Senator Santorum sticking to the Penn Hill's area taxpayers!
-
fleaflicker
- Official BleacherCoach
- Posts: 1947
- Joined: March 13th, 2004, 12:32 am
Re: Senator Santorum sticking to the Penn Hill's area taxpay
Nice sarcasm once a runner. lol. Unfortunately, all those who are in office seem to care more about staying in office than what's actually good for the nation. I'm sure you've all heard of gerrymandering or whatever it's called, but it's redistricting everything so that the incumbent stays in power. Whenever they take a census, they try to get it so that all the districts have the same number of people. But they also try to get it so that the party in power stays there. Take a look at Pennsylvania's district map and you'll see it right away, especially in the southwest corner of the state. There's one that's about like a thin half circle in one corner of the state. I think perhaps a limit to sides of a district would help things a bit. So unfortunately, term limits is never going to happen in Congress. Wish it would, but it's not ever going to. At the end of this I'm going to give a link to a site where you can look at the Congressional District Map of Pennsylvania. Especially look at the funny business going on with the 12th District and the 18th District. Hmm....
http://santorum.senate.gov/districts108.html
http://santorum.senate.gov/districts108.html
Last edited by fleaflicker on September 20th, 2011, 12:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
"To give anything less than the best is to sacrifice the gift." -Steve Prefontaine
Re: Senator Santorum sticking to the Penn Hill's area taxpay
The House GOP caucus is likely to vote today to end its rule requiring leaders to step down if indicted, thus shielding Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) in the event that criminal charges are brought against him in a highly controversial case in Texas.
The effort to change the decade-old rule is being led by Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-Texas) to head off the threat posed by what Republicans say is a Democratic political witch hunt against DeLay after his success in redistricting Texas in the GOP’s favor.
Austin’s district attorney, Ronnie Earle, has indicted two of DeLay’s closest fundraisers for their role in that effort and could indict DeLay himself.
“Congressman Bonilla’s rule change is designed to prevent political manipulation of the legislative process,” his spokeswoman, Taryn Fritz Walpole, wrote in an e-mail. “The modification preserves the original ethical intent of the rule by lessening the possibility of political exploitation and intimidation of House Leadership and Chairmanship positions.
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told The Hill that the rule change, first reported by The Hill yesterday, “reflects a reality that [Earle’s investigation is] nothing but a political witch hunt bent on taking him to court. It’s the final phase that Democrats are coming to grips that Republicans are a permanent majority. There’s not any question it’ll pass.”
DeLay, who has been admonished by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for his role in the redistricting, has decided to “allow the members of the conference to come to their own conclusions and that he should not exert undue influence on the process,” said spokesman Stuart Roy.
In 1993, amid ethical and criminal charges pending against several senior House Democrats and Rep. Joe McDade (R-Pa.), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Republicans stripped leaders and ranking committee members — the GOP was then in the minority — of their posts.
Speaker Jim Wright (D-Texas) and Majority Whip Tony Coelho (D-Calif.) previously had resigned under pressure of ethical charges. Majority Whip William Gray (D-Pa.) had been investigated by the Justice Department for improper use of his personal office. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) served 15 months in prison and two months in a halfway house and paid a $100,000 fine after pleading guilty to two counts of mail fraud in 1996.
In the 108th Congress, GOP conference rules require a leader to step aside temporarily if indicted on a felony charge that carries a prison term of two or more years. A separate rule applies to committee chairmen.
Republican aides were still hashing out the exact language of the rule change.
Bonilla’s proposal would drop the requirement that a leader step aside if indicted by a grand jury or a state prosecutor.
Republicans have used Democrats’ ethical lapses, including a check-kiting scandal at the House bank, to their political advantage. In 1987, then-Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) told The Washington Post: “[You] now have a House where it is more dangerous to be aggressive about honesty than it is to be mildly corrupt. … We have in Wright, [Majority Leader Tom Foley (D-Wash.)] and Coelho a third generation of Democratic leaders, the first that has never served in a minority. … You now have a situation where I think people feel almost invulnerable.”
Cantor said, however, that by inoculating DeLay in the present case the Republicans will not lose the moral high ground gained by instituting the rule in the first place.
“That line of reasoning [accepts] that exercise of the prosecutor in Texas is legitimate,” he said.
Meantime, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the incoming chairman of the Republican Study Committee, said he has introduced a package of rule changes to force more fiscal discipline on the GOP caucus. He said he was not prepared to elaborate on specific changes.
Democrats, both on and off the Hill, were relishing the prospect of Republicans’ rewriting the rules that they claimed would be a mainstay of their tenure in the majority.
“It would be the height of hypocrisy for a party that came to power promising to clean house to deliberately clear the way for a corrupt and unethical member under indictment to lead the people’s House,” a Democratic leadership aide said.
The effort to change the decade-old rule is being led by Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-Texas) to head off the threat posed by what Republicans say is a Democratic political witch hunt against DeLay after his success in redistricting Texas in the GOP’s favor.
Austin’s district attorney, Ronnie Earle, has indicted two of DeLay’s closest fundraisers for their role in that effort and could indict DeLay himself.
“Congressman Bonilla’s rule change is designed to prevent political manipulation of the legislative process,” his spokeswoman, Taryn Fritz Walpole, wrote in an e-mail. “The modification preserves the original ethical intent of the rule by lessening the possibility of political exploitation and intimidation of House Leadership and Chairmanship positions.
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told The Hill that the rule change, first reported by The Hill yesterday, “reflects a reality that [Earle’s investigation is] nothing but a political witch hunt bent on taking him to court. It’s the final phase that Democrats are coming to grips that Republicans are a permanent majority. There’s not any question it’ll pass.”
DeLay, who has been admonished by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for his role in the redistricting, has decided to “allow the members of the conference to come to their own conclusions and that he should not exert undue influence on the process,” said spokesman Stuart Roy.
In 1993, amid ethical and criminal charges pending against several senior House Democrats and Rep. Joe McDade (R-Pa.), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Republicans stripped leaders and ranking committee members — the GOP was then in the minority — of their posts.
Speaker Jim Wright (D-Texas) and Majority Whip Tony Coelho (D-Calif.) previously had resigned under pressure of ethical charges. Majority Whip William Gray (D-Pa.) had been investigated by the Justice Department for improper use of his personal office. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) served 15 months in prison and two months in a halfway house and paid a $100,000 fine after pleading guilty to two counts of mail fraud in 1996.
In the 108th Congress, GOP conference rules require a leader to step aside temporarily if indicted on a felony charge that carries a prison term of two or more years. A separate rule applies to committee chairmen.
Republican aides were still hashing out the exact language of the rule change.
Bonilla’s proposal would drop the requirement that a leader step aside if indicted by a grand jury or a state prosecutor.
Republicans have used Democrats’ ethical lapses, including a check-kiting scandal at the House bank, to their political advantage. In 1987, then-Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) told The Washington Post: “[You] now have a House where it is more dangerous to be aggressive about honesty than it is to be mildly corrupt. … We have in Wright, [Majority Leader Tom Foley (D-Wash.)] and Coelho a third generation of Democratic leaders, the first that has never served in a minority. … You now have a situation where I think people feel almost invulnerable.”
Cantor said, however, that by inoculating DeLay in the present case the Republicans will not lose the moral high ground gained by instituting the rule in the first place.
“That line of reasoning [accepts] that exercise of the prosecutor in Texas is legitimate,” he said.
Meantime, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the incoming chairman of the Republican Study Committee, said he has introduced a package of rule changes to force more fiscal discipline on the GOP caucus. He said he was not prepared to elaborate on specific changes.
Democrats, both on and off the Hill, were relishing the prospect of Republicans’ rewriting the rules that they claimed would be a mainstay of their tenure in the majority.
“It would be the height of hypocrisy for a party that came to power promising to clean house to deliberately clear the way for a corrupt and unethical member under indictment to lead the people’s House,” a Democratic leadership aide said.
Last edited by Lemmy on September 20th, 2011, 12:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. Pre
Re: Senator Santorum sticking to the Penn Hill's area taxpay
Residency question fans debate on cost of cyber-educating senator's 5 children
Sunday, November 14, 2004
By Eleanor Chute, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The Penn Hills School District, which is paying about $38,000 a year for five of U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum's children to attend a cyber charter school, is looking into whether the Republican senator resides in the district.
School board member Erin Vecchio, who is chair of the Democratic party in Penn Hills and lives near a two-bedroom house owned by the Santorums, said, "I live right down the street from the man. He's never there. ... He doesn't live here."
The Santorums use the Penn Hills address for voter registration as do two other people, Bart and Alyssa DeLuca, both 25, according to Allegheny County records.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04319/411623.stm
Sunday, November 14, 2004
By Eleanor Chute, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The Penn Hills School District, which is paying about $38,000 a year for five of U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum's children to attend a cyber charter school, is looking into whether the Republican senator resides in the district.
School board member Erin Vecchio, who is chair of the Democratic party in Penn Hills and lives near a two-bedroom house owned by the Santorums, said, "I live right down the street from the man. He's never there. ... He doesn't live here."
The Santorums use the Penn Hills address for voter registration as do two other people, Bart and Alyssa DeLuca, both 25, according to Allegheny County records.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04319/411623.stm
Last edited by Lemmy on September 20th, 2011, 12:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. Pre
Re: Senator Santorum sticking to the Penn Hill's area taxpay
Funny, I'd be more worried if he was seen more in Pittsburgh than in the DC area. Didn't we elect him to do a job in DC?
Santorum is a family man. Why is it wrong for him to have his family live with him while he does his job? I wonder how many other Senators have similar arrangements.
Santorum is a family man. Why is it wrong for him to have his family live with him while he does his job? I wonder how many other Senators have similar arrangements.
Last edited by LionPride on September 20th, 2011, 12:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Senator Santorum sticking to the Penn Hill's area taxpay
Lionpride,
Your response is the exact question the Penn Hills people are asking. It is not wrong to have his family live with him in fact it is quite respectable, but who should be responsible for the price of educating his children if the family is living in DC/VA.
People can say that he is taking advantage of the same thing that is available to everyone else, and to the letter of interpretation that may be correct. On the inverse if I am correct in my understanding of the education law in PA and many other states, the school district in which a child resides is responsible for his/her education. Residency is not necessarily defined as a permanent location. In this case, the children are clearly residing in Virginia and shouldn't the school district they live in there be responsible for their education costs.
To further the issue and show that he isn't doing what any other person would do. If a "regular" person is forced into a temporary(six month, one year whatever time period) relocation because of their job and decided to take their family with them, would they be required to enroll the kids in school where they moved? Absolutely!! If that person tried to get the previous school to pay cyber school fees for the children, that person would be shut down in a heart beat.
Using Mr. Santorum's situation as an example, a person from PA could take their kids to live in Florida for the winter, educate them through the cyber school program and expect the school in PA to pay for it. I can't imagine that people would think that is right.
Your response is the exact question the Penn Hills people are asking. It is not wrong to have his family live with him in fact it is quite respectable, but who should be responsible for the price of educating his children if the family is living in DC/VA.
People can say that he is taking advantage of the same thing that is available to everyone else, and to the letter of interpretation that may be correct. On the inverse if I am correct in my understanding of the education law in PA and many other states, the school district in which a child resides is responsible for his/her education. Residency is not necessarily defined as a permanent location. In this case, the children are clearly residing in Virginia and shouldn't the school district they live in there be responsible for their education costs.
To further the issue and show that he isn't doing what any other person would do. If a "regular" person is forced into a temporary(six month, one year whatever time period) relocation because of their job and decided to take their family with them, would they be required to enroll the kids in school where they moved? Absolutely!! If that person tried to get the previous school to pay cyber school fees for the children, that person would be shut down in a heart beat.
Using Mr. Santorum's situation as an example, a person from PA could take their kids to live in Florida for the winter, educate them through the cyber school program and expect the school in PA to pay for it. I can't imagine that people would think that is right.
Last edited by voncap on September 20th, 2011, 12:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
The easiest thing to do in sports is hustle.
Re: Senator Santorum sticking to the Penn Hill's area taxpay
Santorum told kids ineligible for school
Thursday, November 18, 2004
By Joe Fahy, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said last night that he and his wife, Karen, are withdrawing their five school-age children from the Western Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School.
Santorum has come under criticism from officials in Penn Hills, where he owns a house, who say the school district should not have to foot the $38,000 annual bill to educate his children.
The Santorums do not live in the district full time and spend most of their time in Leesburg, Va., outside Washington, D.C.
"The school district has just informed us that after reviewing our situation, only children who live in a community on a full-time basis are eligible to be educated in a public cyber charter school program," Santorum said.
Santorum said he and his wife believe it is important for the family to be together while he is working in Washington and that they would home-school the children from now on.
The cyber school is based in Midland and serves some 3,100 pupils from nearly 400 school districts statewide who attend via computer.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04323/413675.stm
Thursday, November 18, 2004
By Joe Fahy, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said last night that he and his wife, Karen, are withdrawing their five school-age children from the Western Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School.
Santorum has come under criticism from officials in Penn Hills, where he owns a house, who say the school district should not have to foot the $38,000 annual bill to educate his children.
The Santorums do not live in the district full time and spend most of their time in Leesburg, Va., outside Washington, D.C.
"The school district has just informed us that after reviewing our situation, only children who live in a community on a full-time basis are eligible to be educated in a public cyber charter school program," Santorum said.
Santorum said he and his wife believe it is important for the family to be together while he is working in Washington and that they would home-school the children from now on.
The cyber school is based in Midland and serves some 3,100 pupils from nearly 400 school districts statewide who attend via computer.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04323/413675.stm
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. Pre