Public deserves answers on Walsh child support

Congressman Joe Walsh would like us to believe his child-support dispute is a private matter blown out of proportion by his political opponents and the news media to weaken him as a standard-bearer for the conservative tea party’s position on federal spending. It is not.

And sincerely open-minded citizens, as well as other public officials reflecting on privacy matters, do well to consider the distinctions.

First, the simple facts. Walsh, the Republican 8th Dist. U.S. representative from McHenry, is not just a public figure; he is a public official. If he is indeed refusing to pay court-ordered child support, that is not just interesting news; it is a matter of clear public concern that his constituents deserve to know about and understand.

So-called “deadbeat dads” are a serious drain on local, state and federal resources. In 2010 alone, according to the federal Department of Health and Human Services, government agencies handled 15.9 million cases of child support enforcement at a total cost to taxpayers of $5.8 billion. Any elected official accused of contributing to that expense surely has an obligation to explain himself.

Walsh, who has talked openly about his previous problems with debt and foreclosure, responds that he’s trying to work out arrangements privately with his ex-wife over the $117,000 she says he owes, but that he can’t talk about it because it will “jeopardize” his children. Yet the central questions here have nothing to do with his three affected children, two of whom, let’s keep in mind, are well into adulthood at 23 and 20 years of age. The relevant questions, the ones serious news outlets care about, are does a high-profile congressman owe back child support, and if so, how much, why and what’s he doing about it?

Walsh insists he is not a “deadbeat dad,” but he refuses to respond to serious allegations from his ex-wife. She says that, among other curiosities, he took an expensive vacation following his election and that he loaned his political campaign thousands of dollars, and paid much of it back, rather than pay any of his court-ordered debt to her. Indeed, a statement about Walsh’s commitment from her lawyer has an all-too-familiar ring to anyone involved in unpaid child support cases. “Trying to get money from him,” Jack Coladarci said in a story by Daily Herald projects and politics writer Kerry Lester, “has been a constant battle.”

Walsh, referring to his tea party activities, responds that, “Had I not acted like I’ve acted over the last four or five months, there wouldn’t be people going after me.” But that is simply not true. Such a discovery about any politician is bound to be news, especially a congressman in his home district. Certainly the claims against Walsh are intensified by the national prominence he has acquired through his strident insistence that the government pay its own debts before incurring any new ones, suggesting what must be uncomfortable parallels to his own personal circumstances. But they are claims that bear reporting and demand an open response.

On that point, whatever critics might say about his politics or his motives, Walsh has not until now shied from tough questions about his financial misfortunes. So, his complaints that this new uproar is a manufactured controversy sound all the more political.

Walsh has become one of the chief lecturers to the U.S. government on how to manage its finances. He portrays himself as the candid anti-politician. Yet, his wages are being garnished and he refuses to respond to accusations that directly apply to his role as a keeper of the public trust. This doesn’t sound like the stuff of contrivance. He owes an explanation, and citizens are reasonable to expect one.