Thanks, Aaron, for your post.

I did a little research. Some fact checking, if you will.

Your post--and the original by Tom Hudson--are full of holes.

Point One - Brown claims that McClintock is getting paid during the State's budget impasse. Tom Hudson and Aaron say that is false. But the ONLY evidence that I can find after an extremely thorough search that says that McClintock is not getting paid is Tom Hudson's post on the Placer County Republican Party website. Hudson claims that Aanestad, Cox and McClintock are all not getting paid. If so there is no evidence in the public domain to support this statement. The lawmakers say nothing about it on their own official web pages. There is nothing in the news or in blogs or anywhere, for that matter, except Tom Hudson's after-the fact attack on Brown's e-mail and Aaron's reguritation of it, above. So if these guys weren't accepting their salaries there is no way Brown would have known about it.
placergop.org/articles/2008/08/18/brown-launches-deceptive-attack-on-mcclintock/

Like the China-Cuba connection Republicans are quick to jump on a rumor and try to drum it into facts. The fact is the governor would like to see lawmakers pay stopped to force resolution of the budget impasse but the law does not require it:

Sac Bee, August 7, 2008:
"With little leverage over either Democrats or Republicans, Schwarzenegger is searching for ways to pressure lawmakers into swift resolution, even wishing out loud Wednesday the state could eliminate pay for lawmakers once they miss their budget deadline, with no back wages owed."
sacbee.com/111/story/1138640.html

Point Two - Brown claims that McClintock is doing nothing (not doing his job). Well, McClintock is a state lawmaker and lawmakers are supposed to pass budgets on time. Republican lawmakers have killed spending bills presented by Democrats. The only reasonable read of the situation is that Republicans refuse to do their job because the budget cannot be balanced through spending cuts alone. So this point is a matter of perception and Brown is perfectly within his rights to assert that McClintock is not doing his job.

But maybe McClintock is a little distracted with other things and not really focused on the job he is paid to do. Let's look at McClintock's campaign calendar for a moment. Darn! It's not there anymore--except in Google cache. He shut down the calendar feature on his website after July 31, apparently. Let's see, maybe there's something in his press releases. Yes! tommcclintock.com/press-releases/ Hmmm...McClintock is doing a lot of things BESIDES working on the budget. The State has no budget and Tom McClintock is out campaigning.

This is the same guy who has criticized Democratic lawmakers at the federal level for taking an August recess without acting on an energy bill. How hypocritical is that? Why is Tom's campaign calendar gone? Maybe Tom doesn't want us to know how much time he is spending campaigning when he should be out working on the budget impasse. It sounds like he really isn't doing his job. At least a reasonable person could come to that conclusion.

Point Three - So what?

Point Four - Tell us how specific McClintock is on ANYTHING? Go to his campaign web page for issues and you'll virtually nothing specific. His many energy postings amount to the same simple plan: Drill. He has no answer for America's long-term energy problem.

Point Five - Ose was himself a carpetbagger. Charlie Brown isn't and this is the general election where Independents and Democrats need to be educated about Tom McClintock's job shopping. Don't think Tom's SoCal roots won't be an issue in this campaign. 46% of Republican primary voters did not vote for Tom McClintock.

I would be happy to retract my statements on Point One if someone could post a McClintock pay stub showing he is not getting paid. Or even a statement from McClintock himself that he is not getting paid. Make sure to show how long he has not been paid. And show that he is not getting paid because he voluntarily refused his pay (which is how it sounds in Hudson's post) and not because lawmakers don't get paid during scheduled recess periods anyway (like teachers in the summer).

Bob

Did a little more thinking...

Maybe what Tom Hudson means is that Tom McClintock has FINALLY agreed to stop receiving his per diem payments as a token gesture toward resolving the budget impasse. Maybe that's what Hudson means when he says McClintock isn't getting paid.

and more...

What does Tom say about the budget?

Quote
Fiscal conservatives like Sen. Tom McClintock said interest groups are to blame for the growth of state bureaucracy.

"Who screams the loudest?" said McClintock, a Republican who is vying to replace Rep. John Doolittle in Congress. "The man who stands to gain $500 or the man who stands to lose 5 cents?"
Unquote
http://www.sacbee.com/391/story/1112185.html

How about the man who stands to gain $300,000 and who has accepted campaign contributions from a wide range of special interest groups?

Quote
"The state is running out of money. That is no bluff. That is mathematical fact," said state Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks (Ventura County). "I wish (the governor) sounded this alarm a year or two years ago. If we had addressed this earlier, we wouldn't be in this mess."
Unquote
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/24/MN0B11V432.DTL&type=politics

Maybe if Tom had refused his per diem pay we wouldn't be in this mess. Pretty hypocritical, Tom.

Bob - since it was the Brown campaign that lied about Tom McClintock's paycheck. It is the Brown campaign that is going to have to retract their statement or prove otherwise.

I did my homework - now do yours.

You lied again - the recess taken by the state legislature was a majority vote. Since Dems are the majority, they can vote themselves a break whenever they want.

You are starting to hemmorage. Calling on McClintock to support tax increases and a lousy budget is pretty desperate.

You Wrote: "Republican lawmakers have killed spending bills presented by Democrats. The only reasonable read of the situation is that Republicans refuse to do their job because the budget cannot be balanced through spending cuts alone. So this point is a matter of perception and Brown is perfectly within his rights to assert that McClintock is not doing his job."

Bob - you just set yourself and Charlie Brown on fire. Thanks for the assistance. You shoulda stuck to priuses and wrapping yourself in the flag.

The rest of your responses are deflection - which tells me that the Placer GOP hit their target. Charlie Brown supports tax increases and is now resorting to cheap shots to try and score points.

First

Aaron, you start out reasonably well in your most recent comment, but then you slide down into nutsoville at the end. Less is more. I have suggested those who wear (R)s on their Letterman's jacket help but you with being more to the point. Either they are not interested or you are hiding out from them. One of them took a shot at you yesterday about your "analysis". I re-extend an offer you an offer to learn online

Secondly

I will give you a freebie as a token of my integrity. Go to:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/sacramento/388314-how-do-you-feel-about-governors.html

The monsy quote for you is:

"• State lawmakers, legislative staff, constitutional officers and their appointed staff don't get paid at all until a budget is in place. They recover those missed paychecks and per diems as soon as a spending plan passes."

Thirdly

Look at that quote and assume it is the real deal. Brown is "wrong" in his verb tense. He is "right" if he changes the verb to future tense. McClintock is not getting paid now, but "will" recoup every penny after the budget bill is passed.

In summary

Going to nutsoville may be of some gratification to you, but it is an indulgence that stunts your growth as an effective political surrogate. It's like your parents scolding you for smoking ciggies. "They stunt your growth, Aaron"

You show flashes of promise. But undisciplined talent is worthless.

Your friend

Lee

Aaron,

So you are saying that state legislators don't get paid during a recess? That's funny...that's not what the State's own web site says. It says lawmakers are paid an annual salary. It does not say how the salary is paid out but it's probably every two weeks like every other state worker. See below.

Now, back to your original blog post. You said:

"Point One - Brown falsely claims (aka lies) that McClintock is getting paid while there is no budget."

That statement is absolutely untrue. McClintock IS getting paid. He has not refused his pay (or made no informationpublic if he has) and California legislators are paid during recesses.

So your main point was false unless you have some evidence to the contrary. You are posting garbage and then attacking people who point out that your information stinks.

Bob

http://guidetogov.org/ca/state/overview/legislative.html#13

Quote
How much are legislators paid in salary and expenses?

The California legislature is almost a full-time body. Lawmakers receive an annual salary and reimbursement on a per diem, or per day, basis for travel and living expenses in connection with their official duties. The salary levels are set by the California Citizens Compensation Commission. The independent commission was created by the passage of Proposition 112 in 1990. Proposition 112 also banned elected officials from accepting honoraria (i.e., speaking fees) ,limited the value of gifts they can receive from special interests, and prohibited them from lobbying their former colleagues for a year after leaving office.

In 1991, the commission established the annual income for all elective members in state government. In 1992, the annual salary for a state legislator was $52,500; majority and minority floor leaders each receive $57,750, :and, the speaker of the Assembly and the Senate president pro tempore each receive $63,000.

The State Board of Control sets the level of per diem paid to the legislature. In 1992, the per diem allowance for living expenses while on legislative business was raised from $92 to $100 per day. A legislator is eligible for living expenses for each day spent on state business in Sacramento. A specific request must be made for living expenses for official time spent outside of Sacramento.

Each legislator also receives $5,400 or 90 percent, whichever is less, towards a state-leased automobile, allowances for postage, expenses in district offices, and mileage on personal cars. The state pays commercial transportation costs and expenses for cars owned or leased by the state.
Unquote

Lee,

From my research the pay deferral you outline is what the governor would like to have but it is NOT the law right now. Legislator's are getting paid throughout the year no matter what happens with the budget based on what I could find.

Bob

Either way, though, McClintock is getting paid. It's especially disengenuous for Hudson to imply in his post that Aanestad, Cox and McClintock have taken the step voluntarily.

Bob! Keep digging, I am loving this! Next thing you know, you'll on vacation looking at the Chineese Rig off the Coast of Cuba!

Brown was wrong in his verb tense - but he gets a free pass by you guys.

McClintock was wrong in his verb tense - shoulda said were drilling or will be drilling. Because there was drilling off of Cuba in 2006 and there was drilling exploratory wells in 2006 and 2007... and there will be drilling in 2009.

But what is totally irrefutable is this:

You Wrote: "Republican lawmakers have killed spending bills presented by Democrats. The only reasonable read of the situation is that Republicans refuse to do their job because the budget cannot be balanced through spending cuts alone. So this point is a matter of perception and Brown is perfectly within his rights to assert that McClintock is not doing his job."

Team Brown thinks that we need to raise taxes, not cut programs to balance the budget. End of story - there's your news!

"Bob" and "Lee",

Your arguments are complete cheap shots, skirting an issue that you and your candidate do not want to address. First, McClintock is not to blame for the budget. Go look up how many votes he has missed. I don't see many. What has Brown done that is so great to help with with fixing the budget. 0, nothing, zip. The only thing Brown has been spending his time on is campaigning, using Pelosi rhetoric and cheap shots. And, when he actually has a chance to help out on the energy crisis, what does he do? Sits back and does absolutely nothing.
Secondly, Tom is a state senator, and rightfully should be paid for the work he does. Don't attack McClintock because he can't work with Democrats who just want to increase taxes so they can keep spending and spending on useless and wasteful programs. The state is in this mess due to overspending. Period. Care to take a shot at what the solution might be? Cut spending. Want to know Brown's solution? Raise taxes, and keep up the spending. That's not how to make things better. There's a huge difference between these two candidates, and the voters know it. You can't hide Charlie Brown's worthless track record, and try and paint McClintock as somebody he is not when he has proven himself time and time again as a fiscally conservative politician.

Jimmy Hanson

I am glad to meet your acquaintance. Stick around awhile and maybe we can have a Civil Discussion such as Pastor Rick Warren wants for America.

Shalom

Lee

PS...you need not put my name in "quotes". Lee Reed is my real name.

Jeremy,

Cheap shots? Tom Hudson, the Chairman of the Placer County Republican Party accused the Brown campaign of lying in an e-mail sent to supporters. When it turns out that Hudson was the guy who has his facts wrong (as megaphoned by Aaron) you have the gall to accuse Lee and me of "cheap shots"?

Here's what Aaron posted:

"Point One - Brown falsely claims (aka lies) that McClintock is getting paid while there is no budget"

That statement is false. McClintock and all legislators get paid IN FULL even if they don't pass a budget. What Lee posted above (and linked to) is proposed, it's not law. The governor wants to pay every state employee the minimum wage until a budget is passed Once the budget is passed he would then pay them the balance of their regular salaries over and above the minimum wage. He ordered that action on July 31st but the state comptroller is refusing to comply saying the order is illegal. The governor's office is apparently suing the comptroller to comply.

You guys just can't stand it when somebody takes the time to fact-check your stuff. Brown's statements were true; Hudson and Park's were not.

And why should Brown work on the state budget? It's not his responsibility. That's McClintock's job. He is an informal leader within the California Republican Party which has been successful in PREVENTING a budget from passing. The answer--inevitably--will have to be a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Hopefully more of the former than the latter. But to think that all of the balancing will come on the backs of state programs forgets that these programs affect real people including kids. Tax increases also affect real people--including kids.

The legislature should be ashamed of itself for drawing such bright lines in the sand on both sides of the aisle. The solution will be a compromise. If McClintock won't compromise then he is not doing his job. We don't need someone like that in the State Senate and we don't need someone like that to represent us in Congress.

There certainly are huge differences between the candidates, Jeremy. Too bad you are too stuck in partisan politics to notice that it's your guy with the deficiencies. McClintock took $300,000 in payments from the state he didn't need. As far as I know he is still collecting unnecessary per diem. How does that make him a "fiscally conservative politician"?

Bob

And Bob is my real name.

Sorry Jeremy, I am a geezer who will turn 69 after midnight. My eyesight is going bad on me. I read you as "Jimmy"

again, do stick around

Wow- You libs really are Dumb-

No person who is paid by the state gets a paycheck when there is no budget.

That means NO SENATOR, NO ASSEMBLYMAN, NO STAFFER, NO COUNTY GETS A CHECK, NO CITY GETS A CHECK, and NO SCHOOL GETS A CHECK. NO ONE GETS PAID! They do not get a check until the budget is passed.

Way to go Tom McClintock!

Hold up the budget and fight the Liberal Democrat's Tax Increase. California does not need another $7+ Billion in new tax increases. I know my family can't afford it- How about you Bob and Lee- you good to pay another few billion to the bureaucrats?

Charlie must not be a friend of law enforcement if he wants McClintock to vote for this budget. The Democrat’s budget would be one of the largest cuts to frontline police the state has ever made. Every Sheriff’s office in the district would be forced to layoff deputies.

James,

Yeah, people who don't agree with you must really be dumb. But this dumb guy found the following information on the question of whether the state is making payments right now or not:

Here's what the governor ordered:
http://gov.ca.gov/issue/state-budget/
It's a freeze on payments and reduction in salaries to constitutional minimums (which are not zero).

Here's the status of the order:
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1149312.html
The governor has sued the State Controller, John Chiang, to comply. Chiang has refused to comply. The state is still making payments to employees and to creditors.

If you have anything that differs from this information please provide references. This is the best I could find. But it disputes what you posted.

Bob

James,

Your post is completely inconsistent. On the one hand you say:

"Hold up the budget and fight the Liberal Democrat's Tax Increase. California does not need another $7+ Billion in new tax increases."

which means, with a $15 billion budget shortfall, that there needs to be $15 billion in spending cuts.

Then you say:

"The Democrat’s budget would be one of the largest cuts to frontline police the state has ever made. Every Sheriff’s office in the district would be forced to layoff deputies."

Well, no s**t, Sherlock. Without new revenue you need to cut $15 billion out of a total of about $101 billion. There will have to be cuts everywhere including law enforcement to close such a huge gap.

You can't have it both ways.

Bob

Aaron

How do we treat you for the Bush-Cheney disease, aka shootzia insa footzie disease.

Well, you know something about contract bridge. You said something like it is a very complex game. And indeed it is.

Since getting back into the game 3 years ago, I focused far more on declarer play. My thoughts have been that expert declarer play can take care of a multitude of bidding sins.

The mantra about declarer play is to stop and take time to think out how you want to play the whole hand when the dummy comes down. Many, many contracts have been lost because one has played too quickly to the first trick without thinking the whole thing through.

Bush, Cheney, and you go about trick grabbing at the beginning and come up short at the end. There was a character in a fictional series about "Bridge in the Menagerie" by Victor Mollo who was named Rueful Rabbit. He was the unplanful bridge player who ruefully looked over at partner and said:

"Sorry partner" when he made a mess of an ice cold contract because he played too quickly to the first trick...

What are friends for, eh Aaron

Lee

7NT, Lee!