RE:  My last post, Footloose in Tuscaloosa:

I am still sorting out which judges, legislators, and government employees  are on which “Help the Children” or “Fatherhood” nonprofits in Alabama; more to come.  Meanwhile, I’m hardly going to pass up an opportunity like this:

Lawrence O’Donnell bans ‘deadbeat Dad’ Rep. Joe Walsh 

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell has banned tea party Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) from ever appearing on his show again.

Walsh has refused to vote for raising the nation’s debt ceiling, saying he would not place “one more dollar of debt upon the backs of my kids.” But it turns out that Walsh actually owes more than $100,000 in child support.

“It is time to deny deadbeat dad Joe Walsh some advantages,” O’Donnell said Friday.

“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.”

Watch this video from MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show, broadcast July 29, 2011. (on-site).    

As the video points out, using the “my kids and grandkids” rhetoric / exhibits in campaign speech is not obligatory.   He chose to do so.  Others chose to do some look-ups!

ProjectVoteSmart on Rep. Walsh shows his affiliations, and background:

Representative Joe Walsh (IL)

Current Office: U.S. House Current District: 8 First Elected: 11/02/2010 Next Election: 2012 Party: Republican Background Information Gender: Male Family: Wife: Helene* 5 Children*Birth Date: Birthplace: Barrington, IL Home City: Barrington, IL Religion:Education: MPP, University of Chicago BA, English, University of IowaProfessional Experience: Director, Daniel Murphy Scholarship Fund Instructor, Hebrew Theological Institute Instructor, Jobs for Youth Instructor, Oakton Community College Heartland Institute  {Instructor, student, speaker — what capacity?}Political Experience: Representative, United States House of Representatives, 2011-present Candidate, United States Congress, 1996 Candidate, Illinois State House of Representatives, 1998 Organizations: Member, Americans for Limited Government Member, Fabretto Children’s Foundation Member, Legislative Education Action Drive Member, Milton & Rose Friedman Foundation Caucuses/Non-Legislative Committees: Member, American Education Reform Council Member, Congressional Hockey Caucus Member, House Republican Israel Caucus Member, Republican Study Committee Member, Tea Party Caucus Member, United Republican Fund

* * re  Wife & Children, make that “Current wife” and “5 children, split among two women…”

ProjectVoteSmart asks where they stand on issues:

Representative Joe Walsh refused to tell citizens where he/she stands on any of the issues addressed in the 2010 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests from Vote Smart, national media, and prominent political leaders.

This candidate has demonstrated 0% courage during the test.

Voting record — against Planned Parenthood and Taxpayer funded Abortion (goes with the territory).  And of course FOR Patriot Act extensions.  (File where under “Small Government” label?)

But he voted in April 2011 FOR  the budget:

THAT MEANS he voted for the $4 billion child support collection industry (obviously it’s not too good at catching up with him….), and for siphoning parts of this off into fatherhood promotion.

The Heartland Institute:

Heartland Institute is a $6.1 million privately-funded nonprofit:

The Heartland Institute is a national nonprofit research and education organization with offices in Chicago and Washington DC. Founded in 1984, it is tax exempt under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. It is not affiliated with any political party, business, or foundation.

Illinois congressman Joe Walsh, a Tea Party rising star, sued for $100,000 in unpaid child support

(,published Friday 7/29/2011 in Syracuse.com)

In this Nov. 17, 2010 file photo, then-Rep.-elect Joe Walsh, R-Ill., speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington. The Chicago Sun-Times reports Thursday, July 28, 2011, that Walsh’s ex-wife, Layra Walsh has sued her ex-husband for more than $117,000 in what she says is unpaid child support and interest. Laura Walsh filed the claim in December in their divorce case.

CHICAGO (AP) — Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh, a rising star in the Tea Party movement best known for his blistering lectures of President Barack Obama for “spending like a drunken sailor,” is now being peppered with questions about his own financial responsibility after reports surfaced that he’s being sued for more than $100,000 in unpaid child support.

Experts say whatever political star power the 49-year-old Republican previously emanated has been dimmed, if not extinguished, because for at least the immediate future it will be impossible for him to talk about anything other than his personal problems.

As is appropriate.  Most of us would rather see a sermon than hear one any time.

“Whenever he wants to go out and talk about the debt limit, they are going to want to talk about whether (he) is a deadbeat dad,” said Kent Redfield, a professor emeritus of politics at the University of Illinois-Springfield. “His individual problems become the story and he never gets to another issue.”

…

Redfield and others say it is all but impossible for politician to shake questions about whether or not they’ve provided for their families once a story like the one in Thursday’s Chicago Sun-Times is published.

Well, why should they be able to shake such questions?  Would you want a representative who was dishonest with his own family, or have we come to view that as acceptable if it’s a charismatic enough leader?    Particularly when it’s a Family Values type political party, let’em practice what they preach!

“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.

This reporter could’ve affirmed that a person who cannot manage his own finances (honestly, that is) should hardly be entrusted with others’.  How devastating might it be to children to have their well-known father simply ditch child support payments?   But instead, the reporter distances him/herself from that point of view and describes the poor (in arrears) politician’s prospects, should word of this get out…  Why don’t citizens just move beyond such petty issues as, whether the politician is a liar or not? including to the mother of three of his children?

No, that question raises  a very good point, and any religious conservatives should (but often don’t) know this verse:

I Timothy 5. 8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.   

I suppose one way to handle that is divorce one’s wife and go start a new family, meaning the old ones are no longer in his “house,” and neglecting them, which this person did….

But this won’t phase Tea Partiers much, says the author — they’ll just chalk it up to a “politically motivated” attack, projecting a psychological motive for reporting facts and requesting action on them.  Reminds me of how family court, when faced with allegations of abuse, has a tendency to attribute it instead to “parental alienation” and imply the (mother, FYI), just made it up to get an advantage in the divorce.

But Laura Walsh’s attorney, Jack Coladarci, said that Walsh was paying about $1,000 less than he was ordered to between November 2005 and March 2008, and then stopped paying the entire $2,135 he owed every month from April 2008 until December 2010.

He said once Walsh began serving in Congress, earning $175,000 a year, he started making payments of $2,164 a month — after Coladarci contacted the congressional office to advise the office of a court order to withhold that amount from his paycheck.

Maybe we should draft legislation that ALL Congressional New Hires have a child support background check, followed by wage garnishment if it meets certain criteria.  After all, the rest of the nation is being subjected to this type of invasive reporting, why not the home boys as well?

AGAIN — NOTICE — this wasn’t a father TRYING to pay and then failing due to unemployment — zero payments from 4/2008 – 12/2010.   I know even very poor fathers who can cough up SOMETHING each month (particularly as doing so exonerates them in the OCSE’s eyes)– even a third, a tenth of the order.    But this is over two and a half years of nonpayment.

How this all plays out when Walsh runs for re-election remains to be seen. Despite disclosures about a 2008 home foreclosure, his divorce, traffic citations for not having car insurance, bounced checks and a lawsuit by a former campaign manager who alleged Walsh owed him $,20,000, Walsh was elected to Congress.

More than one friend emailed me about Congressman Joe Walsh’s Preaches but doesn’t Practice behavior as to child support; but one made a particularly good point:  Where was the OCSE, and why did his ex-wife have to go after child support on her own?  Does the OCSE not catch up when child support arrears is over $100K and the deadbeat is an employee of the U.S. Government?

They do this for women who go on welfare — but of course then there is the matter of that extra % that goes back to the Feds if it’s a Title IV case.

The Chicago Sun-Times Article (by Abdon M. Pallisch, political reporter, 7/27/22)

Freshman U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh, a tax-bashing Tea Party champion who sharply lectures President Barack Obama and other Democrats on fiscal responsibility, 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.

“I won’t place one more dollar of debt upon the backs of my kids and grandkids unless we structurally reform the way this town spends money!” Walsh says directly into the camera in his viral video lecturing Obama on the need to get the nation’s finances in order.

Was that his first family’s kids, or his second family’s kids he’s referring to here?  Because he apparently skipped over two and a half years of child support payments (2008 – 2010) to 3 kids (two of who are now adults) while vacationing (with girlfriend),  and details have emerged that he wasn’t exactly on the street during that time (see below, or articles).

Walsh starts the video by saying, “President Obama, quit lying. Have you no shame, sir? In three short years, you’ve bankrupted this country.”

It’s hard to add much to the article  – — read on:

No compromise’

An intense, silver-haired firebrand, Walsh, 49, has taken cable TV by storm in recent weeks, becoming the unofficial spokesman for the “No compromise” faction of the Republican majority in the U.S. House — refusing to consider any debt crisis solution that includes raising taxes on the wealthy.

Walsh admits he is not wealthy. Some of his financial problems — including losing his Evanston condo to foreclosure — were documented before his out-of-nowhere victory last fall in the 8th Congressional District in Chicago’s north and northwest suburbs.

FYI President Obama (or, at least, his meteoric political career) came out of Chicago’s South Side.   Joe Walsh apparently is out of the North/Northwest Side.   Evanston is home to Northwestern University (which actually pre-dates the city), two seminaries and many private schools.  It’s per-capita median income in 2000 was about $56K, not too shabby.  It’s north of Chicago, and right on Lake Michigan.

…

But court documents examined this week by the Chicago Sun-Times during research for a profile on the increasingly visible congressman showed his financial issues also included a nine-year child support battle with his ex-wife.

Newspapers and individuals SHOULD do this and know who we are dealing with in politics….

Trying to work out a settlement’

Both sides in the Walsh case have been negotiating Walsh’s overdue child support since he filed his response in February.

“Out of respect for his being in Washington, we haven’t been pushing it. We have been trying to work out a settlement,” Coladarci said.

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.

That’s interesting.  Article says she’s an attorney and was working for Eli Lilli.

Before getting elected, he had told Laura Walsh that because he was out of work or between jobs, he could not make child support payments. So she was surprised to read in his congressional campaign disclosures that he was earning enough money to loan his campaign $35,000.

 Sounds here like he was lying to his ex-wife; hardly a unique situation.  Sounds like she wasn’t exactly hiring private investigators — but was reading his campaign disclosures. 

“Joe personally loaned his campaign $35,000, which, given that he failed to make any child support payments to Laura because he ‘had no money’ is surprising,” Laura Walsh’s attorneys wrote in a motion filed in December seeking $117,437 in back child support and interest. “Joe has paid himself back at least $14,200 for the loans he gave himself.”

“Thanks, Dad” . . . would be appropriate for the three children he left behind in that matter.  Message to them:  “If you’re not living with me, I’m not paying for you.  I’ll just go get some more kids with another woman….”

This is not the typical type of case the Office of Child Support Enforcement would track easily.  Heck, they can’t even keep track of their own interest income and undistributed collections.  The OCSE system is set up to work BEST when some (poor slob) works a job where the wages can be garnished.  Certain classes of people are serial entrepreneurs, or, like this one, politically active, or businessmen.  Imagine trying to track the income from venture capitalists each time there is a divorce!

Walsh’s attorneys responded in court filings: “Respondent admits that funds were loaned to his campaign fund. . . . Respondent admits that the campaign fund has repaid certain loans.”

He personally wrote in court filings that he thought he and his ex-wife were coming to an agreement on the money he owes. He noted that the children have lived with him for part of the last nine years.

“Part” is a real  vague term, both as to % and as to for which years.

Walsh lives with his new wife and children in McHenry. He has not paid any of the $117,437 yet, Laura Walsh’s attorney, Jack Coladarci, said Wednesday.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE OCSE’s ROLE:

My one friend commented, in essence, on behalf of others and :

..certain congressional officers—whom have authoritative oversight of HHS— believe they are exempt from following the same laws they enact and require us to follow. Representative Walsh’s wages were supposed to be garnished from his US Government congressional paycheck—but i[weren’t]. Please do not get distracted by the amounts, . . . the child support agency refused to enforce the court orders and allowed this jerk to run up a $100,000 tab, then required the mother to file her own motion with her own money to get the job done.  At the same time, he has voted to DOUBLE the budget to $4 billion for the same untracable and unaccountable IV-D enforcement programs allegedly to enforce support orders. Right.

How this might’ve played out with a different class of person —

your ass would be in jail * and your kids would be caught in a federally funded custody battle. Instead of spending more time with the children during a tough divorce, he took the money he stole from the kids hired a lawyer to battle against them, then went on vacations.

In this case, either the judge is in cahoots with the father, or the judge has lost control of his courtroom because the HHS child support enforcement administrative agency will not enforce the orders.  This means that the HHS Office of Child Support Enforcement has modified/set aside/ and created court orders without the constitutionally required authority of the judicial branch.

They are taking our money, collecting the interest, not forwarding it to our children, then not claiming the interest. Our children starve while [Bank of America] profits off our undisbursed support.

OCSE reported that the amount of undistributed collections for fiscal year 1999 was $545 million and $657 million for fiscal year 2002; however, these amounts may not be accurate. State agencies had different interpretations of what comprised undistributed collections and data reported by several state agencies were found to be unreliable throughout this time period. OCSE revised the reporting form, but data accuracy concerns remain, in part, because OCSE does not have a process to ensure the accuracy of undistributed collections data.

Federal law, some state policies, and inaccurate or missing information were the underlying causes of nearly all types of undistributed collections. State agencies determined how long they held collections from joint tax refunds and if they held collections received before they were due. Federal law allows collections intercepted from joint tax refunds to be held for up to

180 days and in response to GAO’s survey, 34 state agencies reported holding them for 180 days. Missing or inaccurate information, such as invalid addresses, also leads to undistributed collections. Based on state agencies’ survey responses, GAO determined the median value of the undistributed collections from joint tax refunds was about $1.8 million and the median value of four other types of undistributed collections exceeded $350,000.

Money can be held for up to 6 months (180 days) — which 34 agencies were doing, according to a survey.

OCSE has provided some assistance to help state agencies reduce their undistributed collections. However, the Department of the Treasury has not provided OCSE information that would allow state agencies to distribute collections from joint tax refunds to families sooner. Further, OCSE’s efforts to obtain this information have been minimal.

(Highlight/Left column Inset:

Congress established the child support enforcement program in 1975 to ensure that parents financially supported their children. State agencies administer the program and the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) in the Department of Health and Human Services oversees it. In 2002, state agencies collected over $20 billion in child support, but $657 million in collections from 2002 and previous years were undistributed—funds that were delayed or never reached families.

March 19, 2004

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Chairman Committee on Finance United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In 2002, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), in the Department of Health and Human Services, reported that billions of dollars in child support were collected but that payments totaling $657 million were delayed or never reached the families for whom they were intended. These undistributed child support payments are a concern because child support is an important source of income for many families. According to a 2003 report, for 36 percent of poor children living in families headed by single mothers, child support payments comprised almost one-third of the family’s income in 2001. The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA)1 generally requires state child support enforcement agencies to disburse child support collections within 2 business days, if sufficient information identifying the recipient is provided. In addition, portions of child support collections must be distributed to state government programs, such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), to reimburse them for cash assistance provided to families.

Although state child support enforcement agencies administer the child support program, the federal government plays a major role.2

OCSE funds two-thirds of the program’s administrative costs; establishes policies and guidance; provides technical assistance, such as designing curricula and providing support for staff training; and oversees and monitors state agencies. Additionally, OCSE is responsible for taking the necessary steps to help resolve issues at the federal level that affect the child support program such as processes that prevent child support payments from reaching families in a timely manner. OCSE and state agencies collect child support through various methods, such as intercepting the federal tax refunds of noncustodial parents—parents who do not have primary care, custody, or control of their children—who are delinquent in paying their child support.3 If the noncustodial parent has a new spouse and files a joint tax return, generally, only the portion of the refund due to the noncustodial parent should be intercepted.

1Pub. L. No. 104-193, § 312(b) (Aug. 22, 1996).

2In this report we will refer to the state child support enforcement agencies as state agencies.

OCSE Reported Millions in Undistributed Collections, but Data Were Unreliable

While OCSE is required to audit some child support data, it does not have a process to ensure the accuracy of data on undistributed collections. OCSE is required to audit the reliability of the performance indicators used as the basis for paying financial incentives to state agencies.  Officials told us {{Commonly known as “hearsay”}} they are conducting these audits annually. To ensure the reliability of the data, OCSE selects representative sample cases for a detailed audit and reviews supporting documentation to check for errors.

RICHARD I. FINE

ID # 1824367c/o Men’s Central Jail
441 Bauchet Street, Los Angeles, CA90012
RichardIFine@gmail.com

September 3, 2010

Honorable Eric Holder

Attorney General

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington D.C. 20530-0001

Honorable Andre Birotte

U.S. Attorney General

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

312 North Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Honorable Jerry Brown

Attorney General

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

300 South Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Honorable Steve Cooley

District Attorney

LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

210 West Temple Street, Suite 18000

Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210

RE:

Request for Federal and State Grand Jury Investigations and Indictments for
Obstruction of Justice and Other Crimes Caused By and Related to the $300
million of Illegal Payments by Los Angeles County and Other California Counties
to the State Trial Court Judges in LA County and Other Counties.

Gentlemen:

I.

Introduction

This formal complaint seeks grand jury investigations and corresponding federal andstate indictments of judges, county supervisors, attorneys and others who participated in thelargest judicial corruption and bribery scheme and “cover up” in American history.

…

The payments began in the late 1980s and have continued through the present.Neither
LA County nor its attorneys disclosed the payments in any case in which LA County was a party.
The judges receiving the payments from LA County also did not disclose such in the cases in
which they were presiding and in which LA County was a party, nor did they disclose such
payments on their Form 700 Statement of Economic Interest, a mandatory disclosure form.

…

Since the late 1980s, LA County has paid approximately $300 million to the state-elected
trial court judges of the LA Superior Court.These payments have been held to violate Article
VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution in the case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles,
167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008), rev. denied 12/23/08.The payments have also been acknowledged
to be criminal in California Senate Bill SBx2-11, effective 5/21/09 (seeinfr a)

Honorable Eric Holder, Attorney General

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

September 3, 2010

Page 3

On appeal, LA Superior Court Judge J. Stephen Czuleger was appointed to the panel by designation. Neither Judge Czuleger nor LA County disclosed that he was receiving payments from LA County. I did not know such. The judgment was reversed. The taxpayers lost $250 million.

B.   Silva v. Garcetti

In the case of Silva v. Garcetti and LA County, LASC Case No. BC 205645, I representedJohn Silva against LA District Attorney Gil Garcetti, who was illegally withholding $14 millionof child support monies beyond the six-month statutory limit and refusing to distribute such.

Garcetti’s office admitted that it had the child support money and had not distributed it.

At the end of the trial, Judge Chalfant dismissed the case.

Upon finding out about the payments to Judge Chalfant after the dismissal, I raised the issue in the appeal, App. No. B 150641.

The Appellate Court refused to hear the issue. I then became aware that Justice Kathryn Doi Todd, who had recently been appointed an appellate
justice, had received LA County payments when she was a LA Superior Court judge. Neither
Justice Todd nor LA County or its lawyers disclosed this information in the appeal.  I raised the
issue in my Petition for Review to the California Supreme Court (S.Ct. Case No. 105221). The California Supreme Court denied review.

LA County women and children lost $14 million, which they should have timely received.

Mr. Fine also represented a class of plaintiffs which Silva represented, on Civil Rights violations, several counts, around this matter but it appears to be “Silva v. Garcetti” that most irritated the judges and lawmakers, resulting in an illegal incarceration of Mr. Fine, Univ. of Wisconsin, London School of Economics, and as I recall probably Harvard as well.   (It’s not your average prisoner that can compose something like this from solitary confinement…)  In fact, here are the credentials (obviously jailbait background):

Richard Fine

EDUCATION: University of Wisconsin (B.S., 1961); University of Chicago (Doctor of Law, 1964); University of London, London School of Economics and Political Science (Ph.D., International Law, 1967); Certificate – Hague Academy of International Law, 1965, 1966; Certificate of Comparative Law – International University of Comparative Science, Luxembourg, 1966; Diplome d’Etudes Superieures du Droit Compare (Faculte Internationale pour L’Enseignment du Droit Compare), Strasbourg, 1967.

ADMISSIONS: Illinois 1964; District of Columbia 1972; California 1973, (State Bar #55259); United States Supreme Court 1972; and various U.S. Circuit and District Courts.

AWARDS: Lawyer of the Decades 1976-2006, Awarded by the California Black Republican Women’s Council and the Judea Christian Alliance; Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition “in recognition of outstanding service to the community”; California State Assembly Certificate of Recognition; California State Board of Equalization Resolution “for outstanding dedication and service to the taxpayers of the community“.

Chronology of Events

I didn’t understand the impact of these sets of cases (it took a while) until, one time, I simply read through this spreadsheet chronology of Mr. Fine’s activities in (Southern) California on behalf of taxpayers.  Maybe we ought to review them as the cries about how broke our state is come from the mouths of some of the same legislators and judicial mouthpieces:

MORE FROM GAO REPORT:

Page 18:

Many State Agencies Reported Holding More than $1 Million from Joint Tax Refunds and Several Hundred Thousand Dollars in Other Types of Undistributed Collections

I hate to minimize the severe and ever-expanding fatherlessness crisis (which of course must be met in kind by federal prevention efforts, a.k.a. fatherhood media campaigns at every level) — however doesn’t it seem that this MIGHT tend to affect the poverty level of families that actually need that child support?  MOreover, as it is the equivalent of the Bermuda Triangle — what goes in, may not come out and is not accounted for — at all — I’m starting to think that this is part of our problem:

MARCH 2004 report on earlier surveys:

In response to our survey, 32 state agencies provided dollar amounts for undistributed collections from joint tax refunds. The median value reported for these collections was $1.8 million. Of these 32 state agencies, 19 reported an amount of $1 million dollars or higher with 3 reporting amounts greater than $10 million dollars. In 15 state agencies this was the largest amount reported for any of the nine types of undistributed collections we listed on the survey. For the 9 state agencies that provided values for all nine types, we determined that undistributed collections from joint tax refunds ranged from 27 to 48 percent of total undistributed collections. Our survey requested data as of June 2003, and OCSE officials explained that the amount of undistributed collections from joint tax refunds is generally higher in March through September.

Many officials cited the potential financial loss as the primary reason they are unwilling to assume the risk of releasing these collections before 180 days.

Naturally they are going to protect their own behinds — because people can sue them otherwise:

 State agencies are fully responsible for payments made in error and must either attempt to recover money that has been distributed to custodial parents or suffer the financial loss that comes from reimbursing the Treasury for the “injured spouse” claims. One state agency we visited, Texas, reduced the time it held collections from joint tax refunds from 120 days to 90 days after analysis of its data showed that the benefit of distributing these collections outweighed the financial risk of holding them.

While high values were consistently reported for undistributed collections from joint tax refunds, our analysis also revealed that the median value of four other types of undistributed collections that state agencies reported exceeded $350,000. These undistributed collections included those received before they were due, pending legal resolution, with an invalid  address for custodial parents, and with data problems.

24 agencies reported collections withheld “pending legal resolution” (may mean a custody issue….) from Min. $9,700 through UP TO $10.2 MILLION, with a median of $431,000.   This represents money that is being held (and probably earning interest for the STate or Counties) while the distressed parents — and children with them — fight it out in court.  Encouraging such fights — which, face it, the Access and Visitation legislation DOES — could prolong that for years.  Do the math (remembering compound interest…. and the declining value of the $$).

So, here comes the OCSE and takes tax money again to solve some problems that its prior practices helped create:

OCSE funded research and provided technical assistance to state agencies to help them reduce undistributed collections. Between fiscal years 2000 and 2002, OCSE awarded three contracts. The first contract awarded in fiscal year 2000, for about $135,000, funded research to identify approaches for reducing undistributed collections in 11 state agencies with large caseloads or amounts of collections. In addition, this contractor reviewed undistributed collections in two New York counties and identified factors in their business processes and automated systems that prevented them from further reducing these collections. According to OCSE, a second contract was also awarded in fiscal year 2000 for about $112,000 that funded research focused on understanding the extent and causes of undistributed collections across state agencies and highlighting best practices for distributing such collections. Additionally, OCSE officials said that a third contract was awarded in fiscal year 2002 for about $300,000 that funded research to review undistributed collections in 5 state agencies.

“OCSE funded” is a misnomer.  OCSE is a public Program office under an “Op(erational)Div(ision) under a Department of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government.     From small to large:

Program Office (OCSE)

OpDiv (ACF)

Dept. (HHS)

Branch (Executive).

Public funds to correct policies promoted by government employees (i.e., legislators, and appropriations people) that are helping fleece the public.  THAT makes a lot of sense….

Meanwhile, others jumped on the bandwagon here, for some press releases on Rep. Walsh:

Mothers And Catholics United Members Call On Rep. Joe Walsh To Honor The Lives Of All Children And Pay Financial Obligations

SATURDAY, 30 JULY 2011 17:42 PRESS RELEASE

Fox Lake, IL–(ENEWSPF)–July 30, 2011.  Catholics United members and mothers from the Eighth Congressional District of Illinois gathered in front of Rep. Joe Walsh’s Fox Lake congressional office today to deliver a letter asking the Congressman to act more responsibly when it comes to defaulting on our nation’s financial obligations, especially when doing so adversely affects the lives of children.

However, a recent disclosure of legal documents shows that Congressman Walsh failed to pay child support during a time when he loaned his political campaign $35,000.

“Rep. Walsh claims that he wants to curb federal spending to protect future generations of Americans,said Jeanne Dauray, a mother and member of Catholics United. But this rings hallow in the face of recent disclosures that he’s failed to pay his own child support. Because my father never paid child support, I know firsthand how devastating it can be on families. Joe Walsh should be ashamed.”

In a letter delivered to Rep. Walsh’s office, Catholics United members and mothers from Illinois write:

“As mothers and as people of faith, we know how important responsible fatherhood is to the lives of our children. Therefore it is with great sadness that we ask you to reflect on your past actions and redeem your sense of honor as a father and as a representative.

We ask that you honor the lives of all children, including your own. Do not allow the United States to default on our financial obligations and pay the full child support owed to your family. Failing to do so will only place a greater burden on the lives of children.”

Sure, that should work.  The man was vacationing with a girlfriend {great conservative values}, lied to his wife, preached at the President, and when he got a $175K government job, apparently FORGOT this original 3 children, although previously he’d tried to get custody of them by calling his wife (of 15 years) names during the divorce proceedings. Kind of reminds me of appealing to a batterer to think of his kids….

Not to lose an opportunity, “Catholics United” gathered to tell this Dad that “irresponsible fatherhood” was tarnishing the image:

http://www.catholics-united.org/files/CU-protest-letter-signing.jpg (notice the posters)

(CapWiz site)

Residence: McHenry

Marital Status: Married (Helene)

Prev. Occupation: Investment Banker

Prev. Political Exp.: no prior elected office

Education: BA University of Iowa, 1995; MPP University of Chicago, 1991

Birthdate: 12/27/1961

Birthplace: Barrington, IL

Religion: Catholic

Percentage in Last Election: 48%

Major Opponent: Melissa Bean

Surprisingly?, this shows he voted AGAINST the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood Bill

H.R.2979 – Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009 (H.R.2979)

Support

No

MATTHEWS: OK. Let me just ask you three questions. The bill you”re going to vote–you”re going to vote for this bill today, right?

WALSH: Try one at a time, Chris.
(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I can”t get the first answer.

WALSH: Yes, I”m going to vote–

MATTHEWS: Will you tell me why it doesn”t name the cuts?

WALSH: — for this bill.

MATTHEWS: Why doesn”t it name the cuts?

WALSH: It calls for $111 billion in cuts, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Where?

WALSH: And again, in the bill, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Where are the cuts?

WALSH: In the bill. In non-defense discretionary spending.

MATTHEWS: What”s that?

MATTHEWS: OK–

WALSH: For the first time in this town, Chris, the House is going to pass a serious plan to get spending in this town under control! And you want to ignore the most important piece of that, which is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. And I got to tell you something. The American people are beyond you on this–

MATTHEWS: OK–

WALSH: — and they”re beyond the president.

MATTHEWS: OK, let–

WALSH: They want us to do something dramatic.

MATTHEWS: OK. Your bill doesn”t specify cuts. It calls in 10 years for reduction in government spending to 19.9 percent of the economy. Are you happy with that number, that would reduce it to, basically, $3 trillion from $3.75? It really doesn”t change it much. But my point to you is, do you really think you”re going to get two thirds vote in the House for a balanced budget amendment, a two thirds vote?

WALSH: Hey, Chris, the fiscal situation now–this president–

MATTHEWS: Will you get a–you said you”re going get a two thirds vote.

WALSH: Yes. Yes! Is so severe that we have a great chance this year to pass this out of the House. Look, 80 percent of the American people believe in a balanced budget amendment. Most states have to live according to one.

MATTHEWS: Right.

WALSH: All households do. This is something Americans understand.