Follow TV Tropes

Following

Tea Party Rep Joe Walsh fails to pay child support to his wife, $100k

Go To

Enkufka Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ from Bay of White fish Since: Dec, 2009
Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ
#1: Jul 28th 2011 at 3:45:23 PM

From the Chicago Sun Times:

Freshman U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh, a tax-bashing Tea Party champion who sharply lectures President Barack Obama and other Democrats on fiscal responsibility, owes more than $100,000 in child support to his ex-wife and three children, according to documents his ex-wife filed in their divorce case in December.

“I won’t place one more dollar of debt upon the backs of my kids and grandkids unless we structurally reform the way this town spends money!” Walsh says directly into the camera in his viral video lecturing Obama on the need to get the nation’s finances in order.

Walsh starts the video by saying, “President Obama, quit lying. Have you no shame, sir? In three short years, you’ve bankrupted this country.”

In court documents, after his ex-wife, Laura Walsh, asked a judge to suspend his driver’s license until he paid his child support, Joe Walsh asks his ex-wife’s lawyer: “Have you no decency?”

Joe Walsh’s attorney, R. Steven Polachek, called the claim of a $117,437 debt “unfounded.”

“I dispute that he owes the child support that she’s claiming or anywhere near that amount,” Polachek said. “Joe Walsh hasn’t been a big-time wage-earner politician until recently — he’s had no more problems with child support than any other average guy.”

While Laura Walsh’s attorneys say they have been awaiting a meeting with Joe Walsh’s attorney to work out a settlement, Polachek said it’s her attorneys who have been stalling.

‘No compromise’

An intense, silver-haired firebrand, Walsh, 49, has taken cable TV by storm in recent weeks, becoming the unofficial spokesman for the “No compromise” faction of the Republican majority in the U.S. House — refusing to consider any debt crisis solution that includes raising taxes on the wealthy.

Walsh admits he is not wealthy. Some of his financial problems — including losing his Evanston condo to foreclosure — were documented before his out-of-nowhere victory last fall in the 8th Congressional District in Chicago’s north and northwest suburbs.

But court documents examined this week by the Chicago Sun-Times during research for a profile on the increasingly visible congressman showed his financial issues also included a nine-year child support battle with his ex-wife.

Before getting elected, he had told Laura Walsh that because he was out of work or between jobs, he could not make child support payments. So she was surprised to read in his congressional campaign disclosures that he was earning enough money to loan his campaign $35,000.

“Joe personally loaned his campaign $35,000, which, given that he failed to make any child support payments to Laura because he ‘had no money’ is surprising,” Laura Walsh’s attorneys wrote in a motion filed in December seeking $117,437 in back child support and interest. “Joe has paid himself back at least $14,200 for the loans he gave himself.”

Walsh’s attorneys responded in court filings: “Respondent admits that funds were loaned to his campaign fund. . . . Respondent admits that the campaign fund has repaid certain loans.”

He personally wrote in court filings that he thought he and his ex-wife were coming to an agreement on the money he owes. He noted that the children have lived with him for part of the last nine years.

Walsh lives with his new wife and children in Mc Henry. He has not paid any of the $117,437 yet, Laura Walsh’s attorney, Jack Coladarci, said Wednesday.

Took vacations

Joe and Laura Walsh had been married 15 years when she filed for divorce in December 2002. The thickness of the court file reflects Laura Walsh’s nine years of trying to collect child support and expenses from a man who crusades against compromise. Laura Walsh went to court repeatedly over the past nine years to get him to pay up, sometimes even asking the court to garnish his wages, court records show.

In 2004, Laura Walsh complained in a motion that despite her ex-husband’s claims of poverty, he took a vacation to Mexico with his girlfriend and another to Italy. The following year, he complained in a court filing that his ex-wife mailed him a motion while she knew he was in Nicaragua doing charitable work with one of their children.

In her December filing, Laura Walsh’s attorneys wrote, “The apparent availability of large sums of money from either his employment, his family or his campaign has allowed him to live quite a comfortable lifestyle, while at the same time, due to his failure to pay child support or any of his share of the education costs or medical expenses, Laura and his children were denied any of these advantages.”

After Joe Walsh missed payments, Cook County Judge Grace Dickler wrote in a 2005 order, “If Joe Walsh fails to tender [his 50 percent share of children’s expenses] to Laura within 7 days, ONE TIME, the court shall enter an automatic withdrawal . . . from Joe Walsh’s employer.”

In the most current controversy, Walsh has responded to his ex-wife’s plea for $117,000 by submitting an e-mail that he says shows she was willing in September to settle with him for about $10,000.

An e-mail from her that the congressman attached to a court motion showed Laura Walsh saying: “For almost 2½ years now I have been very patient about money you owe me for your share of the children’s expenses because I thought you were not working. Even last summer when I was out of work for a few months, I scraped to pay for medical and education-related expenses on my own.”

That e-mail dealt with child expenses above and beyond the child support debt.

Rep. Walsh responded with this e-mail to her: “Laura, I’m good with what you’re proposing.”

In prior years, court records show Walsh objecting to paying for expenses such as summer camp or a homecoming suit he never agreed to.

But, at least recently, he appears to be paying his share of the expenses, said Laura Walsh’s attorney, Coladarci, “because I haven’t been getting calls from my client saying he hasn’t.”

Work history

Laura Walsh is a non-practicing attorney who works for the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly, according to the state of Illinois’ Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee.

As a sometimes-employed financial consultant/venture capitalist/Republican activist, Joe Walsh’s resume is difficult to characterize. His congressional disclosure statement says he earned $14,500 in 2009 from Advantage Futures and Michigan Avenue Ventures and $8,000 in self-employment.

In 2010, he was paid $21,000 by the United Republican Fund of Illinois. He also has worked as a teacher and an administrator of education trust funds. He now is paid $175,000 a year as a congressman.

When Coladarci called the congressional payroll office to have them enforce a court order withholding $2,164 from Walsh’s monthly check for child support, the payroll staffer “seemed surprised” and said “tsk, tsk, tsk,” Coladarci said.

Congress has withheld child support money from members’ paychecks over the years when ordered by a court, said Dan Weiser, a spokesman for the U.S. House of Representatives. He did not elaborate.

In 1994, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Illinois) owed $8,500 in child support.

‘Trying to work out a settlement’

Both sides in the Walsh case have been negotiating Walsh’s overdue child support since he filed his response in February.

“Out of respect for his being in Washington, we haven’t been pushing it. We have been trying to work out a settlement,” Coladarci said.

After Laura Walsh filed for divorce in 2002, Joe Walsh counter-filed for divorce and sought custody of the children, saying he worked from home and Laura Walsh “suffers from psychological and other conditions.” He has not repeated that charge in written motions since 2003. The couple had three children, then ages 15, 12 and 8. They are now 23, 20 and 16.

In addition to the foreclosure on his condominium, Walsh was haunted during his campaign by disclosures of liens on his property from unpaid bills and staffers abandoning his campaign, saying he wasn’t paying them.

Keith Liscio, who said Walsh hired him to be campaign manager — Walsh disputes that — has sued Walsh for $20,000 in salary he said Walsh owes him. Both sides are trying to settle that case.

Staffers learned during the campaign that Walsh was driving on a suspended license. His license was suspended twice in 2008 for his failure to appear in court, and he was cited in 2009 for driving on a suspended license, according to the Illinois Secretary of State.

Walsh’s energetic Tea Party politics are making him the darling of cable TV. He addressed a Tea Party rally Wednesday at the Capitol and appeared Wednesday night on CNN saying he and other “troublesome conservatives” in the House won’t vote for anything less than “a profound deal that will change this town so we never get to this point again.”

For more than 10 minutes last week, he sparred with liberal-leaning MSNBC “Hardball” host Chris Matthews, who once confessed that listening to President Obama, “I felt this thrill going up my leg.”

Walsh and Matthews shouted over each other for most of the interview about whether the Republican debt plan or Obama’s plan was less complete.

“Hey Chris, your president, who sends a tingle up your leg, your president has not been serious in six months! Why do you ignore that?” Walsh said.

“It’s our president,” Matthews interjected.

“He is our president,” Walsh conceded. “He doesn’t send a thrill up my leg, Chris, all right?”

After they belittled each other as “childish,” Walsh closed by saying, “You need to be more objective, but I love it, Chris.”

Illinois Democrats earlier this year, while redrawing congressional boundaries, mapped Walsh out of his district. Walsh, who already has raised $600,000 for a campaign, has not said which district he’ll run in.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
blueharp Since: Dec, 1969
MajorTom Eye'm the cutest! Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Eye'm the cutest!
#4: Jul 28th 2011 at 3:51:07 PM

^^ And that is somehow more heinous than all the bullshit and missed support John Edwards has done over the years?

^ With what? Parsley?

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#5: Jul 28th 2011 at 3:53:56 PM

[up]

Dude, not even democrats like John Edwards.

Not to mention, the point here, is exactly like edwards, what we have here is a hilarious hypocrite. Therefore I vote much like Edwards was castigated and thrown to the wolves, so should this guy.

MajorTom Eye'm the cutest! Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Eye'm the cutest!
#6: Jul 28th 2011 at 3:54:58 PM

Indeed he should, but you realize this is going to be treated as symptomatic of the Tea Party as a whole in the biased media, not an isolated case.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."
blueharp Since: Dec, 1969
#7: Jul 28th 2011 at 3:55:46 PM

I can't find one mention of John Edwards missing any child support payments. If you're going to complain about him, at least get the details right.

[up]

I know what's going to happen, the complaints from one side will be that he isn't, but when another example comes up from the other side, they'll complain that he or she is.

edited 28th Jul '11 3:58:25 PM by blueharp

Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#8: Jul 28th 2011 at 3:58:21 PM

[up][up]

And thats different than how Edwards, kerry, Clinton, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, (or even John Stewart) etc are treated by the Right media..how?

NickTheSwing Since: Aug, 2009
#9: Jul 28th 2011 at 4:25:32 PM

It would be best if this was viewed as symptomatic of the Tea Party, so as to prevent such lunatics from entering public office.

Bunch of theocratic nutcases.

edited 28th Jul '11 4:26:26 PM by NickTheSwing

Sign on for this After The End Fantasy RP.
Thorn14 Gunpla is amazing! Since: Aug, 2010
Gunpla is amazing!
#10: Jul 28th 2011 at 4:28:17 PM

Everyone knows the liberal media made John Edwards into a hero, while it will be attacking this fine upstanding gentleman who is just having some minor financial issues [lol]

I laugh my ass off every time I hear "Liberal Media Bias"

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#12: Jul 28th 2011 at 4:55:39 PM

^^

It is just as much of an error to admit that liberal media bias does not exist as it is to deny that there is also a distinct conservative media bias. They both exist.

AllanAssiduity Since: Dec, 1969
#13: Jul 29th 2011 at 6:09:19 AM

Hypocritical bullshitter.

Ramidel (Before Time Began) Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
#14: Jul 29th 2011 at 9:03:50 AM

How is this hypocritical? After all, child support is an evil liberal plot that gives women an incentive to break up the traditional family, and therefore, tea partiers should refuse to pay!

(This is not exaggeration, by the way. Someone actually said this to me in complete seriousness.)

I despise hypocrisy, unless of course it is my own.
HiddenFacedMatt Avatars may be subject to change without notice. Since: Jul, 2011
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
#15: Jul 29th 2011 at 9:50:20 AM

I can't find one mention of John Edwards missing any child support payments. If you're going to complain about him, at least get the details right.
IIRC he implicitly condoned using Christianity as an excuse for discriminating against gays, (forget the context, but it was during the Dems' primaries when some pastor asked him about it) despite that cheating on his wife was diverging from Christianity in a much more obvious way. So it's a comparable hypocrisy, for sure.

But yeah, there will always be those who change their "principles" (if they can call them that) depending on whose ox is being gored. Trouble is, people can always come up with rationalizations of why X is different, making hypocrisy (or in this case, double standards in which kinds of hypocrisy they condemn... hypocrisy within hypocrisy!) a little hard to prove.

...

Oops, something I missed earlier on...

It would be best if this was viewed as symptomatic of the Tea Party, so as to prevent such lunatics from entering public office.
Are you implying that the ends justify the means?

edited 29th Jul '11 9:54:31 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#16: Jul 29th 2011 at 9:56:40 AM

It depends what the ends and means are. Machiavelli always said that the end should be kept in mind, not that all action justified it.

HiddenFacedMatt Avatars may be subject to change without notice. Since: Jul, 2011
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
#17: Jul 29th 2011 at 10:00:55 AM

... okay, at least you're being honest about it being a less than honest approach. o.o

Still though, tactics that underhanded should be a last resort, and even then approached with caution. The tea partiers are still considered a Vocal Minority, not the majority. Are we sure misrepresenting them is really necessary?

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
Karkadinn Karkadinn from New Orleans, Louisiana Since: Jul, 2009
Karkadinn
#18: Jul 29th 2011 at 10:07:50 AM

In a broader sense, it wouldn't exactly be very hard to make a philosophical argument about hypocrisy being symptomatic of any faction that predominantly uses theology and patriotism to support personally convenient goals.

However, it's not really necessary, and does more harm than good in the long run by making you look less credible and sinking down to the level of your opponent. The Tea Party, as a whole, is easy enough to attack over objective issues that you needn't resort to conjecturing mud catapults.

This guy goes on trips to Europe with his girlfriend while simultaneously declaring himself too poor to pay child support to his ex-wife. In fact, right now he makes in one year more than what he owes entirely in child support. He should be punished appropriately both financially and in terms of public opinion, regardless of partisan issues and factional loyalties. And if the Tea Party really cared about their objective credibility, they'd be the first ones in line to denounce his behavior.

edited 29th Jul '11 10:11:50 AM by Karkadinn

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
HiddenFacedMatt Avatars may be subject to change without notice. Since: Jul, 2011
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
#19: Jul 29th 2011 at 11:01:42 AM

And if the Tea Party really cared about their objective credibility, they'd be the first ones in line to denounce his behavior.
This.

I guess the silver lining here is that this presents a Secret Test of Character for people of liberal OR conservative persuasions, the conservatives who mindlessly defend him and liberals who make him out to represent the Tea Party each failing it.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#20: Jul 29th 2011 at 11:36:17 AM

The guy may be a jerk but that speaks more towards the gullibility of the people who voted for him, not the political movement he represents. I'm rather happy that he got his district eliminated so he hopefully won't be able to find some other host body to leech off of.

edited 29th Jul '11 11:37:10 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#21: Jul 29th 2011 at 11:52:09 AM

It does make it ironically funny for those of us who live in tea party areas who had to listen to all the rantinf about career politicians are now getting to find out even the freshmen arent immune to "career politics"

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#22: Jul 29th 2011 at 11:58:42 AM

That's not politics, it's just being a run of the mill asshole. It turns into politics when the players try to cover it up or pillory each other over it.

edited 29th Jul '11 11:59:04 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#23: Jul 29th 2011 at 12:08:30 PM

[up]

well, yes. But a big talking point around here was how career politicians like Ike Skelton and Claire Mccaskill (both local congressmen) needed to be kicked out because despite years upon years of reluiable service, they were "career politicians" and therefore more interested in their jobs than their district or sticking to their political ideas.

I just find it funny that the same sort of shit the tea party in missouri gave to "career politics" the freshman class are just as susceptible to.

edited 29th Jul '11 12:08:53 PM by Midgetsnowman

HiddenFacedMatt Avatars may be subject to change without notice. Since: Jul, 2011
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
#24: Aug 2nd 2011 at 7:56:30 AM

[up] It's telling about the hypocrisy of those individuals, but it would be Ad Hominem to say this refutes the criticisms of career politicians, however valid or not they may be.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#25: Aug 2nd 2011 at 8:28:53 AM

[up]

I'm niot saying it refutes the idea of career politicians being corrupt. so much as that it proves that people hilariously overestimate the virtue of "washington outsiders".


Total posts: 36
Top