Friday, October 30, 2009

Huffing & Puffing

Somebody is VERY upset with The Tattler. But first, let me share this piece of encouraging news with you. This from the blog Orange Punch:

We came across this poll by the Public Policy Institute of California. It's a couple weeks old, but the news it imparts is timeless: Californians don't much like their state government. A whopping 73 percent said state government is run for the benefit of the few. That number increased to 79 percent when pollsters ask people who vote most often. It seems the closer attention paid, the lower the opinion. Only 23 percent said they could trust the government to do what's right. Now that's a number to think about. "To do what's right..." That means three fourths of us think will do the wrong thing. We're pretty sharp, eh? Hey, three out of five Californians said they think government wastes "a lot" of your tax money. Only 5 percent said there's little waste. And just about two-thirds said it'd be a good idea to put a lid on how much those folks in Sacramento can spend. What a concept.

Last Saturday we posted an article about some ethical questions being raised in the press regarding our illustrious State Senator, Bob Huff. In particular his vote that helped developer Ed Roski of Majestic Realty fame gain approval for his football stadium and shopping mall through the gratuitous waiving any possible Sacramento mandated environmental reviews. Something that also put an end to a lawsuit initiated by concerned citizens from the City of Walnut. The possible ethical concerns stemming from the deep financial ties the Huff family has with Mr. Roski. All of which can be read about here.

And at the end of this post, kind of as an afterthought, I added this observation from the blog Orange Juice:

State Legislators have spent over $3 million on luxury cars since 2007: Our state is broke, but we have spent over three million dollars over the past three years providing luxury cars to our state legislators ... Republican State Sen. Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar, drives a Cadillac CTS that cost the state $41,300,including $4,226 for upgraded wheels and Bluetooth, according to an L.A. Times report.

Now at the end of the 40 or so comments attached to this post there have now been 5 posts by one very upset Bob Huff fan. Or perhaps even someone very close to Bob himself, you just never know. Two of these comments had to be deleted due to obscenity, but the others are kind of amusing. You see, what is bothering this individual isn't the questions of serious ethical retardation on Bob's part, rather it's all about that Cadillac.

State paid vehicles are provided to legislatures (sic) to conduct government related business - Don't you expect to be reimbursed by your employer for expenses accrued using your personal vehicle to conduct business related matters? Its kinda like the same thing, although most people like yourself are too dumb too realize it. Those wheels were also returned and stock Cadillac wheels were put in place - he also happened to purchase an AMERICAN car, so this money is coming right by to OUR ECONOMY, or are you too dumb to understand that as well? Why don't we stop worry (sic) about a petty $44k and worry more about the $9 BILLION we give to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS EVERY YEAR?

Obviously this guy has doubts about my intellectual abilities, but I doubt that's the reason I'm not following his line of reasoning here. While I do commend anyone who purchases American products, and I too drive an American made (albeit now defunct) brand of automobile, I'm not exactly sure that sucking up $41K in taxpayer money to purchase a Cadillac CTS constitutes any great act of patriotism on Bob's part. Nor do I quite understand the politics behind an elected official such as Senator Huff setting himself up with a state funded luxury car at a time when Sacramento was sending state employees IOUs in place of tax return checks. It seems rather insensitive. Nor am I too sure about what this has to do with illegal immigration, either. We're not supposed to worry about having to foot the bill for Bob's $41,000 Cadillac CTS because the State Legislature, which Bob is a member of, is shelling out $9 billion a year to people living in this country illegally?

And while it is comforting to know that Bob actually does conduct government related business (after all, that is what we're paying him to do), I'm not clear on why it takes a $41,000 luxury convertible for him to do the job. Judging by the quality of the work coming from our celebrated public servants in Sacramento, I'd say the vehicular equivalency would be more along the lines of a used Dodge Omni. Something that could probably be picked up from most area used car lots for around $38 grand less than that Caddy.

Anyway, after pointing some of these things out to our sorely exercised Huffster, I received the following response:

Eric, yes... we went broke because state legislatures (sic) get vehicles... nevermind all the money we waste each year on people who don't even belong here. We went broke, not ONLY because of the irresponsibility of our government, but ALSO because of dumb***** who can't do simple math and figure out that variable APR is a bad thing. maybe you should spend more time lobbying people to take a finance class rather than bit***** about a Cadillac... WOW - do you get all your news from the LA Times, and whatever isn't printed in that paper must not have happened, huh? Those wheels were returned. Now how about you go b**** about all the other state legislatures (sic) who picked up new rides, too.

Somebody has got to explain to this guy that a legislature is a body of elected officials who deliberate upon the peoples' business. Individual members of a legislature are called legislators. You'd think that someone this uncomfortable with immigrants would be a tad more conversant in the English language.

Anyway, I'm willing to make a deal with our friend here. I'll drop the Cadillac talk if he agrees to discuss Bob Huff's ethical shortcomings. Particularly in regards to the vote cast in favor of the financial interests of a fellow who is paying the salary of Senator Huff's wife.

45 comments:

  1. Sorry everybody we really did think it through.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That is the problem with gerrymandered districts that all but guarantee competition free elections. You end up with turkeys like Huff.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Since Huff's Caddie is in Southern California and he doesn't drive to Arnieville, how does he get around up there when he is voting for Ed's pet project? Personal driver or public busses (ha ha)? Bet he uses the Caddie for a lot more than "elected business". Another bad apple.

    ReplyDelete
  4. But Pasta! He returned the wheels!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Who paid for the remounting, new stems, and balancing of the tires on the standard rims? He supplied at hot air to inflate them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What did Huff vote on SB375?
    If he voted YES, he's a bad apple, as Pasta says.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Huff voted for SB 375 for the same reason he votes for whatever Roski tells him to. He feeds at the same trough as Mosca, Buchanan, and the rest of the crooks. Doesn't matter what party they're in, they all work for the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The key problem with the Bob Huffs of our state is, they suffer from ethics anemia, and don't see themselves in violation of the Fair Political Act. It should be so obvious.
    Perhaps we need to take a look at the blind eye the F.P.C. uses in selectively doing it's job.
    Perhaps we need a better way to make the state follow it's own laws.
    He , and Rosker need to be investigated.
    This why this state is turning into another Detroit.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The car that each and every legislator should drive on business time is the Ford Focus.
    Anyone who does not should be ashamed.
    Many of the CA state legislators are acting like bosses in the old Soviet communist party.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Most elected officials are like professional athletes and spoiled celebrities. They believe they are ENTITLED to special privileges, perks, and are above the law. We are lucky to have three HONEST council members.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 9:09: Yeah, but you can't assume that they necessarily feel beholden to the voters for what they do. Most districts are "safe" for whatever party they're assigned to, so they really don't have to worry about what we think. The two parties in this state are really in competition for patronage money. And the rules they play by reflect that. So when the Huffs take Roski's dough, and then Cadillac Bob votes in favor of Roski's special interests, that's just how things will done. California is not a democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anyone who supported SB375 needs to be run out of office.
    Anyone who supports SCAG and COG needs to be run out of office.

    I would hope Sir Eric and his research team will do us all a public service......every state election please list us the names of any local politician who supported the above bill and the organizations who are enemies of the people of Sierra Madre.
    Let's send this Tattler information to every registered voter in Sierra Madre.
    We can do this. Just get any donations, large or small from residents who care, we need no outside money from special interests.

    Kurt Zimmerman, Don Watts and MaryAnn MacGillivray's campaigns were funded by local Sierra Madre residents. Others were NOT....they got outside donations from the usual suspects.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Nice wheels on that car in the picture here.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The 4th of July parade has become a political and advertising fest for anybody who will put a car in the parade. can we stop with all the politican's and advertisers (realtors) who rent a car for the day and putt down SM Blvd?

    ReplyDelete
  15. 10:27!
    Great idea! Let's rent a car or do a float....

    SIR ERIC MAUNDRY'S TATTLER!!!!!!!

    As long as Matt and Joe aren't picking whose in the parade, we might get in!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Old Kentucky, that is a great idea, I have mentioned the need for a booth at the Wisteria festival as well. Lets find out the costs, and hustle up donations. Have Sir Eric name a treasurer to set up a paypal accnt. to manage donations, and we are off and running!

    Neuroblast Films

    ReplyDelete
  17. Here's the line to send with the complaint:
    "...the vote cast in favor of the financial interests of a fellow who is paying the salary of Senator Huff's wife."

    The FPPC of the state of CA complaint process:
    http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.html?id=498

    You can even make it anonymous and use the toll free number:

    "If you do not want your name disclosed in connection with your complaint under any circumstances, you may call 800-561-1861 on Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to Noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., and make the complaint anonymously. Commission staff will evaluate your claims and has the authority to pursue a complaint on its own initiative."

    ReplyDelete
  18. Each legislator is given a $350 allowance to be put toward the car payment regardless of the make or brand, including a Ford Focus or Cadillac CTS. it does not cost the tax payers more either way. the monthly balance of the lease comes out of Huff's pocket.

    As for the stadium issue...Section 87102.5 of the Political Reform Act of 1974, an elected official cannot vote on an item where there is a conflict of interest except "on a vote on the budget bill as a whole, or to vote on a consent calendar, a motion for reconsideration, a waiver of any legislative rule, or any purely procedural matter." The vote that Huff cast was a purely procedural vote therefore there was no illegal action taken on his part.

    Just thought you should know...

    ReplyDelete
  19. So Huff has no financial gain, at all, directly or indirectly, from Roski's victory?

    ReplyDelete
  20. for $ 350 a month, he can get 3 Kia Spectra's - he'll need AAA for the towing though

    ReplyDelete
  21. Poster 11:04, I'm not following why you think Huff's vote was purely procedural.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 11:04 - if you read the original article which started this conversation you'll note that this was alluded to a couple of times in the cites. But also discussed is community ethical standards and whether those were met. Legalisms might be one thing, but perception is quite another in a political arena. And given the historic low polling numbers the legislative body Bob Huff belongs to is enjoying right now, I'm not sure the public gives a damn. Sacramento is dirty as sin, and that such behavior can be excused legally is a big part of the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  23. If Huff is getting a $41,000 automobile for $350 a month, then maybe we have a bigger problem.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The Huff suporter who sees Huff critics as "dumb" is probably exhibiting that psychological tenent "that you see in others the fault you most exhibit yourself". Dumb is as dumb does.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Two editorials in Thursday's LA Times take to task the Ed Roski assult on CEQA and subversion of legislators with cash. Further the ballyhood job creation claim really is about minimum wage stuff associated with stadium work. Most of which is part time. But the real thrust of the articles are that Roski has singlehandly opened a door that will destroy the desirable qualities of life in California. In short order we will have State Bills to exempt projects that are "job creators" and promote the desires of wealthy real estate interests and developers. SB 375 lives for and resides in the "Gated Community"

    ReplyDelete
  26. Killing CEQA is at the heart of SB 375, the punchline to the BIA and CAR's very bad joke for California cities. They have been trying to kill it for a long time, and now, by a very twisted Sacramento turn, are selling it to the state as a way of stopping greenhouse gas emissions. Which is nearly as absurd as claiming you can, through massive development in what are now low density communities, build your way out of global warming.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Been there, done thatOctober 30, 2009 at 1:59 PM

    Let's say a funeral prayer for CEQA.
    The experience we've had in Sierra Madre with hillsides developers is that if there is any limitation put on developers, they'll just hire lawyers to work it around to their advantage.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sir Eric, I went to the state of california web site, just searched bob huff and found some very juicy stuff, it seems Mr. Huff forgot to report 184 thousand dollars in campaign contributions, and little mei mei was treasurer, this was 2007
    some of the donations were from himself to the taxpayers for bob huff,....???

    If any of you were following the stadium stories in the local papers, and the comments in topix, it is easy to see that the huff, industry, and roski's team has many paid trolls to squash comments and opinions of independent
    media and individuals who dare question the needs or actions of the group.

    It is October and the spooks are out....

    ReplyDelete
  29. Google CEQA and any politician by name who you see as in the pockets of the developers and you will find a long history of them voting against environmental protection. These politicians vote for projects that are ruin of our clean water, breathable air and just forget about getting a good nights sleep with the roar coming off the freeway--about to be hugely worse if the 710 is tunneled under So. Pas. to bring harbor freight out through the Cajon Pass to parts east.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "If Huff is getting a $41,000 automobile for $350 a month, then maybe we have a bigger problem."

    The state mandates $350 per month towards a lease on whatever car and anything above that amount is paid for by the legislator from thier own pocket. Follow?

    "In particular his vote that helped developer Ed Roski of Majestic Realty fame gain approval for his football stadium and shopping mall through the gratuitous waiving any possible Sacramento mandated environmental reviews."

    Can you tell me which vote this is? Because as far as I'm aware Huff refrained from voting on any NFL/Majestic related bill except that which bypassed bill review to bring it to the Senate floor for vote - this, by the way, does not pose conflict of interest.

    "Anyway, I'm willing to make a deal with our friend here. I'll drop the Cadillac talk if he agrees to discuss Bob Huff's ethical shortcomings. Particularly in regards to the vote cast in favor of the financial interests of a fellow who is paying the salary of Senator Huff's wife."

    "Poster 11:04, I'm not following why you think Huff's vote was purely procedural."

    Just to reiterate what someone else already stated - "Section 87102.5 of the Political Reform Act of 1974, an elected official cannot vote on an item where there is a conflict of interest except "on a waiver of any legislative rule."" Huff refrained from voting on the actual bill itself.

    "I'm not clear on why it takes a $41,000 luxury convertible for him to do the job."

    Dude... where do you get your information from? Cadillac doesn't even make convertibles. Please broaden your news horizons beyond other blogs, LA Times, and the SGV Tribune.

    "We're not supposed to worry about having to foot the bill for Bob's $41,000 Cadillac CTS because the State Legislature, which Bob is a member of, is shelling out $9 billion a year to people living in this country illegally?"

    My point is, you're nit-picking. Do you have some sort of personal problem with Huff? It would seem more logical that if youre so angry about state paid for vehicles, then you'd put every legislator on blast. Huff wrote a comprehensive package of bills in the Assembly pertaining to illegal immigrants which didn't get passed and we shell are FAR more of our cash for people who don't belong here. Why don't you put legislators who support illegal immigrants on blast? I think there a bigger problems than a Cadillac to be whining about.

    "Particularly in regards to the vote cast in favor of the financial interests of a fellow who is paying the salary of Senator Huff's wife."

    Again, what vote is this exactly... you never say which in your articles?

    ReplyDelete
  31. 3:37 Immigrant Bashing won't get you a free pass on SB375 It might appeal to some, but I doubt you will influence a more sophisticated and perceptive audiance. Take the high road!

    ReplyDelete
  32. 3:37 Read the previous article. You can parse all you want, but all of this covered in last Saturday's article. After you've read it, pull your tail out from between your legs and we'll make nice.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hey, 3:37! Nice Sacramento speak, dude!

    ReplyDelete
  34. The Hon Huff cast a "procedural vote" that helped move the controversial bill to the Senate floor. Once the bill was on the floor, the State Senator's allies saw to it that it passed.

    It may be legal to cast such a procedural vote to expedite the passage of a law that conflict of interest rules prevent you from voting on. But no right minded person (myself included) is going to think such conduct ethical.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Here's the scary part about the pro-Huff poster. We get the usual parsing and funny nudges, but then we get immigrant bashing? I grew up in the south, and friend, substitute the word "negrah" for "illegal immigrants" and you're talking pure Klan politics.

    ReplyDelete
  36. ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL?!!!!!
    BUILD IT!
    TAILGATING!!!!
    RAIDERS!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Bob Huffs bigest fanOctober 30, 2009 at 7:05 PM

    Jest dont let im play soccer in thet stadum cuz thems prolly gonna be a buncha them ilegal aliens.

    ReplyDelete
  38. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Tch, such language. You kiss your mother with that mouth, buddy?

    ReplyDelete
  40. 3:37 Hey huffster, why don't you educate yourself and go check election track on contributions to bob huff, there are at least 4 from majestic employees for 3600 each, and you can see other friends of the roski, majestic, perez, huff, industry trash swine there also.

    I am interested in who huff got the car from, and what kind of deal he got..and how you know he returned the wheels?

    I personally won't do business with any company that has pacific or alliance in it's title.

    But then I don't care for football or jocks that live precariously through men that actually play the game versus betting and watching.

    I find that men with small equipment have to over compensate for their shortcomings, by driving big cars or having subserviate women around them. I have heard it said that asian men have small guns and big presents, huff by his obvious actions has proved to have little presence and honor...that goes for his buds too, oh by the way he got a few contributions from Mike Duvall too. dude....

    ReplyDelete
  41. what an a****!

    tell that b****d to go f*** himself

    ReplyDelete
  42. And so this thread has turned into nothing more than name calling. Score one for the Troll team.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Troll Master KanobiNovember 2, 2009 at 4:45 PM

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  45. TMK - No, you won't. We're back to running a moderated site. G'nite Mimi.

    ReplyDelete