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?  

Hilarious.

It is well-known that, shortly after elements of President Bush’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program was divulged by the New York Times in December 2005, Rep. Jane Harman wasn’t happy.  She went on Meet The Press shortly thereafter and blasted the paper for leaking the details.  But we did not know that she actively sought to cover up contents of the program PRIOR to the Pulitzer Prize-winning story.

Eric Lichtblau, who along with James Risen broke the story, has a new book coming out which details the wrangling between the NYT and the Administration which caused a one-year delay in the revelation of the warrantless wiretapping program in the press.  During that time, Lichtblau ran into Jane Harman in the Capitol.

In his book, Lichtblau tells how a few months after the story was held, he happened to be covering a House hearing where he heard Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) argue passionately for stronger civil liberties safeguards in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

Lichtblau saw this as an opportunity to question Harman about the warrantless wiretapping program, since Harman, as a member of the “gang of eight,” was one of the four Democrats who’d been briefed on it. He writes:

I approached Harman with notepad in hand and told her that I’d been involved in our reporting the year before on the NSA eavesdropping program. “I’m trying to square what I heard in there,” I said, “with what we know about that program.” Harman’s golden California tan turned a brighter shade of red. She knew exactly what I was talking about. Shooing away her aides, she grabbed me by the arm and drew me a few feet away to a more remote section of the Capitol corridor.

“You should not be talking about that here,” she scolded me in a whisper. “They don’t even know about that,” she said, gesturing to her aides, who were now looking on at the conversation with obvious befuddlement. “The Times did the right thing by not publishing that story,” she continued. I wanted to understand her position. What intelligence capabilities would be lost by informing the public about something the terrorists already knew – namely, that the government was listening to them? I asked her. Harman wouldn’t bite. “This is a valuable program, and it would be compromised,” she said. I tried to get into some of the details of the program and get a better understanding of why the administration asserted that it couldn’t be operated within the confines of the courts. Harman wouldn’t go there either. “This is a valuable program,” she repeated. This was clearly as far as she was willing to take the conversation, and we didn’t speak again until months later, after the NSA story had already run. By then, Harman’s position had undergone a dramatic transformation. When the story broke publicly, she was among the first in line on Capitol Hill to denounce the administration’s handling of the wiretapping program, declaring that what the NSA was doing could have been done under the existing FISA law.

What comes through in this exchange is that the elites in Washington have far more fealty to each other than the public.  Harman has come around; she argued strongly against the program and was one of the leaders in the House fight to amend FISA responsibly last week.  Now we’re seeing a likely stalemate on that issue, and George Bush is almost certain not to get what he desperately wants, amnesty for the telecom companies and a rejection of the lawsuits against them which could reveal even more about the program.

Still, we have this portrait of Harman, eager to cover up, convinced that what she is told must stay secret has to stay secret, untrained in the Constitution enough to see that warrantless wiretapping is unnecessary under FISA and in defiance of the Fourth Amendment.  It’s relieving a bit that the past few years, with the help of the blogosphere, have given many in the Congress an education on the document they swear to uphold and defend.  It’s also completely sad.

So you expect a couple of conservative bitter-enders like KFI shock jocks John and Ken to depict Italian-American Don Perata as a Mafia boss.  Slightly less expected was that the same graphic would make its way onto local news in Sacramento.  

A televised graphic depicting Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata as an apparent Mafia leader, pointing a gun skyward, has angered Italian-Americans.

Bill Cerruti, who is chairman of a state Italian-American task force and leader of the Italian-American Cultural Society, blasted the characterization today and demanded an apology.

The graphic, depicting Perata in a purple suit and white tie, was broadcast by Sacramento’s KOVR 13 – with anchor Chris Burrous – and on the website of talk-show hosts “John and Ken” of KFI radio in Los Angeles, Cerruti said.

Burrous goes on to blast Perata for suggesting the state raise taxes to help balance the state budget.

Yes, anyone who doesn’t want to see thousands of teachers fired and elderly people denied health care is most certainly a gangster.

I’m not wired for outrage, so you tell me if this slur is beyond the pale or not.  What I do know and expect is that the Denham recall will provide plenty more opportunities for the “Don” Perata slur to manifest itself, and the dead-ender anti-tax forces running his recall opposition campaign are not likely to disappoint.  Hopefully they have Perata shoot bullets from a Tommy gun into their “No on the Recall” logo!  Hey guys, pay me for that idea before you use it!

UPDATE: I’ve got a transcript:

Chris: Got a new outrage alert for you this morning, and I think you’ll enjoy this graphic, Stephanie.

Don Perata. [laughter] You know, he’s termed out. He’s going to lose his job here in a couple months and now he is calling for a major tax increase. He’s trying to make you worry that the school…

Stephanie: That’s hilarious.

Chris: Isn’t that a great one. [laughter] I can’t stand him.

Stephanie: Nice purple suit.

Chris: He’s trying to scare you in saying the schools are going to go bankrupt, and your kids are going to be in classrooms with 50 students each, if we do not increase taxes.

Chris: Watch for him to do this major tax push. He’s already got Governor Schwarzenegger considering raising money by closing tax loopholes. So watch out. If you benefit from some of those loopholes. Don “The Don” Perata and his Ram Charger already have Governor Schwarzenegger…

Stephanie: Is that what that was?

Chris: Isn’t it the Ram Charger? Or the Viper?

Stephanie: I guess. I don’t…

Chris: He’s the one. Remember, Don Perata’s the one who got carjacked over in the Bay Area…

Stephanie: Sure.

Chris: …with the 22 inch dubs or something like that on his car.

Stephanie: Mmm hmm.

Chris: I don’t know what they call it, but I thought that was a great graphic. That’s from radio station KFI. That is Don Perata.

Stephanie: Very nice.

Chris: That’s his reputation. The valour suit is a nice touch.

Stephanie: Yes, and a shade of purple or violet, whatever you call it. It is a nice touch as well.

Chris: Nice. Gotta watch out. This guy wants to raise your taxes. That’s the thing. He’s out of office in a couple more months. Why don’t you just lay low? Take a couple lunches? Write a book like Willie Brown or something? But instead, he’s going to try and stick it to us one last time before he gets out of a job.

I didn’t know the CBS morning news was drive-time community college talk radio.

This is a pretty big deal.  I really hadn’t been paying much attention to this recall possibility, but it’s come to fruition.  There have only been 8 other recall elections of sitting state legislators to qualify for the ballot in the past 90 years.  Jeff Denham becomes the ninth.

The recall attempt of Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Atwater, has gathered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen announced Tuesday.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger must set the recall election for a date 60 to 80 days from today, Bowen’s office reports.

Once the Governor sets the date, (it seems almost certain that he’ll pick June 3, which is 77 days away and also the day of the statewide primary) candidates can emerge.  And given Sen. Perata’s interest in this race, I think we’ll see some strong Democrats contest this seat, unlike the somewhat shameful behavior in SD-15, where apparently Abel Maldonado’s vote for last year’s budget got him a reprieve from any challenge (right now there’s no Democrat on the ballot to face Maldonado, though a write-in campaign still has time to emerge).  However, this does put the Senate in play to flip to a 2/3 majority, given this race and the race in SD-19 with Hannah-Beth Jackson versus Tony Strickland.

Like the gubernatorial recall in 2003, there will be two questions on the ballot.  The first will ask if Denham should be recalled, and the second will ask who among a list of challengers should replace him.

It seems to me that this is an excellent opportunity to message-test the major themes around the budget, revenues, and spending in advance of the nasty legislative fight and the November general election.  While I don’t expect this recall to be as exciting as Gray Davis’, or to feature Gary Coleman, to the extent that it’s a referendum on failed conservative ideology I think it could be extremely revelatory.

Robert is our resident expert in this neck of the state, I expect him to chime in.

UPDATE: Apparently, the old No on 93 team is getting back together to support Denham.  So expect them to make this about Perata and a power grab.  Whatever they choose, this will be extremely costly to the CRP at a time when they don’t have the money.  And they have to be extremely nervous about this stat:

The recall campaign, funded by the Democratic Party and a campaign committee linked to Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, turned in more than 61,000 signatures last month, nearly double the 31,084 need to qualify.

I would guess that 61,000 voters would be more than enough to dump Denham in June.

The Responsible Plan to end the war in Iraq is the first tangible and conprehensive strategy to not only end the war, but to reform the structures that caused this disaster in the first place.  It accords with the first principles of all Democrats, to responsibly protect our citizens while restoring our moral and political authority at home and abroad, renewing our capacity to self-determination in our national economy, and return the rights and protections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to the American people.  I urge you to watch the presentation and read the Responsible Plan, as I have done.  And then please understand that, speaking just for myself, the only way you can earn my support in your electoral battles in 2008 is by endorsing it.

When I say “support” I do not mean voting; I would happily vote for any California Democrat over any California Republican in a head-to-head matchup.  I mean my SUPPORT.  That means my time, my energy, my effort, my enthusiasm, and my dollars.  For five years, progressives have stood by helpless as they watched their country taken to war based on deception, and kept in an occupation based on fecklessness.  While this plan, which encompasses not just the military, humanitarian and diplomatic solutions for Iraq, but stopping torture, restoring habeas corpus, starting a new green energy economy, media consolidation reform, ending the use of signing statements, and all of the other structures that have brought us to this point, parallels in its comprehensiveness the Contract With America, there is one crucial difference.  Newt Gingrich supplied the Contract With America from the top-down, giving it to Congressional candidates as a tool to use in their campaigns (also, he didn’t do it until 6 weeks before the election and it was used mostly as a media tool).  This is a candidate-written, candidate-implemented, candidate-structured proposal from a group of progressive challengers who hold no current power in the Congress or the leadership of the party, culling from the ideas and concerns of the rank and file to put forth a full set of policy options to end the war and radically change how we view national security.  This is the FIRST plan that citizens can use to do something real and tangible to truly revolutionize the debate in Washington.  This is coming from the bottom up, and as a Congressional candidate you can catch the wave and join the commitment of the people, or sit at home.

As a California Congressional candidate, you have a unique role to play in this debate.  You can support this plan and avow that you are committed to this nation’s security, and earn my support, or you can choose not to support it, and earn nothing.  This is non-negotiable.  There are 10 candidates signed on to this plan, and plenty of others that I’m sure will welcome the support from myself and millions of others like me who are desperate to end this war and change our failed national security strategy.  We are the people who stuff envelopes and walk precincts and write about candidates and generate buzz and enthusiasm.  And we will work like hell for the candidates behind the Responsible Plan.  And they will win, and receive a mandate to implement these policies and change the conversation on national security in this country.  

Incidentally, as a California congressmember, you have the ability to co-sponsor a number of these initiatives, as they have been introduced in the House already.  Please do so immediately.  Thank you.