Jerk McPension Opposes “Knee Jerk” Effort To Kill Illegal Tax

No surprise punches from Pat McPension, as he disagrees with Bruce Whataker about what to do with the money that is taken from us via an illegal tax on water. Mr. McPension has become quite fond of this tax since it went to pay his own bloated salary and pension over the years.

McPension wants to keep our money in an “escrow account” so that if and when the “experts” properly educate him and the rest of the council, they can decide what to do with their ill-gotten gains; then, presumably, “they” will let us peons know. McKinley goes even farther claiming that he supports plowing the illegal tax back revenue back into water infrastructure without so much as wondering how the infrastructure got so neglected in the first place.

Well, here’s what I say: a person who has the opportunity to kill an illegal tax and doesn’t is no better than the person who supports an illegal tax in the first place. 

Here’s McPension in action:

We Get Mail: Fence Sitting Cardboard Candidate?

I found this communication in our in-box yesterday:

An Open Letter to Doug Chaffee

April 23, 2012

Dear Mr. Chaffee:

I support the recall effort and will vote in favor of removing all three councilmen on June 5th.  I support the statements made on the Notice of Intent to Recall, and I believe any candidate running to replace a recalled councilman should believe the same.

I saw this on Euclid today.  The homeowner seems to be on both sides of the fence.  It begs the question: Are you?

Um, anyone miss the irony?

The rumor mill is spinning around town.  It claims that you’re proud to receive Pat McKinley’s endorsement of your candidacy should the recall succeed; and worse publicly stated as much during a fundraising event at the Pint House several weeks ago.  If this is true, this is not compatible with the Notice of Intent to Recall.  You have to pick a side and you have to do so definitively.

In fact, I demand you take one of four positions immediately.

1) If you have stated that you’re proud to receive McKinley’s backing, you must withdraw your candidacy from the special election on June 5th.  This statement does not meet with the spirit of the recall and is insulting to the electorate.  Candidates not supporting the spirit of the recall should not be on the ballot.  Just because you had some extra campaign signs sitting around from 2010 doesn’t mean you’re entitled to run.

2) If you find it morally acceptable to be proud of McKinley’s endorsement of your candidacy, state so in bold letters on all your campaign literature, website, Facebook account, and during any public appearances you make.  Failure to be transparent on this issue is dishonest.

3) If you’re not proud of McKinley’s endorsement, state loudly and often that you’ve signed the recall petition and outline why Pat McKinley needs to go.  Demand that those posting propaganda against the recall remove your name from their lawns.  Take a stance and make it clear that no supporter of Pat McKinley is a supporter of yours.

4) Do nothing.  If you ignore this open letter and succeed in your candidacy, count on being recalled.

Sincerely,

Ryan Cantor

P.S. Dear Friends, just to show what a small world it is, after all, the property above is the residence of one Beatriz Gregg, mater familias of the Gregg clan that includes our old pal Aaron, whose 2010 campaign was, um, something of a personal embarrassment.

 

Paying a Fee to Pay Your Taxes?

Even the heartless IRS wouldn’t try to pull something this repugnant.

A frustrated local business owner sent me this copy of his annual Fullerton tax renewal in which a $25.00 tax payment was accompanied with a $20.00 “processing charge.”

 

You read that right. It’s an 80% surcharge for the city’s Herculean effort to cash your check and rubber stamp you as paid.

All local business owners must pay this ridiculous fee, from doctors and lawyers to handymen, ice cream trucks and taxi drivers. Presumably the actual processing is handled by administrative staff, who are likely already being paid out of the General Fund for other duties. How did they reach that $20 cost? Who knows?

And who decided that business owners should have to pay a fee to pay their taxes? 

Ya'll have gone insane. Now pay up, hear?

Larry Bennett Owes You A Month’s Worth of Water

The sad slouch became a permanent thing...

Several months ago Anti-recall lackey Larry Bennett challenged you to find the illegal tax on water on your monthly bill. It was pretty disingenuous even for a slimmer like Larry. FFFF pointed out that the illegal tax wasn’t listed on the bill, which of course is one of the reasons it is illegal!

On Tuesday night good ol’ Larry all but admitted that there was indeed a 10% tax on your water. Of course he tried to diffuse the ugly truth by saying that 1) he likes paying the tax (could be true – he’s a damned fool); and, 2) the tax helps keep his grass green and his flowers happy because he’s a water hog (the first part is a falsehood; the second, yes, I believe he likes to waste water). Naturally, he was just parroting the nonsense of his hero Doc HeeHaw who also claimed some part of the 10% went to water delivery – an outright lie.

Anyway, I think that if he had a shred of honor, Bennett would now make good on his promise to pay your monthly water bill. But if you want to ask him you’d better hurry up. Larry will only pay the first person to e-mail him!

Larry Bennett Likes Paying Illegal Taxes; Doesn’t Like Public Comments

Poor Larry Bennett. As spokeshole and Chief Liar for the moribund Recall No campaign he is upset that folks are disrespecting his Heroes on the council.

But get this: Larry doesn’t want his water rates reduced! He likes the illegal 10% tax and even wants to keep it because he somehow believes this will keep his grass green.

Of course, it’s funny to watch Bennett admit, sort of, that there is a $2.5 million problem after he challenged water rate payers to find the illegal tax on their bill; and it’s hard to tell if Bennett is just pimping for the Three Flat Tires or if he really believes that the illegal in-lieu fee has something to do with delivering water to his flower beds. However you slice it, this assclown is a first class tool.

And it’s pretty clear he doesn’t like annoying public comments that hold his Three Blithering Boneheads accountable for their miscreance and incompetence.

The Power to Recall: Unambiguous, Indivisible

Twenty years later and as clueless as ever.

The opponents of the Fullerton Recall, just like their predecessors in 1994, keep yammering about the “proper” use of the recall process. According to these worthy folks, the power of recall is only to be exercised in cases where an office holder has perpetrated malfeasance in office. Their argument is self-serving. And wrong. Here is what the State Constitution actually says, clearly and succinctly:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL SEC. 13. 

Recall is the power of the electors to remove an elective officer.

And that’s it. The rest is all about the technical procedure of doing it. There is no discussion of when recall is appropriate or when it may be used. None. From this terse definition we may reasonably infer that any use of recall is appropriate when the electorate deems it to be so. But what about malfeasance in office? That’s why we have a criminal code!

Of course it hardly needs to be pointed out that the Fullerton Recall has several great reasons to get rid of the Three Dithering Dinosaurs, including failure to lead, creating and tolerating a Culture of Corruption in the FPD, backing an illegal tax on your water for 15 years, and of course, let us not forget, all those insider deals to cronies and campaign contributors in which they gave away streets, sidewalks and government subsidies worth millions.

Anyway, next time you hear somebody like Molly McClanahan or Jan Flory cluck-clucking about this, be sure to to ask them if they’ve ever even bothered to read the State’s Constitution.

County Melt Down, Part II

Last summer I did a post on the disastrous leadership at the County, and how I hoped the Supervisors would perform a certain kind of cranial extraction and take care of business. Of course that was months ago, and the disasters keep mounting due to the indifference of the antiquated and exhausted CEO, Thomas Mauk. Naturally, the Board did nothing, most likely because a majority of the Board rely on the CEO to push their pet projects through.

The latest mess to unfold is an embarrassing sex scandal that has engulfed the Public Works Department – all due to the bad behavior of some deviant named Carlos Bustamante. Apparently this bad boy was shielded from investigation until things got so bad he was permitted to quietly resign.

Anyway, Vern Nelson over at the Orange Juice Blog has done a write up on the situation that deserves our attention.

 

Acting Chief Still Acting Like Predecessors

The more things change the more they stay the same...

When FPD Acting Chief Dan Hughes was handed the keys to the front door, wishful thinkers proclaimed the dawn of a new day for a department reeling from humiliating self-inflicted wounds.

His supporters claimed that Dan, for some mysterious reason, was going to bring decency and reform to a department whose members had, within the short space of seven months been exposed as thugs, perjurers, thieves, con men, sex perverts, destroyers of evidence, thieves (again and again), etc., etc. Despite a 30-year FPD career and various job titles that closely tied him to this band of miscreants, Dan is Different, his defenders said. Somehow. A veritable Galahad, in fact.

Even when Dan denied a Culture of Corruption in the FPD and said such an idea was disseminated by liars or ignoramuses, his supporters clung to the idea that Dan is Different.

But Dan’s latest decision may provide cause for pause. According to the folks at FullertonStories Hughes has replaced the otiose Andrew Goodrich with yet another union member, Sergeant Jeff Stuart, to be an official department spokeshole and Face of Fullerton. Really? Has Hughes learned nothing from the misinformation peddler, Goodrich. Maybe not. Or maybe he likes the idea of the FPOA getting the first, and often the last shot at misleading the public.

Smiling. So far.

Haven’t we had enough of public information officers whose loyalty to their own tribe is far greater than that to their employers? To me this just looks like more of the same ‘ol same ‘ol: another opportunity to do the right thing has been passed over by Acting Chief Hughes, who is acting more and more like Chief Sellers all the time.

Sharon’s Having A Party!

FFFF’s anonymous news clipping service just forwarded this announcement from the Quirk for State Assembly campaign that Loretta Sanchez is hosting a fundraiser for her.

Since it’s at Sanchez “home” I can understand the need for secrecy. Still, given the fact that Loretta’s home used to be in high-toned Palos Verdes as she represented the barrios of Anaheim, Santa Ana and Fullerton, we may be forgiven for wondering where she actually sleeps.

Anyhow, if you’ve got $250 or more and are inclined to drop by let us know how it went and please send pictures!

Don Bankhead’s Gears Slipping; Elevator Not Reaching Top Floor

Here is an interesting clip of Councilman Don Bankhead from the last meeting opining on the subject of new elevators being added to the existing elevator bridge at the Fullerton train station. See if you can figure out what he’s talking about.

Poor Don seems to think this is a brand new elevator bridge at the new parking structure being built on Santa Fe.

Uh, oops.

Confusion is nothing new for Bankhead, but one thing Don knows for sure: when somebody else is fronting the money for a project it doesn’t matter where it is, what it does, or how much it costs.