COMMENTARY | Apparently being “fiscally conservative” means keeping your money by not paying your debts. Rep. “Joe” Walsh (online case docket information lists him as “Michael” Walsh) is the Tea Party congressman who, despite allegedly owing his ex-wife more than $100,000 in back child support, famously said “I won’t place one more dollar of debt upon the backs of my kids and grandkids,” according to Chicago Sun-Times. He is now seeking sanctions against wife Laura Walsh in the child support proceedings.
Walsh filed a huge volume of discovery requests regarding his former wife’s financial situation. He claims she has not complied with the requests and, for that reason, has asked the judge to find her in contempt.
Laura’s attorney, Jack Coladarci , says the extensive document requests amount to harassment. Coladarci is absolutely correct.
In Illinois, child support is clearly defined by the law. The statute outlines percentages of the non-custodial parent’s income depending on the number of children of the marriage. Sometimes the amount will deviate from the guidelines due to the needs of the children. The one thing that is never relevant in Illinois, however, is the custodial parent’s income.
It does not matter what Laura Walsh earns, what property she holds, what her income is, or whether she has remarried when it comes to child support. Further, even if Rep. Walsh could make up some new way to interpret the established law, it would hold no sway over what he owes in past-due support. The only way to have child support modified in Illinois is to go to court and have the judge approve a reduction. If Walsh was unemployed, as he unconvincingly claims, during the periods he paid no support, he would have had to file a motion to get the support reduced.
Walsh did not do so.
According to an earlier piece by the Sun-Times, Walsh went on exotic vacations during the time he claims to have no income. He allowed his condo to go into foreclosure, yet managed to “loan” his campaign $35,000; he’s since paid himself back about $14,000.
Laura has been fighting for support since 2004 , the year the divorce was finalized. Meanwhile, the couple’s children and the mortgage holder are not the only ones he’s refused to pay. A former campaign manager claims Walsh owes her $20,000.
The congressman’s aggressive attempts to avoid his financial responsibility to his children and others should have his constituents wondering whether he is really cut out for public service. Self-serving and self-centered, Walsh clearly elevates his own wants above the needs of others, a dangerous quality in a public servant.
Luckily, representatives, the smallest cogs in the government clockworks, only serve two-year terms. Hopefully the voters in Walsh’s district will recognize the only interests that seem to concern Walsh are his own and vote accordingly.