Excerpt from the Hypocrite Files: Tea Party Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois, Debt Ceiling Darling & Deadbeat Dad

Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger

Joe Walsh’s Video: President Obama Quit Lying

http://youtu.be/jU3SBeoG9uQ

(I apologize. I’ve tried to embed the video several times without success.)

It appears that Joe Walsh, the Republican Representative from the Eighth District in Illinois, isn’t so fiscally responsible when it comes to his own finances. The same man who says he refuses to place “one more dollar of debt upon the backs of his kids,” actually “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.” He also lost his Evanston condo to foreclosure.

Lawrence O’Donnell was so disgusted with Walsh that he banned him from his MSNBC program The Last Word. Here’s what O’Donnell said on his program last week:

An excerpt from what O’Donnell said:
“In order to teach deadbeat dad Joe Walsh a lesson about family values, yes, the very same family values that so many Republicans try to exploit politically while failing to come close to living up to them in their own lives, deadbeat dad Joe Walsh is hereby banned from this program. He can go tell his lies about his family values and his sense of fiscal responsibility elsewhere.”

Is this the type of man whose advice we should be taking when it comes to the Debt Ceiling? Have the Tea Party politicians and other Republicans brought our country to the brink of financial disaster?  

From Lynn Sweet:

The Tea Party Republicans and other conservatives took the nation to the brink, pushing too close to the Aug. 2 default deadline for a deal that was not all that different than what had been on the table a few days ago.

The agreement — with major spending reductions — gives Republicans much of what they wanted while opening a rift with Democratic progressives for Obama because it puts cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid “entitlement” programs on the table while not at this time closing tax loopholes to generate more revenue.

Will the new Debt Deal agreement really be beneficial to our country? Has the Obama Administration caved once again? Your thoughts?

SOURCES
Lawrence O’Donnell Bans Joe Walsh From His Show Over Child Support Scandal (Huffington Post)

Tea Party Rep. Joe Walsh sued for $100,000 in child support  (Chicago Sun-Times)

Rep. Joe Walsh: Says Sun-Times story on back child support claims a “hit piece” (Chicago Sun-Times)

Debt deal bottom line: Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi, Jan Schakowsky, Mark Kirk, Joe Walsh (Chicago Sun-Times)

Lawrence O’Donnell bans ‘deadbeat dad’ Rep. Joe Walsh (Raw Story)

Rep. Joe Walsh sued for child support (The Hill)

Debt-ceiling drama: Tea Party thinks it knows best (Washington Post)

Tea Party Hypocrite Joe Walsh Wants Us to Raise His Child Support Debt Ceiling (CafeMom)

54 thoughts on “Excerpt from the Hypocrite Files: Tea Party Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois, Debt Ceiling Darling & Deadbeat Dad”

  1. Why Debt Ceilings and Balanced-Budget Requirements Violate the Original Intent of the Constitution
    8/1/2011 – 9:04 am
    by William Hogeland
    http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/08/01/why-debt-ceilings-and-balanced-budget-requirements-violate-the-original-intent-of-the-constitution-53404/

    Excerpt:
    So-called “constitutional conservatives” ignore the realpolitik of our nation’s origins.

    In a critical and entertaining portrait of the anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, the New York Times columnist Frank Bruni presented Norquist as an absolutist obsessed with forcing modern political life to conform to ideas that Norquist associates with the American founders’ first principles.

    Of course, Norquist is by no means alone in taking that position. That the Constitution came into existence to keep taxes low, the federal government small, and national debt at zero is an article of faith among many who, like Michele Bachmann, have taken to calling themselves “constitutional conservatives.” And faith is required to believe it, as the Norquist interview shows. To make his supposedly constitutional argument, Norquist cites the first amendment on freedom of religion and the second on the right to keep and bear arms, and then goes on to cite absolutely nothing, in either the articles or the amendments, that so much as hints at a constitutional requirement to balance the federal budget, avoid debt, tax no more than people like Norquist deem appropriate, and keep government small.

    He can’t cite anything to that effect because while balancing budgets, restraining borrowing, and keeping taxes low and government small might be good goals, depending on what you mean by them, it is impossible to locate in the founding national law any requirement to accomplish them. Indeed, the reality of founding history leads to the reverse conclusion.

    The Constitution came about precisely to enable a newly large government — a national one — to tax all Americans for the specific purpose of funding a large public debt. Neither Alexander Hamilton nor his mentor the financier Robert Morris made any bones about that purpose; James Madison was among their closest allies; and Edmund Randolph of Virginia opened the Constitutional Convention by charging the delegates to redress the country’s failure to fund — not pay off, fund — the public debt, by creating a national government.

  2. The God of Tea Party Freshmen Serves the Rich, Not the Poor
    8/1/2011
    by Lynn Parramore
    http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/08/01/the-god-of-tea-party-freshman-serves-the-rich-not-the-poor-53314/

    Excerpt:
    How a prince of Hell took a job on Capitol Hill.

    Every once in a while, you come across a news story that’s more than a story. It’s a revelation.

    On Sunday morning, that’s what greeted readers of the Washington Post searching for insight into the Great Debt Showdown. The first two thirds of a piece by David A. Farenthold and Dan Balz is a familiar recitation of the tribulations of Speaker John Boehner as he struggled with defiant new members of the House Republican conference. Nothing earth-shattering there. But then, out jumps a nugget of naked truth that simply takes your breath away. It exposes none other the true god served by Tea Party-backed GOP members who have held the country hostage in a sham debt-ceiling crisis. Keep in mind that the passage below is not a parody:

    Not even gentle persuasion could overcome higher powers Thursday. As Boehner was in his meetings, three freshman Republicans from South Carolina were in the House chapel nearby, in quiet discussion and in prayer. Reps. Mick Mulvaney, Tim Scott and Jeff Duncan wanted a stronger provision to guarantee a balanced-budget amendment and knew they would be lobbied furiously in the hours to come.

    At one point, Duncan said, Mulvaney picked up a Bible and read a verse from Proverbs 22: “The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.”

    “It’s telling me to really be bold, to really fight for structural changes,” Duncan said.

    “Mulvaney snapped the Bible closed. And I said, ‘Guys, that’s all I need to see,’ ” Duncan said. “Tim said, ‘Yep.’ And we stood up and walked out.”

    So here we have it. The god worshiped by these devout South Carolina congressmen is not Yahweh. It is not the deity served by Jesus, he of throw-the-money-lenders-out-of-the-temple fame. The god of the Tea Party freshmen, as they so unashamedly acknowledge, is certainly ancient and powerful. He was last employed as one of the chief princes of Hell. And his name is Mammon.

    On leave from his post in Hell, Mammon is doing a bit of temp work. The avatar of wealth and greed has rolled up his sleeves and taken up residence in the People’s House, where he currently advises GOP freshmen on policies contrived to do his bidding.

    Now, if Congressman Mulvaney had not shut his Bible so quickly, he might have come across another interesting passage, this one from the Gospel of Matthew.

    No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can not serve both God and Mammon.
    —Matthew 6:19-21,24

    But there was really no need for the freshmen to read this passage. Mulvaney, Scott and Duncan know exactly who they are serving. They clearly understand that the budget cuts they have fought for tooth and nail will take money from the most vulnerable members of our society and fill the coffers of the rich. You might not expect politicians to come out and say something like that so plainly. And you wouldn’t necessarily think they’d invoke the Christian Bible in support of their trickle-up economics.

  3. Well, if she raised him and he is like this it does not say much for the family values espoused…

  4. It is DO AS I SAY….NOT AS I DO….don’t you all get it….Where are ALL of the trolls on this one…..

    Troll this is your day, defend him with all of your dignity……

    Vis que vous avez, je ne suis jamais tort.
    (Screw you, I am never wrong.)

  5. I read his lawyer’s lame excuse…something along the lines that Walsh racked up his debt before he got his well paying Congressional job so we should cut him some slack (his previous job was as a Republican fundraiser). So what happened Baggy? Cutting back on your spending just didn’t do the trick, huh? So you admit that was was necessary to pay off that impressive and scummy debt that you incurred was an increase in revenue, right? Seems if you follow the tired meme from the Right that the Economy should be run like a household it would seem, by Walsh’s example, that we do indeed have a problem with lack of revenue, no?

  6. “If your doctor is obese, chain smokes, and drinks 4 six-packs a day does that make his medical advice any less valid?” (Charles)

    Does he want to be appointed Surgeon General?

  7. Elaine,
    Great video/song clip! Mr. Walsh is a serial crook and should be removed from his office asap. He is an embarrassment to our district.

  8. Walsh money woes date back to 1990s
    By Kerry Lester
    Daily Herald, October 2010
    http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20101018/news/710199812/print/

    Excerpt:
    Eighth Congressional candidate Joe Walsh bills himself as an average Joe who, like many, fell victim to hard times when his Evanston condominium was foreclosed upon last year.

    The foreclosure, he says, is not in conflict with his platform of fiscal conservatism. If anything, it’s helped voters relate better to him.

    Being hit doubly hard by a divorce and the recession, “you’ve got a guy like me, the last five or six years I’ve been hit by a perfect storm. It’s made me much more attuned.”

    Yet, court records show Walsh had state and federal liens for unpaid taxes long before the recession began in 2007.

    Walsh, who acknowledges he has “a few isolated dings like a lot of people do,” says it’s not a pattern.

    Instead, he points to miscalculations on tax returns and a misunderstanding about taxes on a college fund.

    Starting in 1992, Walsh was handed several liens for failing to pay state and federal income taxes, together totaling nearly $25,000, according to records from the Cook County Recorder of Deeds.

    The first lien, in June 1992, was for failing to pay $2,239 in federal income taxes.

    In June 1994, Walsh was handed a lien for failing to pay $21,566 in federal income taxes, some going as far back as 1985. Six months later, the state placed another lien for Walsh’s failure to pay $778 in state income taxes. He eventually paid them off and the last lien cleared in 2001.

  9. Joe Walsh Child Support: Wife Laura’s Court Filing Released
    Huffington Post, 2/29/2011
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/29/joe-walsh-child-support-w_n_913631.html

    Excerpt:
    Documents have newly surfaced detailing the extent of U.S. Representative Joe Walsh’s (R-Ill.) alleged lapse on his child support payments to his ex-wife Laura Walsh.

    According to a court filing, made public Friday afternoon by The National Memo, Tea Party darling Walsh paid only limited child support between November of 2005 and March of 2008, and stopped paying altogether after that point.

  10. as far as the Congressman goes, if he owes the money they should garnish it from his congressional salary and send it to his wife.

    Doing a little background on this guy, I probably would not have voted for him. He doesnt “smell” right. But then again Thomas Jefferson was broke toward the end of his life and deeply in debt and he didnt pay child support either.

Comments are closed.