Lou Chibbaro Jr., a reporter for the gay newspaper The Washington Blade, offered a front-page story this week on just how liberal the top leadership of Catholic Charities USA is:

Catholic Charities USA, the nation’s largest network of faith-based agencies providing services to the poor, has hired a Washington lobbying firm owned by a gay man to promote a recently launched anti-poverty initiative before Congress and the Obama administration.

In a little noticed development, Catholic Charities USA retained the Sheridan Group, founded in 1991 by social worker and gay rights advocate Tom Sheridan, to coordinate the development of legislation and related advocacy programs aimed at “starting a new national conversation on poverty and opportunity.”

Lobbying disclosure reports filed with the House and Senate show that Catholic Charities USA paid the Sheridan Group $476,750 between April 2010 and April 2011 for lobbying services and advocacy work related to the Catholic organization’s anti-poverty projects.

After working for the Mondale-Ferraro campaign in 1984, Sheridan worked as a lobbyist for the AIDS Action Council, one of the original AIDS lobbies.

Sheridan points out that Catholic Charities USA, while serving as a trade association that represents as many as 165 local Catholic Charities agencies linked to the Catholic Church, is independent from the local agencies, including those that have voiced opposition to same-sex marriage.

“They’re only together as service providers on poverty issues, which is why I have no problem representing them,” Sheridan said of Catholic Charities USA. “And I’m proud to represent them because they do such outstanding work.”

Sheridan said he began his career as a social worker. As a gay Catholic interested in social justice causes, he said he has long admired the dedicated social services work Catholic Charities groups have performed throughout the country….

When asked to comment on its decision to retain a lobbying firm owned by an openly gay man, Catholic Charities USA issued a written statement to the Blade from its president, Rev. Larry Snyder, a Roman Catholic priest.

Snyder said Catholic Charities USA has utilized the “strategic leadership of the Sheridan Group” to launch its centennial project that “incorporates policy development as well as legislative, communications, grassroots and fundraising efforts” to prevent and alleviate poverty over the next 100 years.

“We have been pleased with the success of this project to date and will continue to work with a bipartisan team of consultants on this campaign as we see our work grow in importance and urgency every day,” he said.

Father Snyder avoided the obvious contradiction between bishops removing Catholic Charities from work like adoption services in areas where same-sex marriage has been installed and the national outfit working with gay activists on fighting Republican budget-cut proposals. It shouldn't be surprising that Father Snyder serves on President Obama's advisory council on faith-based initiatives.

Perhaps more seriously, gay advocates fighting the Catholic Church insist that these Catholic Charities bureaucrats are secretly supporting them, but can’t do it publicly:

Sister Jeannine Gramick, a Catholic nun and one of the founders of New Ways Ministry, which provides support for LGBT Catholics, said Catholic Charities USA and some local Catholic Charities agencies have provided behind-the-scenes support for the LGBT Catholic community.

“Catholic Charities in general have been the most progressive wing of the church other than the nuns,” she said. “In some cases, Catholic Charities USA has supported our events. I feel they personally are pro-gay but they can’t do this publicly.”

In March at The Huffington Post, Sheridan insisted nonprofit groups needed to wage war on the "extremist" Tea Party Republicans who would shred the welfare state: "We are at a decision point. We can succumb to extremists who would eliminate the bond between government and citizens, and erode the safety net that protects our most vulnerable."

The Washington Post can really pick them when selecting a guest lecturer to Rupert Murdoch on media ethics: pornographer Larry Flynt. In a Sunday Outlook section article is the headline “The people vs. Rupert Murdoch: Hustler magazine founder Larry Flynt says his fellow media mogul has gone too far.” Yes, somehow, Larry Flynt gets to pose as The People.

Flynt lectured at Murdoch: “One cannot live off the liberty and benefits of a free press while ignoring the privacy of the people. People such as Murdoch and I, as heads of publishing conglomerates, have a responsibility to maintain and respect this boundary.” The Post editors clearly enjoy the notion that Larry Flynt oozes on a higher plane than Murdoch in the media world.

This sentence sticks out in the piece: “Meanwhile, Roger Ailes, chief of Murdoch's Fox News, runs a well-oiled propaganda machine.” After all, to the WashPost elite, pornography is just harmless fun, while Fox News is ruining democracy and civil discourse.

This would be Flynt’s summary paragraph:

I test limits by publishing controversial material and paying people who are willing to step forward and expose political hypocrisy. Murdoch's minions, on the other hand, pushed limits by allegedly engaging in unethical or criminal activity: phone hacking, bribery, coercing criminal behavior and betraying the trust of their readership. If News Corp.'s reported wrongdoings are true, what Murdoch's company has been up to does not just brush against boundaries – it blows right past them.

But some of the reported wrongdoings of the Murdoch papers have already been debunked. The leftist paper The Guardian has run a correction and apologized to The Sun, one of Murdoch's British tabloids, for reporting that The Sun had obtained medical records for ex-prime minister Gordon Brown's son. After the Guardian's story this week, The Sun denied the report and obtained an affidavit from its source, a member of the public whose son also suffered from cystic fibrosis. The correction ran on page 36 – not exactly where the original story ran.

That story broke on Friday, but apparently the Post is too lazy (even online) to correct Flynt from charging: “News Corp. employees allegedly hired known criminals to obtain private information about former British prime minister Gordon Brown when his infant son was given a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis.”

Flynt is especially ridiculous while he proclaims great respect for the right to privacy, which usually means the right to page through his skeezy parade of female sexploitation. Flynt knows he has violated the privacy of conservative politicians, but he believes that if your public conservatism gets in the way of fun-loving Flynt-style politicians like Bill Clinton, then your privacy rights are terminated:

I do not create sensationalism at the expense of people living private lives. Yes, I have offered money to those willing to expose hypocritical politicians — one of those offers, in 1998, resulted in the resignation of Bob Livingston, a Republican congressman from Louisiana who voted to impeach President Bill Clinton despite his own extramarital affairs. I focus not on those who are innocent, but rather on those who practice the opposite of what they very publicly preach. This may be considered an extreme or controversial practice in getting a story, but it is far from criminal.

Flynt concluded: “Members of the news media walk a fine line between fully leveraging freedom of the press and respecting their responsibilities to the public. It is a difficult balancing act. Murdoch seems to have fallen off the tightrope. Let’s just hope he doesn’t take all of us down with him.”

Shame on The Washington Post for this tabloidish turn. They really couldn’t help their liberal Fox-hating selves on this low road.

Appearing on fellow MSNBCer Ed Schultz's radio show yesterday, Chris Matthews waxed apocalyptic about what he believes will be a dire consequence of climate change.

Matthews told Schultz of an unidentified friend in Alaska, presumably not Sarah Palin, who warned him of what's to come from warming temperatures  –

And to say there's no issue with climate? You know, a friend of mine is talking about, she lives up in Alaska, she says we're going to be able to, maybe this is good for shipping, we're going to start having trade routes across the Arctic Circle! We're going to start having, you know what I mean?, people are going to be going to Norway in boats and we're going to have shipping lanes doing it. Don't tell me we don't have a climate thing going on. There's something strange going on.

Yikes, trade routes through the Arctic! Next thing you know there'll be commerce, profits! Worse still … boats going to Norway. Oh the humanity …

Just what would an allegedly unfortunate outbreak of capitalism in the Far North resemble? A May 2009 National Geographic article titled "Arctic Landgrab" described the "former fishing town" in Hammerfest, Norway, home to the world's northernmost liquefied natural gas facility, Snohvit –

… I expect to see the start of production — but it is a false start, one of many. The gas field is in the Barents Sea, 800 feet underwater, connected by 90 miles of pipes to an ultramodern plant. The plant, on a grassy island abutting the beautiful 9,400-person town, is northern Norway's largest ever industrial project. Viewed from the Hammerfest shopping mall, it is a tangle of smokestacks, lights, and tubes, backed by a fjord and a row of snowy peaks.

For now, StatoilHydro, the operator, will move gas up the pipes, process it, and export it by tanker — half of it to Cove Point, Maryland, half to Bilbao, Spain. But soon  carbon dioxide, separated from the natural gas, will travel the other direction down the pipes: StatoilHydro will inject it into the seabed to combat global warming.  Snohvit promises to be one of the world's cleanest petroleum projects. During one test run, however,  the winds blew ash from Snohvit's flares — chimneys burning off excess gas — that turned cars and homes black. StatoilHydro brought in doctors to test for carcinogens and handed out reparations checks to angry residents.

It is a measure of petroleum wealth's appeal that I find only one local politician opposed to the plant: a 19-year-old from the revolutionary-socialist Red party. Snohvit pays Hammerfest $22 million a year in property taxes. The town is awash in new projects:  renovated schools, a bigger airport, a sports arena, a "full-digital," glass-walled cultural center. Strollers are  everywhere in the snow-covered streets. It is easy to forget that Hammerfest was recently a dying town, shrinking in population, the most violent place in Norway. In his bay-front office, a local official named Snorre Sundquist is circumspect about Snohvit. "People didn't like the soot," he says, "but they accepted it.

That sole Hammerfest politician opposed to Snohvit — also a prime candidate for future MSNBC contributor.

CBS turned to three Minnesota residents on Friday's Early Show for their take on the recent state government shutdown there, but their panel had a definite slant, as two out of three were state government workers, with one of them calling for "taxes on millionaires…to help the rest of us out." The third Minnesotan called on both sides to work it out. None of the three were clear conservatives.

Anchor Erica Hill interviewed Jenn Theis, Chris Lapakko, and Harley Reed during a segment 40 minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour, as they were sitting in a diner in Minneapolis. Hill first turned to Ms. Theis, who was identified on-screen as a "laid-off government worker," and asked her some softball questions about whether she was getting her job back and her feelings about the tentative resolution of the state budget impasse. The journalist also mentioned that the state employee has "gone through two weeks of no pay" and has a 13-month-old child.

The CBS anchor then turned to Lapakko, first mentioning that he had been "laid off at the beginning of the month" and that he has been "protesting at the state capitol." She asked him, "If you could talk to lawmakers at this point, who are trying to hammer out something in Washington, what would you ask them to do?" The second government employee let his liberal colors show:

LAPAKKO: Well, I think they would have to consider raising taxes on millionaires in this country. We've had- basically, the middle class in this country for the last 40 years has been slowly chipped away at, and the top income earners have gotten a bigger piece of the pie every year. It's about time that they pay a little more in taxes to help the rest of us out, and they haven't created the jobs. You know, people say that we can't raise taxes on them now. They're going to- not create jobs if we raise taxes. Well, they've had their tax cuts and they haven't done anything. We need to talk about entitlement reform. I'm not unrealistic with that. Republicans need to understand that we can't do it on the backs of everyday Americans. We need to actually raise income [taxes] on people that have been doing well since 2000 with the Bush tax cuts.

Though Lapakko  made his left-leaning views very clear in his answer, Hill didn't mention that he has received attention in the local media in Minnesota for his vigil outside the legislative building, even pitching a tent on the Capitol grounds. In these various reports, the state employee is on record as saying that he was "going to sit here until this thing works out….I blame Republicans, but the Democrats aren't much better. … It's a pox on both their houses."
                                           
A Wednesday report from Minnesota Public Radio also noted that Mr. Lapakko heckled a Republican state senator during a press conference on the steps of the state capitol: "Give me your paycheck so I don't have to collect unemployment."

In her final question during the segment, Hill asked Mr. Reed, "There have been a number of people who said, look, this has turned into more politicking lately. Do you feel that way, Harley? Has it become more political than it is about the job they were sent there to do?" He replied, in part, that a solution "has to be done, both from a revenue standpoint, and also, a benefits standpoint, and also, reforms. We do have some areas that need to be addressed from a regulation standpoint and making government more efficient. And if they would look at those issues and really sit down and hammer them out, I think they can solve those issues."

The full transcript of Erica Hill's interview of the three Minnesotans from Friday's Early Show:

ERICA HILL: The two-week government shutdown in Minnesota is coming to an end. A budget deal was struck yesterday. For some in Minnesota, though, it was a very scary, frustrating two weeks. We've gathered three people who have some pretty strong feelings about the shutdown, not just in Minnesota, but also the future of what happens on the federal level in this country.

Joining us are Jenn Theis, Chris Lapakko, and Harley Reed. They're at the Uptown Diner in Minneapolis. Good to have all of you with us this morning. Jen, I want to start with you. You and your husband, as I understand it, were both laid off recently. Now that the shutdown is over, do you have any indication that you may get your job back?

JENN THEIS, LAID-OFF GOVERNMENT WORKER: We will. I think it's going to take about another week before they have a final agreement, and at that time, when they are up and running, then we'll be able to go back to work.

HILL: So, when you first heard the news, Jenn, that there had been this deal, what were your thoughts? Because you had gone through two weeks of no pay. I understand you have a 13-month-old. Obviously, a lot to take care of.

THEIS: Yeah, it is. We're excited. We're ready to get back to work and start bringing in some income again and paying our bills, and we're ready.

HILL: Are you concerned at all that this could happen again, or do you feel like, with this deal, you're safe for a little while?

THEIS: We're hoping that it doesn't happen again, but it might in a couple years, when they try to figure out the budget again. It's a good possibility, but we just- we hope that it doesn't. We'll have to plan a little bit better next time, in case it does.

HILL: Chris- as I understand it, Chris, you were laid off at the beginning of the month. You've been protesting at the state capitol. The Minnesota shutdown, obviously, now almost over. You have a lot of serious concerns, though, about the future of the national economy, and the impasse that we're watching out of Washington, DC. If you could talk to lawmakers at this point, who are trying to hammer out something in Washington, what would you ask them to do?

CHRIS LAPAKKO, FRUSTRATED WITH GOVERNMENT: Well, I think they would have to consider raising taxes on millionaires in this country. We've had- basically, the middle class in this country for the last 40 years has been slowly chipped away at, and the top income earners have gotten a bigger piece of the pie every year. It's about time that they pay a little more in taxes to help the rest of us out, and they haven't created the jobs. You know, people say that we can't raise taxes on them now. They're going to- not create jobs if we raise taxes. Well, they've had their tax cuts and they haven't done anything. We need to talk about entitlement reform. I'm not unrealistic with that. Republicans need to understand that we can't do it on the backs of everyday Americans. We need to actually raise income [taxes] on people that have been doing well since 2000 with the Bush tax cuts. So-

HILL: Harley, I want to bring you in on this, because you also are a little concerned about this situation nationally. Do you feel like lawmakers and politicians at both the state and the federal level understand the needs and the concerns of Americans like yourself?

HARLEY REED, FRUSTRATED WITH GOVERNMENT: I don't think so. I am frustrated and disappointed because- frustrated because it takes them so long to finally figure out what they need to do, and disappointed they don't address the long-term issues. As Jenn said, you know, this may happen two years again from now. They've kind of kicked the can down. We have to address both the revenue and the spending side. And, you know, we have to make sure that the people do speak out, and I encourage everybody to, you know, continue to write their congressmen and talk to them, to understand that there are other people making their case and we need to make our case for what needs to be done.

HILL: There have been a number of people who said, look, this has turned into more politicking lately. Do you feel that way, Harley? Has it become more political than it is about the job they were sent there to do?

REED: Yes, I think it's become, unfortunately, on both sides, it's become very difficult for them to make decisions. We got to remember we're all Americans. We're all in this together, and it tends to be, well, I'm taking this position, no new taxes, and the other side says, well, you can't change anything on the benefits side. And we have to address both. You can't get to where we need to go by only addressing one area. It has to be done, both from a revenue standpoint, and also, a benefits standpoint, and also, reforms. We do have some areas that need to be addressed from a regulation standpoint and making government more efficient. And if they would look at those issues and really sit down and hammer them out, I think they can solve those issues. But it has become so hard for them to make the right decision.

HILL: Harley Reed, Chris Lapakko, Jenn Theis, great to have all of you with us this morning. We appreciate your input. And, who knows? Maybe some folks are watching in Washington- are watching and listening to you this morning.

REED: Thank you.

LAPAKKO: Thank you.

Charles Krauthammer on Friday marvelously demonstrated just how in the pockets of Barack Obama America's news media are.

After claiming on PBS's "Inside Washington" that we now have a "completely compliant, pliant, supine press accepting every leak out of the White House," he silenced the entire panel by asking them to name one specific cut to entitlements the President has proposed (video follows with transcript and commentary):

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: [The President] talks a good game. “Oh, I’m prepared to do entitlements, I’m ready to do entitlements.” Not once has he ever enunciated in public – other than all these leaks which I don’t trust for half a second – one structural change in entitlements, and without that, everybody over the age of nine knows we are not going to get a handle on the debt. So let’s hear him say it in public once.

NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: So why is it when he offered the big deal, the $4 trillion deal…

GORDON PETERSON, HOST: The grand bargain.

TOTENBERG: …the grand bargain, Republicans backed away from it?

KRAUTHAMMER: When did he offer that?

TOTENBERG: He offered that last week.

KRAUTHAMMER: Where?

TOTENBERG: In, he did it, publicly and in negotiations.

KRAUTHAMMER: In your leaks? What’s in the $4 trillion?

TOTENBERG: But Charles.

KRAUTHAMMER: Give me a number. Explain to me what’s in it.

TOTENBERG: Why is it, in two, in matter of two days, Republicans backed away from that and said we don’t want it?

KRAUTHAMMER: You accept everything he says, a $4 trillion deal, if you don’t have a single item in it that you can enunciate.

TOTENBERG: Well, I’m not at the table. Perhaps you are, but I’m not.

KRAUTHAMMER: Well then how does he expect America to accept something in which he explains nothing?

TOTENBERG: He actually said I’m going to get heat from my own people.

Moments later when others on the panel continued with similar rhetoric concerning the President’s so-called plan to reduce entitlement spending, Krauthammer struck again:

KRAUTHAMMER: My colleagues are demonstrating a point I’ve been trying to make about how you have a completely compliant, pliant, supine press accepting every leak out of the White House. Tell me, we have been told, I’ve heard it again and again that the President’s prepared to do, to make cuts in entitlements. Name me one.

PETERSON: Charles, a complete and compliant supine press. I love that.

KRAUTHAMMER: Yeah.

PETERSON: Let’s move along.

KRAUTHAMMER: I’ve got, I’ve got other adjectives, but we’re short on time.

PETERSON: Yes, and we have to keep it on the air.

Once again, Krauthammer demonstrated a fabulous point.

For weeks the media have been telling Americans the President's big budget plan offered cuts in entitlements, but none of them can actually name what those cuts are.

Seems like that would be an important part of a report on spending cuts – specifically identifying what was going to be cut and by how much.

But that hasn't been important to the Obama-loving media during this debt ceiling debate.

If the President says his plan includes cuts to entitlements, that's good enough for them.

Here are a couple of examples, caught by the eagle-eyed Brent Baker, of MSNBC's supposedly more-restrained "news" anchors mouthing the kind of left-wing rhetoric that's a staple of their prime time hosts.

Immediately after President Obama's press conference earlier today, 11am ET anchor Thomas Roberts framed a question about tax policy thusly: "Why do you think the top 2 percent of America has a chokehold on the other 98 percent?"

A few minutes later, after the top of the hour, 12pm ET anchor Contessa Brewer disparaged the Republican position against raising tax rates:

"They ignore the fact that we've been under Bush-era tax cuts and we've seen the unemployment rate skyrocket. The big corporations are sitting on megabucks in cash, they're not spending it on hiring."

White House correspondent Mike Viquiera applauded Brewer's partisan liberal rhetoric: "That's a great point…" (Audio here)

THOMAS ROBERTS (to MSNBC contributor Karen Hunter, about 11:50am ET): Karen, when we were watching this, we were making comments about the fact that the President laid out something clearly about — we haven't had tax increases over the last ten years. We've had a recession, we've had two wars to fight. Why do you think the top 2 percent of America has a choke hold on the other 98 percent?
 

CONTESSA BREWER (about 12:04pm ET): You've got these Republicans who keep saying, 'Look, to raise taxes means that it's handcuffing job creators.' They ignore the fact that we've been under Bush-era tax cuts and we've seen the unemployment rate skyrocket. The big corporations are sitting on megabucks in cash, they're not spending it on hiring. So if the GOP is getting all of this push back, especially from the Tea Party, on raising taxes, how can there be a deal in this climate?
CORRESPONDENT MIKE VIQUUIERA: And, that's a great point….

On Thursday’s edition of The View on ABC, the panel discussed a suburban Pittsburgh restaurant – McDain’s Restaurant & Golf Center in Monroeville – creating a policy to ban children under six from the property. The owner claimed E-mailers have run 11 to 1 in favor of the new ban.

But Joy Behar took this story as an opportunity to pounce on those pro-lifers for only being pro-child until birth: “There seems to be a war against children going on. Except when they’re in utero! Then everyone seems to care!” Here’s how it unfolded:

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: A Pittsburgh-area restaurant announced it’s banning children six years and under from eating at their restaurant after repeated complaints from their older clientele.

S.E. CUPP: People wanted to clap, by the way. They tried to clap. [Applause]

JOY BEHAR:There seems to be a war against children going on. Except when they’re in utero! Then everyone seems to care!

ELISABETH HASSELBECK: Good point.

Good point? At least Cupp made a face. Banning young children from a restaurant is much less of a "war against children" than what abortion "providers" do for a nice living.

Sherri Shepherd said she skipped restaurants for a year when her three-year-old son was misbehaving. Hasselbeck says she drives through the Wendy’s, picks up the food, and then walks into the restaurant to eat, just to avoid non-eating time inside the restaurant.

Then Cupp summed up by joking: "All I want to know is when am I going to go to this restaurant? It sounds amazing. All your kids are fine, I’m sure, but I will eat your young if they get in the middle of my dinner.”

Kicking off the NBC4 11 o'clock news last night, veteran Washington, D.C. anchor Jim Vance touted an exclusive interview he had earlier that day with President Barack Obama.

Vance then aired an excerpt of the interview, comprised of two softball questions. Afterwards, he informed viewers they could find the full interview at the station's website, nbcwashington.com.

Unfortunately, the rest of the interview was just as disappointing. As you'll see, Vance practically portrayed Obama as needlessly inconvenienced by pesky Republicans on the debt ceiling issue and the economy at large.

[You can watch the full video in the embed below the page break]

View more videos at: http://www.nbcwashington.com.

Vance did ask Obama what he would do, if anything, to help D.C. voters secure voting representation in the U.S. Congress. Given how much of a pet issue that is with District voters, particularly liberal Democratic ones, it's interesting that that question and its follow-up were not included in last night's broadcast.

Below you'll find Vance's questions to the president (emphases mine) in the order in which they were asked:

• Mr. President, you are in a titanic struggle with Eric Cantor and others over the debt ceiling, but just a couple of miles from here, are thousands of people, a lot of them black men, who are in another struggle: for their lives, for dignity, don't have a job, can't find a job, don't have skill sets to even get one and keep one if they could. What do you tell those people with regard to what you're going through with your struggle, about their struggle and why they should be hopeful?
• You mention Washington and one of the things that I have to take advantage of with this opportunity, even with the half a million people here, those who may have a job, what we don't have is what most of this country takes for granted. We don't have a vote. What can you tell those half a million people that would make them feel better about being Americans in a democracy where they can't vote?
• When you get done with Karzai and Cantor and others, will you be able to be our public champion on that regard, do you think?
• I gotta ask you one more question. You're a Chicago guy. Have you found it in any way, can you call Washington at least maybe your part-time home now? I mean, you've been here a couple of years. Are you in the groove?
• There's some people that asked me to ask this question. You have a Congress that has proudly proclaimed the posture of "just say no." You have haters out there unconscionable in their expressions. You have two wars. You have crazy people with their fingers on bomb weapons and others who are trying to get them. It's assumed that you want to run again but the question is: Why would you want to put up with that for four more years, that and more?
• The upside's way better than the downside?

I've been trying to resist taking satisfaction in David Cay Johnston's utter humiliation on his first assignment at Reuters. Y'know, there but for the grace of God, etc. I do wish him well, though I question whether the feeling is mutual. More important, I hope he recognizes the need to go into journalistic rehab. My guess is that he doesn't.

The former New York Times journalist/reporter (whatever, David) and yours truly had an extended online dustup four years ago when I demonstrated Johnston's in my view sloppy, foundation-limited, and biased reporting at the Old Gray Lady (graphic of first few paragraphs as originally presented; current link) in an item about what had happened to Americans' incomes between 2000 and 2005 (errors summarized here in "Top Six Errors Committed by David Cay Johnston and/or the New York Times in Their Income Growth Report"; I noted a seventh later).

Let's go through the development and destruction of Johnston's maiden effort at Reuters.

Johnston believed that he, unique among all human beings on earth, had found that Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., while earning billions, was not only not paying income taxes, but somehow "making money off the tax system." As excerpted from the TaxProf blog (Reuters has pulled Johnston's original story; the headline is apparently the one Reuters used), Johnston's anti-Murdoch, anti-Fox animus could not be more obvious:

It Pays to be Murdoch. Just Ask US Gov't

Rupert Murdoch may not garner as much attention for his financial savvy as he does for his journalistic escapades, which last week led to the shuttering of Britain's oldest tabloid. But that doesn't make his money management any less impressive.

Indeed, when it comes to taxes, instead of rendering unto Caesar, Murdoch has Caesar rendering unto him.

Fox News, the editorial pages of his Wall Street Journal and other Murdoch outlets often rail against taxes. Their attacks on government benefits for the elderly, the sick, the jobless and children focus attention on the uses of tax dollars and away from his aggressive efforts to enjoy the benefits of civilization without paying for them.

Many other companies may follow similar practices but most of corporate America doesn't own one of the country's most powerful newspaper editorial pages.

How does Murdoch make money off the tax system? There are three basic elements, disclosure statements show.

One is the aggressive use of intra-company transactions that globally allocate costs to locations that impose taxes — and profits to areas where profits can be earned tax-free.

… Buying companies with tax losses is a second way Murdoch can pocket, rather than pay, taxes.

Third, Murdoch's tax lawyers are expert at maximizing the benefits of deferrals. Incurring a tax today, but paying it by-and-by can be profitable.

Imagine how well Jesus might have done if he had put a corporate jet at Caesar's disposal. Or if he had a tabloid like the News of the World to put Caesar in fear of him.

Keep in mind that this is the same David Cay Johnston who, in 2007, in comments at BizzyBlog (here and here) and in e-mail exchanges, in essence insisted that he plays it straight and lets the data lead him to his conclusions.

This is the same David Cay Johnston who, after he took a buyout from the Times in 2008, continued to in essence  insist that he plays it straight and lets the data lead him to his conclusions even after he agreed in August of that year to appear with an "all star and diverse line up of progressives, labor, and working class speakers" at the "BuzzFlash Sep. 27 Philly Conference." Also addressing the group: Richard Trumka, then second in command at the AFL-CIO, now its head. In January of this year, as reported at the Blaze, Trumka asserted that, in the Blaze's words, his "main goal is using unions to fundamentally change American into his progressive vision — not (to) negotiate member salaries."

Now, the same David Cay Johnston who likes to think he's an "investigative reporter" (or "investigative journalist"; whatever, David), when confronted with what he should have been seen as likely nonsensical information, has admitted that he didn't actually contact someone at News Corp. to make sure his revelations, unique among all human beings on earth, were correct (in his mea culpa, he writes that he tried but got no response) before releasing his report.

Finally, this is the same David Cay Johnston who has been forced to admit (and to his partial credit, has done so forthrightly) that he was completely and utterly wrong. News Corp. didn't "make money on taxes"; rather it paid in billions in U.S taxes from 2007-2010. First there was an Atlantic item by Adam Martin, followed by a lengthy apology and explanation by Johnston which appeared later at Reuters after the wire service's official withdrawal of the story:

(From The Atlantic's write-up)

… Because of a change News Corp. made in its annual reports during the seven year period Johnston reported on, his calculations on Rupert Murdoch's tax bills showed a negative number where there should have been a positive one. "This is particularly painful," Johnston told The Atlantic Wire via telephone. "I have been at this for 45 years. I have never, until now, had to do anything like this. I am assiduous about correcting the record."

… "I probably read that disclosure and just didn’t realize what it was reporting," Johnston said. "This is very finely detailed stuff. I missed that they switched the number. It isn’t common practice, and I shouldn’t have missed it. At the end of the day, the fact is, I shouldn’t have missed it."

(from Johnston's retraction and apology column)

Rupert Murdoch's News Corp did not get a $4.8 billion tax refund for the past four years, as I reported. Instead, it paid that much in cash for corporate income taxes for the years 2007 through 2010 while earning pre-tax profits of $10.4 billion.

For the first time in my 45-year-old career I am writing a skinback. That is what journalists call a retraction of the premise of a piece, as in peeling back your skin and feeling the pain. I will do all I can to make sure everyone who has read or heard secondary reports based on my column also learns the facts and would appreciate the help of readers in that cause.

No excuses.

… The other facts I reported remain:

* Among the 100 largest companies in the United States, News Corp has the third largest number of subsidiaries in tax havens, a Government Accountability Office study found in 2009.

* On an accounting basis, which measures taxes incurred but often not actually paid for years, News Corp had a tax rate of under 20 percent, little more than half the 35 percent statutory rate, its disclosures show.

* Murdoch has bought companies with tax losses and fought to be able to use them, which reduces his company's costs.

* News Corp lawyers and accountants are experts at making use of tax deferrals, though the company's net tax assets have shrunken from $5.7 billion in 2007 to $3.3 billion last year as the benefits were either used or expired.

In other words, Johnston is admitting that News Corp's tax peeps are aggressively doing their jobs within the laws as they exist, from all appearances without violating them.

In other words, there was no story here — only a "reporter" (or "journalist"; whatever, David) who thought he could make a big initial splash by piling on a company tainted by a hacking scandal at its (now former) News of the World publication. Face it, David: You wanted to believe, and let that desire get in the way of your supposed pursuit of the truth. I maintain that it's far from the first time you've let this happen — just the most obvious.

The big story here, besides the obvious journalistic failure (my opinion, of course), is that David Cay Johnston can no longer pretend that he plays it straight and lets the data lead him to his conclusions. Those days are over, pal.

Oh, I almost forgot — According to the Atlantic, part of Johnston's apology tour apparently includes an appearance on NPR and the issuance of a statement on The Ed Show. Really venturing into the lion's den, aren't you, David?

I seem to recall that a reporter named Terri Cullen wrote an item for Reuters in February 2010 about the impact of tax laws which the White House jawboned the wire service into retracting. A few days later, Cullen "resigned," which for those who don't know it is corporate-speak for "told to leave to avoid getting officially fired."

I'm not a big fan of people having to leave their jobs because of a mistake, but if Cullen "resigned," shouldn't David Cay Johnston? Just askin'.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

When Robert Reich ascends to The Huffington Post to define “The Rise of the Wrecking-Ball Right,” would anyone doubt that this destructive movement would be led by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh? The Huffington Post shouldn’t pay for this kind of endlessly recycled talking point:

Add in the relentlessly snide government-hating and baiting of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and his imitators on rage radio; include more than thirty years of Ronald Reagan's repeated refrain that government is the problem; pile on hundreds of millions of dollars from the likes of oil tycoons Charles and David Koch intent on convincing the public that government is evil, and you have all the ingredients for the emergence of a wrecking-ball right that's intent on destroying government as we know it.

But Reich was also phoning in his explanation for all this government-hatred: naturally, it comes from American idiots who don’t realize they’re all government dependents and should be offering glory and praise instead of opposition:

It's no coincidence that the emergence of the tea party coincided with the Wall Street bailout. An acquaintance who has embraced the tea party explained to me she hates government "because it's always captured by the powerful, who take our taxes and eat our lunch."

At the same time most of what government does that helps average people is now so deeply woven into the thread of daily life that it's no longer recognizable as government. Think of the indignant voters who showed up at congressional town meetings to protest Obama's health care bill shouting "don't take away my Medicare!"

A recent paper by Cornell political scientist Suzanne Mettler surveyed how many recipients of government benefits don't really believe they have received any benefits. She found that over 44 percent of Social Security recipients say they "have not used a government social program." More than half of families receiving government-backed student loans said the same thing, as did 60 percent of those who get the home mortgage interest deduction, 43 percent of unemployment insurance beneficiaries, and almost 30 percent of recipients of Social Security Disability.

Notice how Reich says if you get a mortgage deduction, you're dependent on government? This is the same kind of logic that says since conservative think tanks are tax-exempt, they're "tax-subsidized" and hence should be more grateful to government. Reich grew especially ridiculous at the end: that somehow the Democrats haven’t made the case for government yet (??):

The final critical ingredient has been the abject failure of the Democratic Party — from the President on down — to make the case for why government is necessary.

One would have thought the last few years of mine disasters, exploding oil rigs, nuclear meltdowns, malfeasance on Wall Street, wildly-escalating costs of health insurance, rip-roaring CEO pay, and mass layoffs would have offered a singular opportunity to explain why the nation's collective well-being requires a strong and effective government representing the interests of average people.

Yet the case has not been made. Perhaps that's because, even under the Democrats, the interests of average people have not been sufficiently attended to.