I have been angry at Barack Obama for a while now. I have chosen to keep most of that anger to myself; up to this point I have written relatively little about it. This column is mainly about Barack. It is also about someone many of you probably don’t know: a man named Jamaal Wilkes.

Strap in folks.

In our tell all society, there are still some things that the media is just not going to talk about. With all the argument over Paul Ryan's plan to eliminate Medicare, all the articles, all the analysis, there was virtually no discussion of the fact that Ryan proposes to spend even more on Medicare for those now 55 and over and cut taxes. So the debt would rise for another 30 years. And then cut Medicare funding far more than would otherwise be required for those 54 and under. There was one blog post quoting CBS news quoting the owner of this site quoting me. There was one brief New York Times column. A Wall Street Journal columnist wrote the exempting those over 55, the richest generations in U.S. history, from any "shared sacrifice" is what "everyone wants to do" because we need to pay for their promises to themselves. And that's it. No one asked why the same rules shouldn't be applied to the generations making the decisions as to those who will be sacrificed to pay off their debts.

And with all the argument over teacher layoffs, all the articles, blog posts, press releases and protests, no one else has mentioned the connection between falling resources for the classroom and soaring pension costs due to the 2008 deal to allow teachers to retire years earlier. Even with an independent actuary and a retirement research center both identifying the NYC teachers retirement fund as one of the most underfunded major plans in the country. I guess Generation Greed doesn't want to hear "we scored and future generations are screwed." And the mere truth has little standing in our society without some self-interested self promoter to speak it.

MICK: “I see a schoolhouse, the Mayor wants it painted Black
No money anymore, he wants them to turn Black
I see the girl walk by dressed in her high class clothes
I have to turn my head until her darkness goes

I see some limousines and they're all painted Black
No flowers and no love, she’s never coming back
I see people turn their heads and quickly look away
Like a dead body, it don't happen ev'ryday

No more will her green eyeshades go turn a deeper hue

I knew Cathie Black was done, but Walcott surprised me; I was expecting Bloomie to appoint Tina Brown.

The question remains whether getting the same policies executed more competently really counts as some sort of victory

It measures the time until pension disasters two ways. On a termination basis, future money paid in by taxpayers and public employees is used to pay for the pension benefits that are being earned today, to ensure the non-retired will also get a pension. On an ongoing pensions, all the money paid now goes to the retired, including the money paid by current employees, leaving no money for their own pensions. So what happens to the NYC teacher pensions under that scenario?

Comptroller Liu released a report that claimed, media stories based on a press release said, New York City pension expenses have increased due to poor investment returns and not retroactive pension enhancements for NYC public employees. But that isn’t what the report, which contained little more information than a press release and no back-up, actually said. Liu claimed that 48% of the pension hole, which he is apparently prepared to admit exists, is due to low investment returns, and 44% is due to retroactive pension enhancements that were voted for by the state legislature in Albany. The rest is due to the fact pensions have automatically become richer for public employees, as they live longer in retirement relative to the years they have worked. For private sector workers, longer lifespans means living on less each year or running out of money.

Adding it up, 52% of the pension hole according to Liu is due to NYC public employees getting a richer pension deal at the expense of other people, the majority of whom are less well off. And just 48% is due to what he calls low investment returns. This is nearly plausible, but I have five main problems with it.