DeMaio Calls on Scott Peters to Return the $69,338.27 He Charged Taxpayers for His New BMW

Carl DeMaio Carl DeMaio 28 Comments

Share

Peters charged San Diego taxpayers nearly $70,000 to drive to work

San Diego – A newly-released public records document from the City of San Diego on September 4 shows Scott Peters, who is personally worth more than $100 million, charged over $69,338.27 to San Diego taxpayers for his personal “car allowance” used to pay for his new BMW.

DeMaio holds records recently released showing multi-millionaire Scott Peters took nearly $70,000 in taxpayer-funded auto allowances

Carl DeMaio is demanding that multi-millionaire Scott Peters refund the same amount to taxpayers and apologize for asking them to pay for his commute.

“Everyone pays their own way to get to their job. It is completely outrageous that a multi-millionaire would charge taxpayers nearly $70,000 to pay for his new BMW,” DeMaio said. This type of perk for the privileged is the reason government budgets are bloated or in a deficit,” he continued.

Peters took the $69,338.27 in car allowance payments over the 8 years he served on the San Diego City Council. During that time, Scott Peters voted to slash library hours, eliminate after-school programs, and even cancel lease payments on San Diego’s only fire-rescue helicopter – all because he claimed the city faced a massive budget shortfall.

The car allowance taken by Scott Peters comes on top of other perks he voted himself, including a hefty salary increase, an increase in his pensionable pay, free sporting tickets and access to the city’s luxury boxes at Petco Park and Qualcomm stadium.

Peters’ pattern of voting himself special perks continues today in Congress, where Peters voted against government reforms to eliminate special privileges like lavish pensions, hefty health care subsidies, private health club access, and free haircuts and meals.

To educate San Diego voters on Scott Peters inappropriate car allowance and other perks he took at taxpayers’ expense, DeMaio released his latest ad entitled Privileged Peters which can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzAxrINSidA

Share

Comments 28

  1. I have had the privilege of watching sporting events from the City’s luxury boxes at both Petco Park and Qualcomm Stadium thanks to the generosity of nonprofits like Wounded Warriors. For what it is worth, there is nothing luxurious about the box at Qualcomm and you can get much better seats elsewhere in the stadium. But this article does correctly point out the poor decisions and judgement of Scott Peters leading to San Diego’s disastrous situation, which has left us without a new stadium. With money being spent on a few BMWs here and a pension spike there…it adds up and there is nothing left for the important stuff.

  2. That does look bad. I wonder which is more egregious; Peters withholding money, or Carl’s withholding the truth, and stealing another’s intellectual property.

    http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/may/12/demaio-accused-plagiarizing-pension-data/

    http://scoopsandiego.com/news/local/demaio-called-out-for-deception-and-plagiarism/article_81d917d2-da37-11e3-bf23-0017a43b2370.html

    The question for voters is…which one is the lesser of two evils?

    I guess Peters can always pay the money…but can Carl un-lie?

  3. Founding Father,

    What money did Congressman Peters withhold? All he did was accept part (car allowance) of the compensation package that was offered when he applied for the job. I find it beyond hypocritical that a Republican would claim that someone should not accept compensation just because he is rich.

    As for the other claims: Congressman Peters never accepted any of the pay raises given while he was a Councilman and he has donated every penny of his pension to the City’s Library system. Then again, as you pointed out, we wouldn’t expect the truth from Mr. DeMaio.

  4. HQ,

    I can’t argue with that…the optics are simply bad for Peters; fat cat progressive can’t pay his own way..got it. But, he rates it…it comes with the position…Believe me, CD will be wallowing in the same tax-payer paid opulence he claims to be railing against..I think it looks much worse for DeMaio. He clearly shouldn’t throw stones in his glass house..the difference here; DeMaio lied (copied a competitors website…exactly), then he was caught…he lied again (copied the National Journal Reform Report), and was caught again..

    While Peters looks chincy and hypocritical…DeMaio looks unethical and lacking integrity..Peters is rich..and DeMaio lies…want a rich hypocrite or an unethical RINO insider?

    The real shame…The SD GOP leadership STILL backs this guy…no wonder they have lost 80K registered voters over the last 7 years…

    Many (former) republicans see this whole construct for what it is; consultants whip up the chosen candidate, feed off the teat of the war chest; sycophantic media, Papa Doug, Hedgecock, et al, whip up the crafted narrative, while still touting their faux-conservative creds…meanwhile, TK and his ilk work the traps at the CC and the key EC members…cajoling, threatening, intimidating, breaking their own bylaws…Carl wins, consultants get paid, media gets coverage/revenue, and TK stays in power…everyone wins but the San Diego voter…and especially the conservatives that have been kicked to the curb..

    While I’m sure you don’t agree with the conservative voice, you must concede they have been betrayed with a deft “double speak” campaign waged by the SD GOP and echoed by Falconer and DeMaio. Have you seen DeMaio’s latest commercials?…like KF, he is not even saying he is a Republican? It all an “independent” mantra…

    Many Conservatives will see a vote for Peters as a rebuking of the betrayal and deceptive actions led by the RPSDC and run by neo-progressives in the Lincoln Club and Reagan Club to lever the conservatives, while ignoring their concerns or principles…principles that used to define a once great party.

  5. FF will continue changing the subject and taking out his anger on the RPSDC until Kirk Jorgenson is sworn into office.

    Let’s stay on the subject at hand: Scott Peters fleeced the taxpayer. Carl DeMaio refused his pension.

  6. Union Buster,

    Scott Peters donates every penny of his pension back to the City and even if he didn’t, how would that be “fleecing the taxpayers?”

  7. Nice head fake UB..your pattern of always bringing this back to me is telling…I’m honored.. 🙂

    Yes..lets stay on the subject..Peters fleeced the tax payer..and Carl fleeced the truth…and he had the RPSDC and all the sycophantic trough-slurpers aiding him…like you..even AFTER he was caught red-handed lying plagiarizing..AGAIN!

    That says as much about the coat-tailers as it does DeMaio.

    I’m over the election..perhaps you should do the same thing…The fact is; Carl ran from his last opponent. But this time, he will only lose tired…

  8. “Spin Zone”

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Cue all the false avatars….your predictability is like a German train….. Taunting you is like clubbing a baby seal…next will be RR, followed by MS, and then all the avatars used by the usual suspects…of course, the default “homophobe” charge is no doubt imminent.. Isn’t about time for a new media-sympathy pandering break in?

    Hint- You need a new game plan…

  9. Did we all forget that Carl got rich off government contracts? Every penny he has to his name is courtesy of taxpayers!

    I have no problem with that, but it’s hilarious that he rails against others for feeding at the government trough when he did the same thing, just in a different form.

    The Performance Institute was a for-profit think tank that provided training for government officials.

    Will he return that money to taxpayers?

  10. I am still waiting for an explanation of how Congressman Peters “fleeced the taxpayers.” I know that lack of truthfulness has never stopped Mr. DeMaio before, but I expect better from Rostra participants.

  11. As City Council President from 2005- 2008 Scott Peters fleeced the taxpayers by gifting $1 Million dollars to his fellow La Jolla lawyer Paul Kennerson on the seal issue at Children’s Pool through manipulation of the City Council Docket and Agenda Items.

    Because he was in charge of setting the Docket and City Council Agenda Items, Peters refused to allow the issue of amending the 1931 Trust to come before the City Council for a vote. Therefore though the seals were legal, the accumulated sand on the beach was deemed illegal. Therefore multi-year dredging was required to remove the illegal sand and change the area back into a “swimming pool” configuration, which would have caused cliff collapse and retreat along Scripps Park, at the beginning of the littoral cell.

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/laplayaheritage/3286514832/in/set-72157610209700710

    As soon as Peters was termed out, City Council Members Carl DeMaio and Donna Frye fixed the problem through Municipal Code changed.

    With bipartisan leadership, the City Council moved the Agenda and Docketing to the City Clerk. Plus allowed for Council Members to vote to put an issue on the City Council docket, without approval by the City Council President first.

    http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2008/dec/11/demaio-brings-rochambeau-style-reforms-city-counci/

    “In the months leading up to his December 8 inauguration to the San Diego City Council, Councilmember-elect Carl DeMaio was outspoken about the role of the city-council president. He believed the position — created in 2004 as part of the “strong mayor” form of government — gave the president too much power over the council and too much influence on the docket.

    During several town-hall meetings, DeMaio rebuked outgoing council president Scott Peters for exercising those powers. He accused Peters of “manipulating” future agendas, thereby essentially silencing certain councilmembers from raising their concerns to the public.

    To prevent further abuses of power, DeMaio, along with Councilmember Donna Frye, suggested ways to limit the president’s powers, which would provide equal access to the docket for all council members. They proposed borrowing some methods from the County Board of Supervisors, mainly designating the city clerk as parliamentarian over council meetings, while simultaneously allowing each council member a chance to docket items on the agenda.”

  12. Dawn, the difference is that, unlike a private contractor, Scott Peters gets to vote on his own compensation!

    Assuming he was elected to represent the citizens, Peters SHOULD have shown some concern for taxpayers by moving to DROP the overly-generous car allowance (especially considering our city’s financial straits) — and led by example by not accepting this unjustified benefit — even if he WASN’T already a fat cat by marriage.

    Indeed, it’s hard to come up with ANYTHING Councilman Peters did that benefited the taxpayers. But it’s easy to find quite a number of city ordinances that Peters supported that cost us potentially hundreds of millions of dollars over the years.

    Peters was indeed a leader — leading the city towards BK. DeMaio had a BIG hand in undoing much of the damage by Peters and his allies.

  13. “The Performance Institute was a for-profit think tank that provided training for government officials.”

    “As City Council President from 2005- 2008 Scott Peters fleeced the taxpayers by gifting $1 Million dollars to his fellow La Jolla lawyer Paul Kennerson on the seal issue at Children’s Pool through manipulation of the City Council Docket and Agenda Items.”

    Both candidates are missing an incredible opportunity here–governments are doing too damned much. I suppose this is how you campaign in a kleptocracy–call the other guy a bigger thief.

  14. Richard,

    Congressman Scott Peters was the very first City Council Member to refuse to accept the car allowance and also did not accept any pay raises during his 8 years on the Council.

    Apology accepted.

  15. “…and led by example …[by not accepting this unjustified benefit ]…”

    http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/may/12/demaio-accused-plagiarizing-pension-data/

    Perhaps DeMaio might follow the example of plagiarist Senator John Walsh and set the GOP and the voters of San Diego ahead of his own personal political aspirations and that of all those so far down the political “investment” rut before he drags the entire party and remaining GOP registered voters down with his (continued) plagiarism and unethical antics.

    Of course, he won’t…so I would ask the SD GOP leadership to reconsider their reckless, irresponsible, and dogmatic support…but clearly they won’t either.

    News Flash: Character matters. And if left unchecked, it never gets better with time. All of you backing DeMaio within the GOP need to take a big whiff; you are so enthralled with the “winning” process and promised or anticipated scraps from the table of NRCC-sponsored DeMaio victory that you are willing to forgo what was once a hallmark and great differentiator between them (a self-aggrandizing Democrat political hack) and us (a run-of-the-mill retail Republican candidate)- integrity.

    …and while you’re at it, you might want to check your own consciences and character. Seems many of you have forgotten the real prize- It isn’t “winning” at all costs if the “cost” is losing your way to get there…

  16. Carl DeMaio cares so deeply about the car allowance issue that he a) didn’t move to eliminate it when he was on the City Council and b) has another politician who takes it (Lorie Zapf) starring in his TV commercials.

  17. Great Question-

    I am seriously contemplating re-enforcing my “no –vote” by voting for Peters. (it’s really a double “no” vote in protest to the current GOP philosophy of abandoning the conservatives outright)

    I know of perhaps hundreds thinking the same way.

    Why? I do not believe DeMaio is a moral man. While Peters possess virtually no political stance with which I agree, he has virtually no influence or credibility within the congressional body. DeMaio, however, has the potential to cause great damage, and continue to allow the more neo-progressive Establishment forces to expand and permeate their anti-conservative agenda. I can handle another two years of an vulnerable & ineffectual democratic congressman. I cannot tolerate the insidious and unethical approach captured by DeMaio and his enablers that will destroy the Republican Party as we know it.

    It is also a referendum against the senior leadership of the SD GOP, its financial backers, and sycophantic media enablers.

    I believe Carl DeMaio could be the “Bob Filner” of the GOP if left unchecked.

    …you asked 🙂

  18. “It is also a referendum against the senior leadership of the SD GOP, its financial backers, and sycophantic media enablers. ”

    This is a silly reason to vote for Peters; the SDGOP doesn’t have the kind of influence you ascribe to it. It makes for good copy in your shadow boxing match, though.

    “I do not believe DeMaio is a moral man.”

    If you truly believe that, then your decision is well thought out.

    “…you asked”

    I asked because I care. FF, let me offer some unsolicited advice. It’s free so only you can determine the value of it:

    Make the moral argument and you look principled. Make the conspiracy argument and you look like a crackpot.

  19. FF, you’re voting for a pro-abortion, anti-gun candidate? How come it is ok for you to rationalize your decision to vote for someone (Peters) who doesn’t line up with your views 100%, but when Brian and I do it we’re sellouts?

    Stop supporting someone who isn’t exactly aligned with the Republican platform or the whole world will end, FF!

  20. “Make the moral argument and you look principled. Make the conspiracy argument and you look like a crackpot.”

    OK…fair enough…however, you Brian are politically astute enough to know of the raging philosophical battle between the GOP-E (establishment) and the more conservative supporters (“tea party” for lack of a more apt term.) This has manifested in dozens of races across the nation, many of them referenda on the Establishment (Rove’s American Cross Roads is seen as “E”, McCarthy as RINOs, while Cruz et al. are seen as true conservatives/republicans).. And, you may be aware that the SD GOP has had smoke swirling around it for years now about allegations of insider process corruption, thug tactics and tacit, if not direct intimidation activities. The Sacramento Bee had an extensive investigative series of articles covering this, along with several local (albeit across the political spectrum) media covering many of the same allegations on the SD GOP leadership (Reader, Scoop, East County…among others) Nixon, Clinton, even the current WH now with IRS and Benghazi all started with “crackpot” allegations of those critics that saw/discovered continued and increasing impropriety.

    As I mentioned in other comments; are all the people that have come forward, that have been “escorted” from the RPSDC meetings, have made repeated and similar indictments against the GOP, including yours truly, all “crack pots?” Or might there actually be a fundamental problem at the core of the SD GOP leadership, and its relationships with certain consultants, investors, and media that lead to the un-democratic manipulation of endorsements and campaigns at the expense and constitutional right of the voter?
    I’d refer you to the evidence and documents I laid out in a previous comment that all elude, some in great and granular detail, the persistent calls of cronyism, nepotism, insider favors, corruption, and even illegal activity ; http://sdrostra.com/?p=38859#comment-361235

    Brian, I and many that were relatively new to the SD GOP came to these same conclusions/perceptions irrespective of the previous allegations and accusations; Did we all drink from the same “crack pot” fountain? Or did we deduce and surmise the same problem sets and “hinky” activities independent of one another? Which is more likely? When I came to the SD GOP over 5 years ago, plopped down a sizable contribution, landing me in the vaunted “Chairman’s” circle, was my intent to then fight against it? Of course not. I came with the idea I was actually going to be supporting, interacting, and advancing fellow Republicans.

    So, while the charge of “crack pot” is levied, is it warranted? Many would choose (perhaps out of laziness or guilty as charged) to marginalize the accusations on the SD GOP with the standard counter accusations: “Disgruntled…didn’t go his way…” or the more insidious “homophobe…” Neither of these attempts to blunt the message nullify the fact that many people, many recognized BY the RPSDC in the past for loyalty and dedication to the GOP, have made similar indictments to the process and apparent and ostensive unethical machinations at the cross roads of the leadership, the consultant/funding class, and the media. WRT the latter, no one can deny that Hedgecock and by extension, KFMB, with Papa D at the reins, completely shut out Carl’s opponent… however one chooses to deflect it, it was despicable. I for one will never listen to or attend an event where Hedgecock is MC-ing/participating.

    Brian, the critiques, and yes, charges, levied against the senior leadership have been perennial, independent in many cases, and consistent. Just because the apparatchiks have done a deft job of denying, obfuscating, or marginalizing the critiques or critics, is not “proof positive” that it doesn’t exist.

  21. “FF, you’re voting for a pro-abortion, anti-gun candidate? How come it is ok for you to rationalize your decision to vote for someone (Peters) who doesn’t line up with your views 100%, but when Brian and I do it we’re sellouts?”
    Michael, because my vote is saying “pick a conservative, RPSDC..” Point of fact; Carl is Pro-Abortion, and Falconer was against the sanity of marriage between a man and a woman. …again, my “vote” is a protest to an organization that made a clear decision; Conservatives; you don’t matter…we are going to weaken, if not an outright change, our position on these platform items (others are just a matter of time…border security to appeal to Hispanics, measures to appear less “war on women-ish” starting with over the counter BC…it’s just a slippery slope…perhaps in a bid to win over independents, CD will shift on the 2A..he has shifted already on many other issues) , and if you disagree, you are bigoted, intolerant, and obtuse (“and please don’t remind us that just 2-3 years ago we were advocating the EXACT same thing you are wrt to both marriage and abortion”…some of the dichotomies of statements made by the Chairman are classic in this regard…as if no one would remember or reference them)
    It isn’t so much crafting it as “sellout..” It’s hypocritical, self-serving, and very insidious. You believe it is political pragmatism; yet it is a stark abdication and weakening core tenets. What are the next rounds of “core tenets” the neo-progressives are willing to abdicate to appeal to a more “broad” “New Generation” of voter? How far left does the current GOP leadership choose to go to try to out left the left?
    Perhaps you will understand this Michael when we start to see an abdication of the 2A emanating from those within the party that will conclude; It’s time to evolve on the 2A….

  22. “So, while the charge of “crack pot” is levied, is it warranted? ”

    I’m not levying that charge whatsoever. I’m talking about perception which, like it or not, becomes reality.

    I know, like, and associate with a lot of principled people. Unfortunately, some of those principled people’s passion gets them branded as something else. I speak from personal experience.

    Play the long game, FF.

  23. “you Brian are politically astute enough to know of the raging philosophical battle between the GOP-E (establishment) and the more conservative supporters (“tea party” for lack of a more apt term.”

    …which is why I’m offering this free advice. Play the long game.

  24. Brian,

    Thank you. Nor was I levying the “levy” charge personally on you. I got your drift.

    Riddle me this; I have seen a surge of DeMaio commercials of late. Not one of his campaigns commercials…not one…EVER mentions his affiliation with the Republican Party. Can you site any other advertising endeavor where the company does not use its name to promote its product?

    “Independent”..”went against the extremists” (and who is that referencing..those “conservatives no doubt..)

    So this ingrate takes NRCC money, squeezes an endorsement, some say through coercion and threats of “going it alone” w/o the local GOP, receives endorsements from McCarthy, Issa, McClintock, and others, then crafts a false & divisive narrative where he, by omission, indicts and derides the very party/establishment that got him there…and GOP enablers, personally, ethically, do not see a fundamental problem with that?

    Is that the political pragmatism the fence riders were expecting when they were told all the “goodness” that would come from a DeMaio endorsement?

    The proof in the pudding for the beginning of the end for the GOP is the very fact that the last two candidates they have propped up are actually running, campaigning, and promoting themselves as Independents…independents that take pride in NOT being affiliated with the Republican Party…. = “Republicans” evidently, need not apply!

    So, as a life long Republican, with my parents as Goldwater Delegates, having voted personally for Reagan…twice…why would I, or any real republicans support an organization that has to use subterfuge, obfuscation, and false narratives to advance its agenda?

    I will work to thwart, oppose, and reverse that. As long as the present regime is in power, misguiding the current members, and maligning those that have been party faithful and been true to their convictions as defined by the Republican Platform, I will “protest.”

    I think we’re about ready for that beer.. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.