I don't know what the big deal is? McClintock is doing nothing illegal here and is completely within the scope of the law. Why would you want to pay more in taxes when you don't have to?

Posted by: Matt at March 24, 2008 09:37 AM

There have been a few comments here that need to be responded to.

First of all, this is not a question of paying less taxes—this involves the acceptance of hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money—from the California treasury to his pocket.

Secondly, according to a Ventura County (which he putatively represented in the State Senate) blog, Brian Dennert here:
http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/vcs/dennert/archives/2008/03/tom_mcclintock_2.html

“Now, all of this would be entirely ethical if he has to pay the bills on two homes. The article does say that his Thousand Oaks legal residence is owned by a family trust and his mother lives there.

“If he owned the Thousand Oaks home and would live there except for the fact he is working in Sacramento then all of this is a moot point. If he is spending money to live in Sacramento that he would otherwise not have to spend ( Because he would be living in the Thousand Oaks home) then I understand the reason behind taking the tax free money.

“Is that the case? Did he ever live there?

“Otherwise, Tom McClintock has found a loophole to enrich himself at taxpayers' expense. Which, for a smaller budget crusader would be very hypocritical.”

Posted by: Frank D. Russo at March 24, 2008 11:14 AM

We haven't forgotten how Democratic Speaker Fabian Nunez recently bought a $1.2 million dollar home in Sacramento while "representing the poor" down in LA have we?

Is it possible his "loophole" is the same one McClintock is using? Or is Fabian just spending some of those campaign contributions on himself again?

After all, Fabian got $3 million in campaign contributions for his last election...when he ran against NO ONE (why give campaign money to someone who is a shoe in? What are you "buying"?)

Course, gotta spend that campaign cash; use it or lose it...

Posted by: Jay Gould at March 24, 2008 02:40 PM

Frank,

Couldn't help but notice after further pondering that your blog-post here is trying to "condem" McClintock on just suppositions (also known as "well, IF this, then that..." Emphasis on the word IF)

I assumed as a lawyer you wouldn't speculate on the "guilt" of anyone unless it was based on FACTS. There are none here as the article and your blog-post alludes to. But, you had to lay that political ground work (mud slinging)regardless didn't you?

Thus, we have left here merely gossip at best to political-propaganda verses the opposition party at worst and at any cost to logic or truth. Looks like the latter from here...

As an aside, I'll take your baseless allegations/innuendos on McClintock to compare verses Nunez as described above any day!

Posted by: Jay Gould at March 24, 2008 08:36 PM

Lets examine how Dayen goes about living and representing two palces at once. I'm sure he wouldn't take the dough to help pay the bills. Tom is more respectable than most regular people let alone politicians.
That's all. Im out.
Go Tom!

Posted by: Lucas at May 5, 2008 01:06 PM

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker