If he wants to live in DC, he should live in DC. He doesn’t. He lives in Leesburg, VA, which is at least an hour outside of DC. 2 to 3 more hours, and he’d be “home” to Penn Hills.
The bottom line is that I, along with my fellow citizens, get to decide in a few months whether it’s cool for Virginia to have 3 senators and Pennsylvania only one or not. And whether Senator Man on Dog is unfit to represent us for a large number of other reasons.
It seems to me that there are two seperate arguments going on here. I agree with Rick on the topic of residency. I think he was an idiot not to think some hypocrasy would come back to bite him since he used it against his opponant. And I think a wiser man would have made at least a half assed attempt, with furniture and the acoutrments of daily life, in the vacant home. But beyond that, I see nothing wrong with it.
The school issue seems to be a seperate one, and one that was caused a dustup in PA in the past, but isn’t really related to the latest dustup.
If the taxpayers of Pennsylvania provide that benefit for other state residents that live out of state, there is no reason that Senator Santorum’s family should not also get it.
If the taxpayers wish to limit it with some sort of needs-based test, they certainly can. Right now, they don’t. So I see no reason whatsoever that Senator Santorum should not avail himself of this benefit.
Dear gawd.
I kan spel. I kan spel reel gowd.
:smack:
Plenty of people that live in Leesburg work in DC. Rt 7 is packed every morning, eastbound, with commuter traffic and every evening westbound with commuter traffic. There is no reason to force a congressman to live within the DC city limits, when less expensive housing is available in the suburbs.
Except that members of Congress have always been considered to live in their home states and districts. For you to say they 'actually live" in Virginia is to ignore that fact.
From what I gather, you have to live in this state. At least, that’s what I read-I could be wrong.
Then his earlier argument was similarly flawed. That doesn’t make the argument valid now. It means that Santorum was wrong for making those charges in 2000, and whoever is making them now against Santorum is wrong.
I checked the article-you must be a local resident to attend said school. They do NOT allow it for anyone out of state.
Sorry, Bricker, you’re wrong on this one. And so is Senator Fecal Slime.
Residency for congressmen and thier families has always been rooted in their home districts and states. There is nothing unusual or complex about that. It’s irrelevant if he and his family spend the vast majority of their time in their house in Leesburg. when you are a Congresscritter, residency is not a matter of where you spend the majority of your time.
Not the law I’m referring to. Your referring to the Senate ethics rule; I’m referring to the educational tax credit – or as you called it in the post that started this, the “same deal.” I thought that was clear, but I’m sorry if it wasn’t. Anyhoo, the spirit of that law is apparently to provide an educational tax credit to parents of children living in the Penn Hills School District, not to provide an educational tax credit to parents who happen to own a house in the Penn Hills School District. Wouldn’t you agree?
(emphasis mine)
It is if he’s only ACTING like he lives in his “home” state.
And what, pray tell, is the legal definition of “resident?” Did you check that, too, Guinastasia?
Again, is spirirt of the tax credit law to provide for someone outside the school district, regardless of the reason? Probably not.
Yes.
But Santorum’s claim to residency in that school district is not based on his merely owning a home in that district. It’s based on the fact that THAT home is his legal residence, and, of course, his family’s legal residence as well.
You forgot to put quotation marks around “residence.” He owns a building there. It is by no means an actual residence.
Well, apparently, according to the Post-Gazette article linked above, the district disagrees.
I disagree. The spirit of the law would be to provide that benefit to residents of the school system.
Consider a National Guardsman’s family enrolled in that cyber-school. The Guardsman is activated and sent to Lousiana to help rebuild after Katrina. A single parent lacking child care, she rents an apartment for her six-month deployment.
Does she need to get a Louisana driver’s license, and re-register her car in Lousiana? No. Military on active duty retain residency in their home state.
Would her kids have to quit their cyber-school because of her six-month change of address? No, for the same reason: her residency, and theirs, is unaffected by her deployment.
The spirit of that law is to provide a benefit for the RESIDENTS. No less than the deployed Guardsman, Pennsylvania’s senators and representatives are residents in their Pennsylvania homes, even while thier jobs force them to live at other addresses.
Santorum is not a resident of the school district.
Cite?
I see ONE member of the school board quoted as raising this concern: Erin Vecchio. Interestingly, she is also chair of the Democratic party in Penn Hills.
So where do you get the basis that “the district disagrees?”
Sure he is.
Why do you think he isn’t? He meets the legal requirements for residency.