Doing less with less

In the economic collapse now engulfing virtually all Americans, the troubles facing the city of Los Angeles are hardly unusual. Tax revenues are pinched by a slowing economy -- when fewer properties change hands, the city’s document-transfer tax revenue falls; when fewer tourists visit, fewer tourists pay hotel taxes; when businesses’ receipts shrink, business tax revenue falls off -- while costs for fuel and other supplies remain the same or even grow. Add to that the inevitable, if infuriating, vagaries of Los Angeles government -- a half-built elephant enclosure at the zoo that activists want shut down, the necessity of settling with victims of police violence -- and it’s a grim picture.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has responded by calling on city departments to cut spending by 3%, with some exemptions, including those that provide public safety and those that operate largely as independent businesses, such as the airport. It’s not the first time; in news conferences over the last four years, the mayor has embodied fiscal rigor, calling, for example, for deep cuts and mandatory employee furloughs. But in the end, he and the City Council have found ways to avoid drastic steps. With the current financial downturn, they may have run out of options.

The situation may be so dire, in fact, that Villaraigosa should reconsider his plan to exempt the Los Angeles Police Department from cuts. That would require political courage; increasing the ranks of the LAPD is both popular and prudent. But after many years of increases, does the department really need to be excused from these modest cuts? Should the Department of Water and Power be similarly protected, given the large raises so recently approved for its workers?

The City Council should consider those and other questions about where to reduce spending, but it should do so with a firm commitment to making serious cuts. Already, department heads are lobbying for their programs and warning of doom if they’re ignored -- the paddleboats in MacArthur Park hang in the balance, according to the Department of Recreation and Parks; school crossing guards could lose their jobs and endanger children, one councilwoman protests. Those are fair worries, but only if the council can find other services to cut. It is always difficult to cut, and always more dangerous to pare essential services when people need them most. But putting off this reckoning until next year will only make it worse.

The council must act, and act now. The mayor’s plan is a useful starting point to commence this urgent debate.