New York’s retired and near-retired public employees, who (like top corporate executives) have been among the few people becoming better off over the past two decades, just decided to make future generations of public employees worse off to pay for what they have seized for themselves by enacting a Tier V. They will now claim this is their share of “shared sacrifice,” which is of course a lie, because they have sacrificed nothing. You will see who is sacrificed, as public services are cut and taxes continue to rise. Which is why I don’t vote for Democrats in New York City, or any incumbents in New York State. They are the parties of the exploitive over-privileged.

In Washington, meanwhile, some members of Generation Greed are prepared to face the reality of what they have done. They know if the cost of the Medicare program for those over 65 isn’t cut, and it continues to be paid for mostly by borrowing (only hospitals are paid for by the Medicare tax), Medicare will not be available for younger generations when they themselves become old. And unless the federal government is willing to do something, other than subsidize employer-provided insurance for those who have it with a regressive tax break that is worth more they more you earn and the more you get, younger generations may not make it to 65. The national Republicans, the official political party of the divorced deadbeat dad, have jumped in to defend unlimited and unquestioned spending on today’s seniors, and oppose doing anything for those coming after, which is why I won’t vote for them, either. So what will be the result? My odds: Generation Greed is Generation Greed because it’s greediest members have won every time.

To some elected officials, a win is a win, is a win, is a win: no matter how close. And then they move on to their next term in office, learning very little from victory and arrogantly paying no heed to the warning signs. Ostensibly, lame duck councilmember Dr. Kendall Stewart (#45), fell victim to this political mentality recently (more on that later).

It appears however, that NYC council member Darlene Mealy is somewhat different. She recently overcame spirited challenges from former councilwoman Tracey Boyland, Tulani Kinard (endorsed by both Al Sharpton and Charles Barron), and activist Anthony Herbert. For the sake of full disclosure, let me also state that Mrs. Kinard was also endorsed here by yours truly. I have known both Tulani and her husband (Stan) for many years now, and have worked with them on many political initiatives. They are both educators and activists (political and cultural) who have paid lots of dues in the continuing struggles of colored folks.

From a blogger’s perspective, the one good result in the wake of the defeat of marital equality is the wealth of opportunity. There are so many possible angles just begging to be explored.

Some gay activists are now busy outing an allegedly gay State Senator who voted against marital equality. This has proven problematic in that though there have been many who have been “reamed” by the character in question, most of that activity seems to have taken place in a political context rather than a “romantic” one.

And even among those who’ve engaged in “romantic” liaisons with the pol in question, there is apparently not one person who isn’t too embarrassed to admit to it.

GATEMOUTH (4/14/06): In the end, I want a member of Congress who’s wrestled with, and lost sleep over the question of under which circumstances the deployment of American forces in battle is justified. “Just say no” is not an adequate answer…

GATEMOUTH (1/20/09): I am thankful to those on the left, like Katrina vanden Heuvel, who supported Obama understanding that he differed with them on the use of residual forces in Iraq, the escalation of the US military presence in Afghanistan, and the resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict. I am also thankful to those on the left who supported Obama in part because they didn’t realize he held those positions, or believed Obama didn‘t really mean what he said and was really one of them. Clearly, in the crazed atmosphere of the Bush administration‘s unilateral imbecility, Obama was the right choice for such people, as well as for those holding views closer to my own.

It's been rough and rocky travelin',
But I'm finally standin' upright on the ground.
After takin' several readings,
I'm surprised to find my mind`s still fairly sound — Willie Nelson

It started simply enough.

I was a geeky junior high school smart ass; by contrast, Paul was a popular junior high smart ass. He thought it would be a goof, and a heart attack for the administration, for me to be student council president, and he ran a gonzo campaign to elect me. Incredibly, we beat out Heidi, a popular and leggy blonde teacher’s pet for a spot in the runoff, but lost in the end to Lloyd, a golden-boy who went on to produce “Watchmen.”

During this year’s final mayoral debate, Bill Thompson was said by the local commentariat to have made two grievous errors, which were only not said to be fatal in and of themselves because his candidacy was pronounced by the same wise-men to be in a state of extremis, for which the local press had already administered the rite of extreme unction.

Now, in light of the fact that Mr. Thompson lost an election to a man who received less than 51% of the votes, the wise-men have been proven to be a little less wise, and perhaps it is time to subject these assertions to a more rigorous analysis, if only because if the wise-men were right about them, these purported errors may have actually turned the course of history.

Error number one is said to be Mr. Thompson’s assertion that Bloomberg’s performance in the Office of Mayor rated a grade of D minus.

Suddenly, there is a great deal of concern about America’s federal debt, not only among the Chinese to whom a great deal of it is owed, but also among older generations of Americans, who worry that growing debts will hurt the federal government’s ability to provide them with everything they have promised themselves, without quite being willing to pay for it. A few years ago, many of our members of Congress were wholeheartedly in favor of adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare and not paying a cent of it, funding it entirely with borrowing to be paid back by someone someday. Now many of those same members of Congress say we cannot do anything for the health care of those under age 65, who if they are fortunate to be working actually pay for Medicare, because the federal deficit is too big. This week’s edition of the The Economist concedes that younger generations will have to pay higher taxes than whose who came before, but also asserts that those who now expect to receive Social Security at age 67 (instead of the 65 older generations received) should instead get nothing until age 70. Perhaps, according to this source, they could be forced to wait until age 70 to collect Medicare as well, “so they will have to work longer.” Conveniently ignoring the fact that as it is businesses are more willing to hire those age 65, with federal health insurance, than those age 60, uninsured and with high average health care costs.

One of the few capabilities I have that is better than most of my peers is my long-term memory. It doesn’t get in there easily, but when it does get in, it seems to stay there. For those of you who, in contrast, can remember the name of the person you met ten minutes ago but not the early 1980s, I thought I might provide a few reminders of what prominent people said about America’s federal debts in the past, while they were running them up and enjoying the proceeds. In each case politicians, and wonks seeking employment with them, provided rationalizations for growing debts. Excuses more like it. Providing rationalizations and excuses, in fact, seems to be the job requirement of a successful wonk, actuary, bond rater, appraiser, mortgage broker, securities underwriter, etc. etc. etc.