Hypocrisy is unspeakably distasteful to me.

I think that’s most of my problem with the whole Tea Party movement.  The gist of what they’re saying sounds logical to those who aren’t educated in the ways of politics, and they use that logic to prey on the ignorant.

Their M.O. is to make themselves sound like an average citizen struggling to get by, and John Q. Minimum Wage has no idea that most of the Tea Partiers are extremely wealthy.  They collect the votes of people with legitimate financial struggles in order to put plans in place that will protect their fortunes, often at the cost of us low or middle class citizens.

It’s sickening.

Which is why I’m always kind of excited when Tea Partiers are caught with their financial pants down.  It gives me hope that the misguided people following them in droves will see the light.

Congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois, he who has accused Barack Obama of “spending like a drunken sailor”, allegedly owes well over $100,000 in back child support.

For those of you unfamiliar with the child support concept, there is a standard …

… formula used to come up with the amount based primarily on income.  The father of my older daughter pays $400 a month; my ex-husband pays just over $300.

Walsh’s monthly payment was figured out to be $2135.

Uh … that’s got to be one hell of an income, Joe Walsh.

So to have a deadbeat dad who clearly brings in an annual income most of us would be pretty excited about making critical statements about how somebody else, be it the President of the United States (who he explicitly accused of lying over the debt ceiling debacle) or a Wal-Mart greeter, budgets their money …

This is about far more than one man’s political career, though, although the fact that he is of the “family values”-spouting mindset does add an element of entertainment.

From Fox News:

“Child support is always devastating to politicians when it (such a story) comes out, because the public says, `How can you manage our finances when you can’t manage your own?”‘ said Larry Sabato, a political scientist and director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.

So of course Walsh’s supporters are calling this a “politically motivated attack”.

“The public understands this, they see Joe Walsh stick up for people and now all of a sudden this appears in a newspaper,” said Catherina Wojtowicz, of the Chicago Tea Patriots. “It’s a smear piece because he’s speaking out on behalf of the people.”

That was Walsh’s point when in a prepared statement he characterized the story about his ex-wife’s effort seeking $117,437 in back child support and interest as a “hit piece.”

Yup, it’s a hit piece, all right.  Walsh’s voice was a shrill one in the debt ceiling battles, so the liberal media is going to pull out any dirt they can find.

Okay, maybe the timing is a little suspect in terms of Walsh’s name recognition now being more “Deadbeat Dad” than “Compromising Congressman”.  But does a guy in the public eye that’s talking some pretty serious shit about how other people handle money when he can’t be financially responsible himself deserve any better?

And what the hell difference does it make, really?  I mean, he’s seriously behind on his child support payments, a fact that Walsh’s lawyer, R. Steven Polachek admitted, although he claimed the amount owed was “much less” than the $117,437 number being batted around.

After it became clear that Walsh was going to be a Representative following his opponent’s concession speech, he gave a press conference that, according to Wikipedia, stated the following positions.

On global warming, he said the science behind it was “not definitive” and that U.S. economic interests should come first in any discussion of climate agreements.

On entitlement reform, he suggested cuts would have to be made. “The first thing we need to do is acknowledge that everybody is going to have to give on Social Security reform and Medicare reform,” he said.

On extending unemployment benefits, he said he’s opposed, even after telling reporters that there is nearly 11 percent unemployment in his district and that “people are hurting.” Walsh said unemployment benefits probably already have been extended for too long and attention should be paid to the cost.

On taxes, he said he favors extending the Bush tax cuts, abolishing the estate tax and cutting both the capital gains and corporate tax rates.

He blamed joblessness on a reluctance by small businesses to hire and traced that reluctance to an uncertainty on tax policy.

And yet, in addition to the child support chaos, Walsh has numerous other financially irresponsible actions on his dossier.  In addition to personal examples ranging from a home foreclosure, driving without car insurance, rubber checks, and allegations he has not contested of traveling abroad for pleasure trips with his girlfriend, his election campaign faced charges of “financial mismanagement”.

So this is what a fiscal conservative looks like?  Really?

Bottom line, this guy is scum.  I mean, his ex-wife lawyer’s apparently had to notify the congressional office that his wages needed to be garnished for child support payments.

And he’s not exactly being defended by the Republican party, with GOP state party chairman Pat Brady sounding off on Walsh, “We don’t need that kind of rhetoric with the president of the United States.”

So while Walsh’s political future is probably going to be over soon enough, he is just another case in point of a Tea Partier walking a far different walk than the talk that he talks.

Anyone else as disgusted with this waste of space as I am?

You Might Also Like ...

• Republican Old Guard Vs. Tea Partiers