In today's New York Post, Peter Schweizer has an update on his study of liberal hypocrisy: "A fund for friends." Schweizer's column takes a look at the performance of two investment funds -- Yucaipa Corporate Initiatives and Yucaipa American -- on which Bill Clinton serves as senior adviser. The two funds manage pension fund investments from New York and California government employees and teachers.

Schweizer notes that while the funds proclaim certain social, their investments don't seem to walk the talk. Schweizer provides two examples, including the cable venture starring Al Gore, and concludes with a report on the funds' performance to date:

Meanwhile, the workers whose pensions have been invested in Yucaipa are getting a terrible deal. According to CALSTARS, California teachers have already committed $61.9 million of the $150 million that they promised Yucaipa. As of last March 31, three years after the venture started, they'd seen a grand total of $837 come back to them. Overall, the rate of return since the funds launched have been a loss of 12.1 percent.

CALPERS has not done much better. After pouring more than $116 million into various Yucaipa ventures since 2002, it's seen a return of $55,963.

AT the same time, Yucaipa is also collecting hefty fees for managing the pension funds' investments — more than $3 million a year from CALPERS, and $3.5 million a year from the New York Common Retirement Fund. How much of this ends up in Bill Clinton's pocket is anybody's guess. He's not disclosing his fees. And why is Sen. Hillary Clinton, who appears to be so concerned about the state of our pension systems, silent about this?

Hypocrisy is not confined to one party or the other. But the coverage of it is partisan. The national media seem very interested in what Sen. Bill Frist might have done with money from his private trust. Why are they ignoring what Bill Clinton and Yucaipa are doing with hundreds of millions in pension money?

Schweizer's examples are limited and it is possible that the funds are too new for their performance to be evaluated fairly. That having been said, the column tells an interesting story that seems to warrant additional scrutiny.