Question of the day
Wednesday, Aug 10, 2011 - Posted by Rich Miller
* TPM has a story about Congressman Joe Walsh…
Last Thursday, Walsh told constituents at a townhall that he plans to “privately and legally” fight his ex-wife’s claims that he owes more than $100,000 in child support, which he called “wildly inaccurate.” A recent Chicago Sun-Times article reported that his ex-wife is suing him for $117,000 in unpaid support.
Yet, even if Walsh owes just $10,000 in unpaid child support, he could face the added headache of House Ethics Committee scrutiny. Walsh, who was elected in 2010 in a narrow victory over former Rep. Melissa Bean (D-IL) in the Tea Party-induced wave, does not list any child support debt on his financial disclosure form, as required for any liability worth more than $10,000.
“Rep. Walsh is required both by law and by congressional ethics rules to list debts in excess of $10,000 on his financial disclosure forms, including child support back payments,” said Public Citizen’s Craig Holman.
“Technically, he could be taken to task by the Ethics Committee or even the Justice Department for failure to file proper disclosure forms, but in all likelihood the Ethics Committee and Justice would be satisfied if Walsh were to file amended forms,” Holman explained.
But Walsh is in a bit of a bind. Filing an amended form would require him to admit to owing at least $10,000 in back child support, what would amount to an ugly political liability that could knock him out of his role as one of the top spokesmen for the Tea Party GOP freshmen class.
* The Question: Is this alleged failure to pay child support issue relevant or should the media downplay it? Explain.
- PaGo - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 12:51 pm:
Two sides to every story. The media is too involved. Please continue to ask the big questions about beginning to get our economy more stable.
- SO IL M - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 12:52 pm:
Yes it is relevant. Failure to pay child support shows an ethical flaw in a person. And a Conressman, especially one who claims to be a conservative, should be expected to honor their obligations. If he will not honor the obligation to his own children, how can he be expected to honor commitments to his constituents, and the country. If he will lie about this, what else will he lie about? Once again if those who are closest to him can not trust him, how can anyone else?
And yes, I am very Conservative myself, and support most of the policies that Walsh claims to support.
- ILPundit - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 12:54 pm:
Yes. I can’t think of an issue that speaks more to an individuals “character” than his willingness to provide for his own children. In this case, it not only appears he owes money, but that he was pleading poverty in court while loaning his campaign money at the same time. It speaks volumes about his character and priorities.
- Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 12:54 pm:
Absolutely relevant. For a guy who is putting himself on the front line of the highly charged “spend within your means” rhetoric, not paying what you owe in child support is the ultimate hypocrisy. If it turns out that he does owe money while he loaned his campaign $35k and took exotic vacations, I’ll expect every family oriented, spending cut loving conservative to take him to task for it.
- Capital View - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 12:58 pm:
there are two issues here — the character issue, raised by other commentators, and the fact that the congressman has purposely filed false financial information on his required ethics reports.
Congress has no choice but to raise the ethics reporting violation, which if they don’t will reflect on the character of House Republican leadership.
- chi - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 12:59 pm:
You all don’t understand. The Congressman’s children have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
- just sayin' - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 12:59 pm:
If anything the Walsh scandal deserves a lot more attention. The guy is a phony. It’s not that he was broke. He had money to loan his own campaign and to take foreign vacations. Looks like he just didn’t want to fulfill court ordered duty to his kids.
It’s pathetic. If there is a funny side it’s that the Dems are laughing at the tea partiers making incredible hypocrites of themselves. Dems pray Walsh doesn’t step down early so he can be taken out in Nov next year, which he will be if he won’t do the right thing prior.
Contrary to the delusional thinkers, the tea party is going to be the final nail in the coffin of the IL GOP. That label is huge baggage, in IL at least.
- Dirt Digger - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 1:00 pm:
Everything about politicians is fair game, as David Perel once wrote.
If it is irrelevant to his re-election prospects his voters will say so in the customary fashion.
- Anon - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 1:01 pm:
Honestly, I think it’s a little overblown at this point. Wait until AFTER he deals with the issue in court.
- Dirt Digger - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 1:07 pm:
Also “privately and legally” is an oxymoron. Although as a Democratic researcher I would applaud and welcome a Jack Ryan-style attempt to seal his divorce records.
- OneMan - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 1:11 pm:
It speaks to the man, seems relevant to me. It’s not like it has gotten that much play.
- Jake From Elwood - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 1:12 pm:
Yes, the point is relevant and yes, the media has fixated on it too much. But leaders should take care of their own.
- anon - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 1:13 pm:
totally relevant because it speaks to his charachter. anybody who would loan his campaign 35K while his children are not being provided for doesnt deserve to hold elected office.
- MikeP - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 1:18 pm:
Totally relevant. The fact that he loaned his campaign money, while not settling his debt with his ex-wife and kids says all we need to know about his priorities.
- Wensicia - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 1:24 pm:
Yes, failure to provide support to your children as part of a legal agreement is very relevant, the ethical question of disclosure is also important. Walsh can dance around this all he wants, but right now he’s caught between a rock and a hard place of his own making. Reacting belligerently in the press doesn’t help him, either.
- zatoichi - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 1:31 pm:
If you want to give speeches about fiscal responsibility, ethics, and living within your means, then you need to be walking the talk yourself. He has set the bounds of performance so he needs to meets them too.
- mokenavince - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 1:31 pm:
Joe Walsh is an accident waiting to happen,he’s in totaly over his head. If we don’t up our revenue by cutting out tax loop holes, and getting
American Corporations to keep jobs in the U.S. were done. Electing guys like Walsh just muck things up.If he can’t cope with his X wife how in the world can he fix America’s problems.
- Paul - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 1:34 pm:
Of course this is a relevant issue. It speaks to Walsh’s character. It also puts Walsh’s hypocrisy into the public light.
This is a guy that talks about Democrats lacking integrity, yet has no integrity himself. He often mentions that he does not want to put future public debt on the backs of his children and grandchildren. He apparently did not mind his children doing without when they were growing up.
- shore - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 1:35 pm:
To answer your question-it’s more important with public figures who have less of an established track record particularly people like walsh who we are still getting to learn about. If it was someone who had been in the public arena for awhile and had a demonstrated track record, it could be noted but also said, has not impacted their work.
- Responsa - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 1:36 pm:
Has anyone come out and asked him what amount he believes he actually owes in back child support? Only his “on record” answer to this question is relevant right now. His wife’s lawyer’s initial claim is not sufficient evidence. If he says he’s more than $10,000 in arrears then he should definitely pay the price (congressional ethics rules). If he says it’s less than that he should be given the time and space to prove it in court without being crucified in the press and witch hunted on blogs. Those assuming his ex-wife’s claim is wholly true and hanging that around his neck without any proof are wrong to do so and surely would not ever want something like that done to them.
- Plutocrat03 - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 1:37 pm:
If it is true, the it is relevant. If it is a manufactured claim, that is relevant as well.
- Cal Skinner - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 1:40 pm:
Wouldn’t you think some reporter would look at the case file, find and report on his reply?
- Cheryl44 - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 1:51 pm:
It’s relevant. The GOP claims to be the party of ‘personal responsibility’ and ‘family values.’ If he really does owe back child support, he’s not really in step with his own party.
- 1776 - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 1:59 pm:
Relevant. The problem is that we (media and public) don’t know the entire story and facts.
He obviously was in trouble financially. His payments were likely small. His ex-wife could be completely truthful or it could be an attempt to get more money since he was elected to Congress.
Hard to make a judgment.
- K3_Spfld_Chi - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 2:01 pm:
Both he and his staff have turned out to be a huge embarrassment to the Republican Party. It is relevant. He has an excuse that he didn’t have any money so he didn’t pay but . . . he doesn’t think that the US Government should have this option. Can’t wait to see him go.
- steve schnorf - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 2:05 pm:
Relevant. As I said in a different post last week, we here tolerate imperfection in our politicians far more readily than hypocrisy.
- Wumpus - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 2:08 pm:
Relevant as it is a character issue. I would like to have this resolved and let the chips fall where they may. I question the timing of it all, but there should be an investigation or let thefacts come out.
AS long as he gets the Ethics Panel that heard Rangel’s case, he has no worries.
- How Ironic - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 2:19 pm:
Relevant. If you are going to lecture the country on how to run the finances, it’s best to have your own fiscal house in order.
- Ahoy - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 2:23 pm:
It’s a relevant issue. Outside of the ethical dimension, this is a legal issue. He has a legal responsibility to make the payments he is legally obligated to make. Also at issue is if the failure to disclose was an oversight or intentional.
Of course it’s no wonder he was willing to let the nation default, it appears he’s not that interested in paying bills
- steve schnorf - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 2:25 pm:
By the way, lmao at chi’s response. One of the best in a long time.
- sal-says - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 2:28 pm:
If the issue is true; it’s relevant. It;s about judgement. It’s clear that far too many politicans have recently demonstrated very poor judgement; we need better.
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 2:32 pm:
It may be relevant but I would want to see the original case filing and response. From personal experience, divorce and child support issues can be tricky. Years ago, I had my lawyer suggest stopping child support payments (and putting the money in escrow) when court ordered visitation arrangements were being ignored. Another time I had the ex mad at me for late / lost child support payments when I had paid on time but the county clerk’s office had mishandled it.
Walsh may have been acting on legal advice when his income was lower than today. He may have had an order specifying a fixed level based on income different than today’s. The amount the ex-wife’s filing claims is owed may be based on trying to collect in arrears child support at the current income level rather than the actual level at the time. Or there may have been a mutual agreement based on a small fixed amount. Until we know the answers to these questions, all we can actually say based on the actual information and statements to date is he has admitted he owes something in back child support. If he owes anywhere close to the claimed $100K, then go after him. If it is under $10K, it may just be a run of the mill dispute between ex’es that doesn’t even warrant a second look.
- Justice - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 2:41 pm:
Any issue regarding failure to pay child support is relevant as far as I am concerned. It speaks volumes as to a person’s character. The question remains if this is indeed a fact.
Surprising, or not, that this has just come up as an issue when his wife allegedly did nothing to pursue it before now?
Not likely that the media will back off as it is certain that this can be used to negate his candidacy, be it true or not, the ’smell’ of ignoring child support payments causes the hounds to chase, with little ability to call them off.
In short, he is toast.
- walter sobchak - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 2:45 pm:
Titillating but irrelevant. The charges and countercharges in divorce cases mirror the titanic emotional issues attendant on the breakup of a marriage. Especially a marriage involving children, new boyfriends/girlfriends/wives/husbands. They are beyond messy, grotesque, and painful for all involved. It makes no difference whether Republican or Democrat, Tea Party Member or SEIU official…the press and people with an axe to grind should tread lightly.
- frustrated GOP - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 3:01 pm:
wow, not a good way to start off the 2012 cycle against Hultgren. Guess we know where this is going. Hopefully for Joe’s kids he can spend the rest of his time in congress securing another job.
- Because I say so - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 3:16 pm:
When you run for office and when you become an elected official, something like child support payments are fair game for the press. His constituents deserve the truth which I doubt Walsh will voluntarily offer up.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 3:17 pm:
Only relevant with solid facts to back the accusations– right now it is just one disgruntled ex smack-talking about another disgrunted ex. Welcome to “Family Court” where lying is expected behavior.
- ccwatcher - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 3:24 pm:
Yes its relevant, before he can say the us government should take care its finances in a responsible way he should be responsible to his kids. If the ex was being mean she could have come out with this when he first ran.
- Ghost - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 3:37 pm:
Highly relevant as it raises some serious questions about his decision making process and ability to place the public interest first.
If he has failed to take care of his own child, why would we feel he can take care of his district? Alos,if he is lending 35k to his campaign becuase it benefits him, while failing to provide the money to support is child,do we wanthim at the cusp of financial decisions and legislatie issues when he so obviously puts self interest ahead of others.
- L.S. - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 3:45 pm:
- chi - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 12:59 pm:
You all don’t understand. The Congressman’s children have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
This is one of the funniest things I’ve read on this blog in months
- amalia - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 4:05 pm:
Joe Walsh is disputing the amount that he owes. which means he is in debt. and means he is not in a place to criticize the government, but he does not belong in the seat. he should resign in shame.
- Nero - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 4:54 pm:
This is just one Walsh “item” with others to follow… stay tuned.
- Zool - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 5:01 pm:
Possibly relevant. Any litigant with a pen and a few sheets of paper can file a motion alleging a support arrearage. Therefore, Walsh shouldn’t be criticized aobut the the claim until the issue is decided by the judge or an order entered finding that an arrearage exists.
- soccermom - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 5:11 pm:
I think his failure to pay child support while loaning money to his campaign speaks volumes about his character and priorities. Beyond that — Lying and evading on the financial disclosure form is wrong and illegal. That’s definitely relevant.
- Ela Observer - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 5:23 pm:
Walsh himself brings up the child support issue in his townhalls. That by definition should mean it is relevant.
- Not a Newcomer - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 5:54 pm:
I will wait to see what the court says, and if he is in fact behind then yeah, it is relevant. Right now, this could just be a wife using her ex-husband’s political career to get more money or to punish a former lover.
- Paul - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 7:12 pm:
Those that think Joe deserves the benefit of the doubt, should ponder the way Joe talks about others. He has called the President of the United States a liar, supplied no basis for the accusation.
- walkinfool - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 7:18 pm:
It’s relevant for the press, and it speaks to character. However, we have to wait for the court to decide on the ex’s claim, to judge whether he knowingly filed a false ethics disclosure form.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 7:31 pm:
I admit I couldn’t stand him before, so I might be accused of bias. However, this does make me dislike him even more. Not paying for your kids is a sign of serious character flaws. Any parent should put their children first, even if you can’t stand the spouse.
- Paul - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 8:05 pm:
According to the Chicago Sun Times Walsh was driving on a suspended license during his 2010 campaign. Secretary of State records show he was cited for driving on a suspended license in 2009. I guess he does not learn lessons easily. If caught driving on a suspended license second time, he could get up to a year in prison. Depending on the reason for the suspension, he could get up to three year term.
Joe has had liens placed on his property for unpaid bills. He lost his condo to foreclosure.
He is being sued for $20,000 by Keith Liscio who claimed he was hired as Walsh’s campaign manager and as not paid.
http://www.suntimes.com/6720892-417/tea-party-rep.-joe-walsh-sued-for-100000-in-child-support
Does this guy deserve to be a US Representative?
- Bubs - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 8:06 pm:
The reasons for the divorce should be out of bounds, but this is a legal obligation and fair game.
- somewhere other than here - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 8:25 pm:
what joe should do/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rlaF16gLF4&feature=related
- One To the Dome - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 8:27 pm:
revelent. other professionals have to sign a statement regarding child support to renew their liscence. walsh clearly could have simply marked “yes” on the form…but he did not. lets assume at the time he felt it was under 10k, thats still a nice chunk of change for someone who loaned himself (and paid part of it back) money for a campaign. He is truly a mess.
- 8th Republican - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 10:16 pm:
whyyyyyyyyyyy is the community so surprised? I was on Fox News in April 2010 asking Joe to step down because of failure to file required Fed financials… guess we know why he didn’t.
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/investigative/20100426-joe-walsh-investigation
He is a train wreck that was predicted by many.
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2010/05/fox-news-chicago-gop-8th-cd-candidate-joe-walsh-asked-to-step-down.html
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 10:44 pm:
Irregardless of the eventual outcome, he’s a Congressman and he’s named in a public court case. Where’s the expectation of privacy? The media has a duty to report it.
It’s not his first rodeo. He’s been down this road before with other matters regarding paying his bills.
Lord knows paying all your bills can be tough. But when you’re such a self-righteous and simple-minded scold about others not doing the same, well that’s a fastball in the wheelhouse.
You can put it on the board….. yes.
- Political Lawyer - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 10:49 pm:
Cong. Walsh can probably list the child support on his Congressional filing as “disputed”. That way it will not be an admission in the child support case. As to whether his admission that he owes some child support (but not $100,000) disqualifies him from the U.S. House, obviously it isn’t a legal impediment; simply something for the voters to consider along with everything else when they cast their vote.
- JohnnyLaw - Wednesday, Aug 10, 11 @ 11:44 pm:
This man may have the title of Congressman but he is more fortunately blessed with the title of FATHER. As a father he has rights and his case needs to be tried in a courtroom not a website. If I were him I’d call Jeffery Leving who has been leading the charge in these types of cases for decades. At the minimum I’d recommend the Congressman read Attorney Leving’s book Fathers’ Rights. I was in a similar situation and Jeffery Leving helped me greatly!
- G. Willickers - Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 1:36 am:
It wasn’t nearly as relevant when it first happened in December, 2010.
Voters still elected the guy with a plurality already knowing about his foreclosure, shoddy personal finances, mass campaign exodus, failure to file proper financial disclosure paperwork (he “forgot” the file his Congressional papers during the campaign), etc.
However, it’s now much more relevant given his classic FAIL rants on YouTube illustrating his rank hypocrisy.
- DMAC57 - Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 6:48 am:
I suspect he will file the amendments required by statute. Then let’s hope he is fined $25,000. In lieu of the fine, he can work it off at local food pantries in his district in his copious time back in district.
- Aldyth - Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 7:27 am:
Of course it is relevent. Character does matter.
- jeff - Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 7:39 am:
Mike Royko once wrote that he never wrote about divorce stories because everyone lies. They will tell you everything horrible the other spouse has done while leaving their part out. Now that Joe has money and notoriety a former spouse, who probably suffered while he was broke, is taking a shot. It is relevant with a large helping of salt.
- A.B. - Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 9:04 am:
I live in his district and count myself as a Republican….it is ABSOLUTELY relevant.
When the term dead beat dad may apply to a law maker, then the voters should be aware and have the option to make a different choice. If it falls under the ethics guidelines, then any Member should be beholden to the scrutiny of the committee and their findings. Nobody is above the law and every elected official should be expected to set an example that we would like future generations to emulate.
- Fathers Matter - Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 5:39 pm:
The issue of Cong. Joe Walsh not paying child support is relevant and it should be covered by the media. Cong. Welsh has become one of the many victims of the discrepancies in the legal system. There are thousands of fathers who are devoted parents but become victims of child support debt. Cong. Walsh should not be judged and crucified for money that his ex-wife claims he owes. In most cases, the women use child support privileges to gain financial freedom for themselves. Instead of blaming the father, the media should look at the deeper issue and consider working towards making a change that helps responsible fathers, such as Cong. Walsh. Unfortunately, few resources exist for fathers but there is a state council that can lead to some resources at http:// responsiblefatherhood.illinois.gov.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 5:55 pm:
Responsible fatherhood means not paying child support?
That’s an interesting definition of responsible and an insult to fathers.