The War Against Accountability

by Chris Bowers, Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 10:22:47 AM EST

Rick Santorum (R-VA), lover of all things wholesome, is defrauding a public school district for tens of thousands of dollars and openly violating the Constitution of the United States. Let's start with theft from a public school: The Penn Hills School District asked Sen. Rick Santorum a $38,000 question. That is whether his children are residents of the municipality to the point that their educations should be paid for by Penn Hills taxpayers.

On Wednesday he gave his answer and it was no.(...)

Five Santorum children have been home-schooled at their house in Leesburg, Va., through the Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School, an education paid for by the Penn Hills district to the tune of $38,000 a year, until it became apparent recently that they don't live in Penn Hills.

The senator's office issued a statement two days ago saying he and his wife, Karen, are withdrawing their children from the cyber school.

The only reason the Santorums stopped stealing from taxpayers and the school district was because they were caught doing it. This probably frustrates them to no end, since ripping off a school district to the tune of $38,000 was merely Santorum's personal contribution to "starving the beast."

But let's back up a second--why weren't the Santorum children living in the school district where Santorum's Pennsylvania house is located?

The two-bedroom house that the Santorum children called home for education purposes and that gives Mr. and Mrs. Santorum the right to vote in Pennsylvania lacks an occupancy permit. And the property tax break from the homestead exemption claimed by the Santorums on the Penn Hills house is allowed under law only if the dwelling is their "permanent home." Ahh. The reason the Santorum children do not live in the school district is because no one legally resides in the house the Santorums own in Penn Hills. Without the occupancy permit, not only were the Santorums clearly defrauding taxpayers, they are not legal residents of Pennsylvania at all. This presents another legal problem, namely Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 of the Unites States Constitution: Clause 3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. If Rick Santorum (R-VA) admits that he and his children are not residents of the Penn Hills school district, it is difficult to figure out how Santorum is a legal resident of Pennsylvania. There are people living in his Pennsylvania house and claiming residency from that address, but they are not the Santorums: Sure, he and his wife pay taxes on the house. They also use the address for voter registration, but so do two other people. When a Post-Gazette reporter visited the house last Friday, a young man came to the door and declined to comment. He wasn't Rick Santorum. This not only means that he illegally defrauded a taxpayer funded public school district of 38K, but that his Constitutional status as a legal Senator form Pennsylvania is in serious doubt. Maybe Congressional Republicans can change the law to prevent a member of their leadership from continually breaking it, like they are doing for Tom DeLay:House Republicans plan to change their rules in order to allow members indicted by state prosecutors to remain in a leadership post, a move designed to benefit Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) in case he is charged by a Texas grand jury that has indicted three of his political associates, GOP leaders said today.

The rules change, which leaders said is likely to be adopted Wednesday, comes as House Republicans return to Washington indebted to DeLay for the enhanced majority they won in this month's elections. DeLay led an aggressive redistricting effort in Texas last year that resulted in five Democratic House members retiring or losing reelection. It also triggered the grand jury inquiry into fundraising efforts related to the state legislature's redistricting actions.

Of course, changing the Constitution is a little more difficult than changing House Ethics Rules, even though Republicans have no problem being completely loose with both. The hypocrisy of Republicans in the case of both DeLay and Santorum is stunning, even by Republican standards.

DeLay in 1993:

House Republicans in 1993 -- trying to underscore the ethics problems of Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.), then-chairman of the Ways and Means Committee -- adopted the rule that requires a party leader to surrender his or her post if indicted by any grand jury, federal or state.Santorum in 1990: In his initial House race against Rep. Doug Walgren in 1990, challenger Santorum attacked the incumbent from Mt. Lebanon for buying a house and raising his children in McLean, Va. Now Rick Santorum of Leesburg, Va., is saying that he is and he isn't a resident of Pennsylvania. Corruption runs wild in among Republicans in Washington. Perhaps this is part of their war against modernity.

Tags: Republicans (all tags)

Comments

17 Comments

Sort by

permalink

R-PA not R-VA

n/t

by PocketNines 2004-11-19 10:36AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: R-PA not R-VA

No, R-VA. I live in PA, Santorum doesn't.

by Chris Bowers 2004-11-19 10:41AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: R-PA not R-VA

Ah, I commented after the first two seconds of reading. Sorry. I get it now. Nice post.

by PocketNines 2004-11-19 10:42AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: R-PA not R-VA: The Santorum Saga

According to one Pittsburgh newspaper, 4 members of the Penn Hills School Board are going to request that the district is repaid $100,000 because that is the amount the district has paid out to the cyber charter school.

In my personal opinion, this couldn't happen to a nicer person. Santorum wants to be President one day? At this point he could not win as President of the Penn Hills School Board.

by Marie Smith 2004-11-19 10:49AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: R-PA not R-VA: The Santorum Saga

I just remembered the appropriate quote: "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

by Marie Smith 2004-11-19 10:52AM | 0 recs

permalink

Constitutionally

It would seem the key phrase is "when elected." As in, on the date of the election. Individual states then have their own rules about the cutoff date for being a resident to run for office (ala Keyes in Illinois - was it two months in advance or soething like that?).

I am an attorney, and though this is not my area, I'm pretty sure from basic civil procedure that being a resident of a state is a fairly simple hurdle. To be a resident of Pennsylvania in time for the next election, assuming for the sake of argument he is a resident of Virginia at the moment, heneed only declare his intent to be a resident while physically in the state. He need not have witnesses, he can do it by himself in the bathroom.

So, while I like the post because it can be a PR issue and potential source of embarrassment if played right, it probably isn't likely to net any Constitutional repercussion.

by PocketNines 2004-11-19 10:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Constitutionally

It doesn't matter if this isn't technically illegal. It clearly goes against the spirit of the law, it sure looks like he's violating the law to the average person, and if he tries to explain how this is really ok because he "intends" to make PA his place of domicile (the legal standard), he just sounds like a prick.

by peter412 2004-11-19 11:27AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Constitutionally

To repeat:

"So, while I like the post because it can be a PR issue and potential source of embarrassment if played right, it probably isn't likely to net any Constitutional repercussion. "

by PocketNines 2004-11-19 11:38AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Constitutionally

No, Santorum believes that we need a Federal Marriage Amendment to make certain that states have the right to make it illegal for someone to do it by himself in a bathroom.

by Ephus 2004-11-19 12:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Is this just the tip of the iceberg?

Along with all of the Bush administration scandals can we expect more meltdowns in the Republican party? A prediction and a little history lesson from The Washington Monthly

Party Down Like the Democrats during the 1970s, today's GOP is hidebound and out of touch. linked text

by Gary Boatwright 2004-11-19 10:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

Modernity

Perhaps this is part of their war against modernity.

Well, well. Someone's been reading Karen Armstrong. Bravo!

by Rook 2004-11-19 12:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Registered mail

I made this suggestion over at dKos. I'm kind of proud of it, so I'll repost:

Here's how we responsd. The DNC send a envelope, registered mail, to Santorum's "residence" in PA. They pack the envelope with fake stuff about selling out the GOP. If he accepts the envelope, then we rat him out to the Club for Growth that he is double dealing to the DNC. If he doesn't open it then, according to the standards of the RNC, he doesn't live at that address.

Bingo. Photo op.

by emptywheel 2004-11-19 12:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

Senate Ethics Committee

Ok folks, sharpen your pencils and lambast this sleezy behavior! (C'mon, you know the reactionary right would do it if it were a Dem... It's time to take a page from their playbook!)
Here they are:
Republicans
George V. Voinovich, Ohio, Chairman
Pat Roberts, Kansas
Craig Thomas, Wyoming
Democrats
Harry Reid, Nevada, Vice Chairman
Daniel Akaka, Hawaii
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas

email forms are thru the website, http://www.senate.gov.

And who knows? Maybe there's at least a scintilla of a violation, ESPECIALLY if the teachers provided free services:

WHAT IS A GIFT?
The word ``gift'' is defined broadly and includes any ``item having monetary value.'' Specifically,
paragraph 2(b)(1) of the Rule states:
[T]he term ``gift'' means any gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan,
forbearance, or other item having monetary value. The term includes gifts of services,
training, transportation, lodging, and meals, whether provided in kind, by purchase of a
ticket, payment in advance, or reimbursement after the expense has been incurred.
WHO IS RESTRICTED?
By its terms, Rule 35 covers current Members, officers, and employees of the Senate (¶
1(a)(1) and (2)). Unlike the previous Rule 35, spouses and dependents are not separately subject
to the gift limitations. Rather, under the current Rule, a gift to a family member (or any other
individual) is considered a gift to the Member, officer, or employee only if it is given with the
knowledge and acquiescence of the Member, officer, or employee and the Member, officer, or
employee has reason to believe the gift was given because of the official position of the Member,
officer, or employee.
From the Senate Ethics Manual, http://ethics.senate.gov/downloads/pdffiles/manual.pdf.

Even if it's OK to our ethically-challenged congressfolks, that shouldn't stop us from raising a ruckus.....

(here's my email:
Dear Senator Reid:
I am appalled that Senator Santorum would take advantage of Pennsylvania taxpayers by home-schooling his children in Virginia through a Pennsylvania-funded program -- especially by using what appears to be a specious Pennsylvania home address. As Vice-Chair of the Ethics Committee, I assume you are closely examining this breach of trust for any ethical violations under Senate Rules and will take all action necessary -- including, if applicable, a referral to the appropriate law enforcement agency.

Very truly yours,

"silverleaf")

by silverleaf 2004-11-19 01:43PM | 0 recs

permalink

As much as I want this guy gone...

I don't think this has legs. So Santorum is elected to serve in Washington and moves his family with him to stay near D.C. This does not strike me as a particularly odd or improper arrangement.

by JPhurst 2004-11-19 02:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: As much as I want this guy gone...

Doesn't it show how hypocritical he is? I agree with you that it shouldn't have any legs at all. But Santorum already raised the issue. If the goose is good for the gander....

by jsramek 2004-11-20 06:04AM | 0 recs

permalink

Arrogance and Abuse of Power

The more we tie Republicans to the image of governing with arrogance and the abuse of power the sooner they will be wishing they hadn't skipped ethics class.

"Mr Santorum, how does hiding your true residence for the purpose of defrauding a local school district and enriching yourself help the people of Pennsylvania?"

It just gets better and better!

by Tuba Les 2004-11-19 09:59PM | 0 recs

permalink

Not the scandal you think

There are two issues here. 1. Whether Santorum's kids are eligible for the cyber school treatment and 2. whether Santorum is a "resident" of PA. The second issue is completely bogus, my friends. I am a foreign service officer. Like many who work for the government -- in the foreign service, military and yes, in Congress -- I am "resident" someplace and "domiciled" someplace else. I am domiciled in Washington State -- I vote there and I own my "permanent home" there which, not being wealthy, I rent out while living in my "temporary" residence in Virginia. I would love to live in my real residence but unfortunately the Founders in there wisdom put the capital in the "wrong Washington" (as we Northwesterners would put it). So all the so-called constitutional issues are simply bogus. What is Santorum -- and I am no friend of his, for sure -- supposed to do? Keep an empty house up in PA and eat the mortgage payments? Is he supposed to be separated from his family the entire time he is in DC? Of course not. He does what people like me and in the military do -- he rents out his permanent home and lives in his "temporary" place in Virginia. I've been living "temporarily" in Virginia for almost five years now, since my last overseas assignment.

The second issue is trickier and is more germane. My kids go to Virginia schools. They are entitled to because we are currently "resident" here, even though legally "domiciled" in Seattle -- I still have to pay VA income tax as long as I'm living here and I support the schools indirectly through the property taxes paid by my landlord. When I am overseas I pay no income taxes to Virginia because I am no longer "resident." If I were "domiciled" in Virginia I would still be liable for VA income tax even when overseas. (Since Washington State has no income tax, I pay no state income tax while overseas.) I don't know the answer, but I suspect that Santorum by law does NOT have to pay Virginia income tax but DOES have to pay PA income tax while he is in Washington. (I could be wrong on this point.) If he is paying income tax in Penn and since he is legally domiciled there, you could make the argument that his kids would be entitled to the cyber school benefits. If, however, he doesn't have to pay PA income tax but pays it in VA, then they obviously wouldn't be.

So there.

by traven 2004-11-20 04:35AM | 0 recs