Tag Archives: Clive Goodman

Ah, the poor, lying Wall Street Journal

This is funny. The poor, hounded Wall Street Journal, boo hoo, takes to its own pages. You all should know how hurt they are after their CEO, Les Hinton, resigned in the wake of their parent company, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., being exposed for outrageous, criminal scumbaggery.

It isn’t fair!

News and Its Critics
A tabloid’s excesses don’t tarnish thousands of other journalists.
Wall Street Journal | July 18, 2011

. . It is also worth noting the irony of so much moral outrage devoted to a single media company, when British tabloids have been known for decades for buying scoops and digging up dirt on the famous. Fleet Street in general has long had a well-earned global reputation for the blind-quote, single-sourced story that may or may not be true. The understandable outrage in this case stems from the hacking of a noncelebrity, the murder victim Milly Dowler.

Sure, our people are scumbags. Fleet Street are scumbags! Yeah! Whaddya want . . ? But one teenaged kid, ferchrisssakes. Sheesh.

Yeah, it was the 13 year old’s voicemails that they hacked. And deleted — causing the family to believe she was still alive when she was already dead. Yikes.

But this whole thing started years ago, 2006, when it was discovered Rupert’s News of the World routinely hacked the phones of the British royal family. Editor Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire were arrested and sent to prison. And from there, in slow motion, the scandal blows up and blows up. So I don’t know what the WSJ are huffing at.

Mulcaire is a central figure in the story — investigations into his dealings recovered “4,000 names or partial names and nearly 3,000 full or partial telephone numbers.” While Rupert’s NOTW and parent company routinely lied to and stonewalled investigators over the years, the extent of the massive hacking eventually became clear.

Victims: former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, royal family members and aides, celebrities, government officials, News of the World’s own executives, soccer coaches and officials, publicists, a dead teenage girl, dead soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan and their families, murder victims of the 7/7 bombings and their families, and hundreds upon hundreds more. In other words, if you were anybody that the public had taken an interest in, for any reason — even if you were dead — Rupert’s people came after you with a vengeance. Nothing was private or sacred. Oh, and let’s not forget: they were bribing Scotland Yard all the while.

But back to the WSJ:

The political mob has been quick to call for a criminal probe into whether News Corp. executives violated the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act with payments to British security or government officials in return for information used in news stories. Attorney General Eric Holder quickly obliged last week, without so much as a fare-thee-well to the First Amendment.

Not so much as a howdya-doo! The U.S. Attorney General is all uppity about bribing important people without once considering our First Amendment protections! Hey — how about the commissioner of Scotland Yard resigning yesterday? Boy, that came out of nowhere.

Who are you trying to kid? It’s out of character for the slimy Murdoch octopus to lay its gentle tentacle upon the reader this way. The Wall Street journal, ladies and gentlemen.

Just think if Uncle Rupert had to cash their chips in. We wouldn’t get any more of this:

Get Ready for a 70% Marginal Tax Rate
Michael Boskin | Wall Street Journal

. . The current top federal rate of 35% is scheduled to rise to 39.6% in 2013 (plus one-to-two points from the phase-out of itemized deductions for singles making above $200,000 and couples earning above $250,000). The payroll tax is 12.4% for Social Security (capped at $106,000), and 2.9% for Medicare (no income cap). While the payroll tax is theoretically split between employers and employees, the employers’ share is ultimately shifted to workers in the form of lower wages.

Did you catch that? That’s something Rupert’s people never do — what’s known as ‘lying.’ Payroll taxes are the taxes for Social Security and Medicare. You pay half, your employer pays half. Your part: 6.2% and 1.45%. Your employer: the same. But in the world of the Fleet Street Journal, your employer pays only “theoretically.” Put a gun up to your employer’s head and he’ll produce the receipts, though. Strange.

Obama’s considering a payroll tax break for businesses, and, if it comes through, you can expect immediate reimbursement from your employer. When manatees fly.

Thus the marginal tax rate paid on wages combining all these taxes is 44.1%.

That would be in the real world. In the mystical fairyland of Planet Earth, it’s 35% + 1.45% = 36.45%. Which is not bad for whatever chunk of money you make above $370,000 a year.

So, for a family in high-cost California taxed at the top federal rate, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2013, the 0.9% increase in payroll taxes to fund ObamaCare, and the president’s proposal to eventually uncap Social Security payroll taxes would lift its combined marginal tax rate to a stunning 58.4%.

. . and, as usual, nothing adds up. I mean Mr. Reality can’t even tally his own numbers, it’s hilarious. The “stunning” 58.4% is an increase of 14.3%. Between the additional 6.2% in Social Security tax (closing the post-$106,000 gap, which Obama can’t swing), the 0.9% bump in Medicare, the 10.5% levy in California (which already exists [??]), and the 4.6% federal tax increase if — IF — we dumped the Bush cuts . . what again? Boing!

It would be a shame to be denied journalism like this.

Share