CALIFORNIA COMMENTARY : Protecting Life-and-Death Services : What sort of ‘fiscal responsibility’ would let L.A. County health-and-safety functions crumble? The budget compromise serves real needs.

The real story in the compromise on this year’s Los Angeles County budget--beyond the novel aspects of what has been called an “unholy alliance” between the most conservative and progressive members of the Board of Supervisors--is that, faced with the worst fiscal crisis since the Depression, we were able to agree on a balanced budget that protects taxpayers and essential services.

We agreed to say no to a tax increase and instead cut spending by more than $400 million. But we also said no to a proposed cut of $100 million in public health and safety because the need for these services has never been greater.

Make no mistake, there is real pain in this budget. It eliminates about 2,000 positions and imposes a hard hiring freeze. It terminates or suspends some of the benefits enjoyed by managers. And, in place of a pay cut, it temporarily borrows from employee retirement funds so that the reduction in services and employees can occur gradually and humanely over the next nine months--the so-called soft landing.

These budget cuts will not go unnoticed. Services will suffer. But we had no choice. When the state decided to balance its budget by cutting assistance to local government, county government had to reduce spending to balance its budget. But by working together to forge a budget compromise, we were able to protect core services in public health and safety--services that can be a matter of life and death.

Did we do the right thing? We think so; and we think taxpayers will agree. Groups threatened by the budget cuts urged us to raise taxes to buy our way out of the crisis. With the highest sales tax and one of the worst unemployment rates in the state, it was not appropriate for Los Angeles County to raise taxes.

If you believe, as we do, that the recession is temporary and that the services we restored are critical, you will agree that it would have been fiscally irresponsible not to use every resource at our disposal to maintain essential services. We couldn’t in good conscience tell our constituents that we had to reduce sheriff’s patrols in crime-infested neighborhoods, or release criminals from jail early, or close neighborhood health clinics, or eliminate the district attorney’s 13 area offices just to be “fiscally responsible”--as one of our colleagues says we were not--and create a budget reserve.

But isn’t it shortsighted to borrow to finance current services? Only if the services are unnecessary and you know that you won’t be able to afford the payments. Health and safety are as essential as it gets. And there is no question that the county will be able to pay the “loan” back.

We believe that the taxpayers of Los Angeles County will be well served by the compromise we reached by setting aside our ideological differences and focusing on the real needs of the people.