Why is Ose Hiding Behind Per Diem? Team Ose thinks State Reps that accept Per Diem are Crooks (Note to Cox/Niello/LaMalfa)
Posted by: Aaron Park | 05/11/2008 5:22 PM
UPDATE - I will be calling Niello's office tomorrow to confirm the anon comment below - Niello is reported to be qualified for an Ose exemption because he does not take per diem.
That's correct. Ose has given himself another $700,000 to continue his barrage against Tom McClintock. You have to know that the Per Diem attacks are going to continue.
Ose Lifetime 62% from Citizens Against Government Waste - one of the worst Republican Scores.
The cornerstone of his campaign has been to attack Tom McClintock, (and his blog moonbats have parroted the rhetoric about...) the resident Evil of accepting Per Diem.
He is a crook because he lives in Elk Grove and is taking tax free per diem. Yet, at the same time Ose is attacking him for being from Southern California. Mean time, his anon commenters ignore the contradiction.
Tim Leslie got tax free Per-Diem for years while living in Carmichael and being registered in Tahoe City. I guess Tim Leslie is a crook, too.
Slight Problem - the National Taxpayer's Union endorsed Tom McClintock. They would never endorse someone who was taking our money illegally. (Ose was back in DC calling McClintock a felon btw...)
118 of 120 members take per diem. The two that don't can not - as their districts include the Capitol Building in them. (Dave Jones and Darrel Steinberg)
However, Doug LaMalfa takes per diem, Roger Niello Takes per diem, Dave Cox takes per diem.
Ahhh... but they both have only one residence. Ted Gaines - one residence... Rick Keene and Sam Aanestad, one residence, but they rented a house from Rico Oller for a few years. Are Keene and Aanestad gaming the system by renting a full-time residence while taking their checks tax free? LaMalfa does it, too... they all have to be crooks according to Doug Ose.
The only exemption is if you give the Per Diem to charity - (working kinda like Kirk Uhler's "slush fund") - then you're not a crook. Only Ose can determine weather you qualify for an exemption from being a per diem crook - like the Liberal he is, he gets to determine how that money is spent in order to qualify you for an exemption.
Why has Ose made this such an issue? Why has Ose obsessively focused on Per Diem knowing that he would get hit over taking over twice as much in Farm Subsidies? Ose must have figured that he could shock and awe his opponents with his wealth, endorsement club and withering attacks. Ose's supporters have also been as single-minded (as this blogger is accused of) in desperately trying to press home the Per Diem issue.
Ose is trying to hide his:
32% lifetime score from National Right to Life
48% lifetime score from the Eagle Forum
(Both have endorsed McClintock)
Andal tried to use Per Diem against McClintock in 2002. Andal and Ose have the same consultant - so there is no original thought going into today's campaign. In fact, that consultant may have been playing fast and loose with campaign finance laws.
Now team Ose is forced to continue the Per Diem attacks because their foray into Tom's voting record reveals McClintock opposing money-wasting resolutions and opposing bonds.
But wait - McClintock was the only vote against this resolution about base closures. McClintock was outspoken about the waste of money and how the resolution would do nothing to fix the problem - but it will make a nice hit piece for Ose to spend some more money on, won't it?
Again - this requires deception in campaign attack ads, where half-baked research breeds half baked attacks.
What is irrefutable is Ose's contempt for our values in the 4th CD.
His MainStreet Partnership letter deriding Right Wing Fringe Groups - his radio comment about "Philosophical Angels on the Head of a Pin"... show Ose's soul. His despicable character attacks against McClintock show that he can not campaign on issues and the issues will ultimately take Ose apart.
55% from Federation for Immigration Reform (again, a horrid score for a Republican) - Ose's response? To Get Pete Wilson to say that McClintock is lying - news flash, Wilson hates McClintock because McClintock led the opposition to his tax increases when he was Governor.
Lifetime D+ from the NRA? Go buy a life membership and watch the NRA endorse Tom McClintock.
Lifetime 52% from the Republican Liberty Caucus
Lifetime 55% from the Family Research Council - one of the worst Republicans again.
As Doug Ose continues his egomaniacal barrage against Tom McClintock he provides a great backdrop for a quote to finish this post with...
Teddy Roosevelt said, "the only thing worse than hardness of heart is softness of brain".
At recent debates - team Ose has been ridiculing the Citizens Against Government Waste Earmark Reform Pledge - commonly referred to the "No Earmarks" pledge.
Ose voted $800,000 for a Red Ant Farm, and he thinks Earmark Reform is silly. ($604K in Farm Subsidies be dammed...)
FYI, Niello does NOT take the per diem.
Aaron,
You have confused all these future McClintock voters with way to many facts: They seem to only be able to handle one thing at a time.
They want to discuss per diem: Fine, when is Mr. Ose going to return the more than $600,000 in farm subsidies that HE admitted it was not right for him to take?
John
Looks like the per diem charge has really hit a nerve. Aaron devoted 835 words in the above post to the subject and apparently still didn't get his facts straight in the case of Niello. The rest of the post is an attempt at redirection, referencing small amounts of pork attached to spending measures that most Republicans voted for and which could not be amended.
Nobody--most notably Tom McClintock--has explained why Tom McClintock took per diem he didn't need. They haven't explained why Tom has never offered a bill to change the rules for per diem so that payments require proof of need or proof of actual living-cost expenditures, a bill that would have been entirely consistent with his "principles". No, he just took the money. Some have posted here that he did it because he's a "family man" but if that were true he should have just taken a job that doesn't require that he either live 400 miles from his family or maintain two residences.
This issue is McClintock's Achilles Heel, his fatal flaw. He cannot reconcile taking that money with his principled stands against government spending and waste. That's why Ose keeps pounding on it.
There is simply no explanation possible that fits the facts and makes him look good.
Isn't it funny how single minded they are? On Friday Eric Hogue said that it's because Ose's camp recognizes it as a powerful attack on McClintock. He was partially right: it's Ose's best argument against Tom.
Where Eric was wrong, however, is that he didn't recognize the other half of the equation: It's Ose's best argument, but it's his only argument.
If Ose had better arguments to make on the issues, he'd be making them. But he can't hit Tom on the issues, because Tom is unassailable in his support of conservative values. So, he resorts to the single attack he can make: per diem. It's not a argument that will win him the 4th CD, because the voters aren't going to oppose Tom because he's not a rich politician sucking off his daddy's teat.
At the end of the day, the voters will elect a person on the issues, not on confustications.
I'm not sure what confustications are, but voters won't like Tom on veteran's issues, either. Or his track record for not getting anything done.
Bob - we will leave that attack up to you and Charlie to see if you can get voters to elect a Nancy Pelosi stooge to congress.
In the Mean time - you have got to be enjoying the fact that Ose is feeding you stuff to attack McClintock on in the fall.
You know what I find way more annoying than per diem??? As I watching the last couple of debates, Doug Ose couldn't help but point out that he "flew home to his family" all but 8 weekends out of the six years in congress. My worry is that "we" the tax payers had to pay for his costly flights home. Please someone tell me that tax payers did not have to foot the bill on ALL those flights. YIKES that is mighty expensive. And that would be something much worse than per diem!
Those costs are the responsibility of the member. Sometimes, it's nice to be a millionaire.
The NTU also opposes logging in Alaska. Which way will Tom side?
Sorry Bob, those costs are all born by the taxpayer!
John
John,
You are right; this time I did my homework. Members of Congress get a budget and can spend it fairly flexibly on staff, offices, communications, travel and the like. So if the member decides to travel home frequently then he will have to cut back in other areas or pay for some of the costs out of his or her own pocket.