Are you familiar with freshman Republican Rep. Joe Walsh? No? That's okay! Just turn on any cable news channel at any time. He'll be there. Producers love to book him, and he loves to be booked. His politics can best be described as anti-any-compromise-ever, and he is rude. Another interesting thing about Joe Walsh is that his ex-wife is suing him for $117,437 in unpaid child support.
We're not trying to take the typically lame hypocrisy angle, about a Tea Party congressman making extreme spending cut demands while he can't even get his personal financial house in order. This is merely a funny story about Joe Walsh sucking at life. Uh, according to his ex-wife's lawsuit, as it were.
So: Joe Walsh and his ex-wife do not seem to like each other! While Walsh isn't a wealthy man — he only made $20-some thousand dollars doing not much of anything last year — he appears to have eschewed those nine years in child supports payments for a $35,000 loan to his campaign, vacations with his girlfriend to Mexico and Italy, and his Evanston condo, which by now is in foreclosure. Here's a brief history of Walsh not paying any bills, from the Chicago Sun-Times:
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.
Walsh, naturally, has already been interviewed on CNN since the Sun-Times story came out overnight. You can watch it up top! He claims that these financial struggles are... good... for him... politically? Because they make him a relatable everyman? There's some truth to that. On the other hand, (allegedly!) not paying $117,000 in child support over a decade is not very good, politically, in general.