Villaraigosa presents plan to close $457 million deficit

The mayor's proposed budget for 2011-2012 includes big cuts in police overtime, more than $100 million worth of reductions and efficiencies citywide, and all kinds of sleight-of-hand spending adjustments and one-time revenue grabs. Somehow, they all add up to the needed $457.5 million (a higher number than has been used by budget officials because it covers certain cuts that already were factored into the deficit savings). Here's the full breakout of how the mayor plans to eliminate the deficit:

Fire Deployment Plan -- $53.7 million
LAPD Sworn Salary and OT Reductions -- $100 million
Civilian Furloughs -- $93.4 million
Reductions and Efficiencies -- $105.3 million
Special Fund Maximization -- $51 million
Net Revenue -- $11 million
One-time Solutions -- $43.1 million

From press release:

"This budget reflects my steadfast commitment to making Los Angeles a City where neighborhoods are safe, parks and libraries are open, streets are paved, and there is a healthy Reserve Fund that ensures that the City is financially stable for generations to come," Mayor Villaraigosa said. "In order to preserve these services and priorities, this budget makes long-term structural changes to move Los Angeles towards a fiscally sound and sustainable future."

Actually, it really doesn't. Yes, an agreement was worked out with city unions that, if ratified, would have 19,000 workers contributing to their health care coverage for the first time. Savings have been estimated at around $65 million for the new fiscal year. (If the plan is not ratified, furloughs would be imposed.) But there's no mention of the city's unsustainable pension obligations for current and retired workers - money that is coming right out of the general fund and clearly has eaten into basic services. So instead of dealing with the elephant in the room, this budget plan, like others in recent years, suggests that city services can be maintained - and even improved upon - with just some snipping here and there. That's right, his budget proposal outlines additional funding for new park and recreational facilities, 735 miles of street preservation and resurfacing, and the repair of 300,000 potholes (a 20 percent increase over last year). Among the snips cited:

Examples of Reductions
--Elimination of 680 full-time positions
--11% Reduction to Mayor's Budget
--10% Reduction to City Council Budget
--Reduction of Recreation and Parks Maintenance and Programs
--15% Reduction to Cultural Affairs Grants
--Realignment of Crossing Guard Services
--10% Reduction to Annual Appropriation to Neighborhood Councils
--Elimination of General Fund Support for City Channel 36
--10% Reduction to Homeless Shelter Program

Examples of Efficiencies
--Consolidation of Treasurer with the Office of Finance
--Transfer of Northeast San Fernando Animal Shelter to non-profit
--Reduction of Outside Council Litigation Expenses
--Transfer of Lot Cleaning, Weed Abatement and Illegal Dumping from Street Services to Sanitation
--Implementation of Public Private Partnerships at five Cultural Affairs facilities by January 2012

Now I don't know about you, but the words "efficiency" and "government" don't seem to go together, certainly not in the city of L.A. And what about that 11 percent reduction in the mayor's already bloated budget? Symbolism aside, is that really the answer to our prayers? One other thing that sticks out is the amount of borrowing that's proposed. City Controller Wendy Greuel, who is running for mayor, sounds less than enthused about the budget (she's also ticked off about not getting enough funding for financial audits). "It's time to be honest with Angelenos about the scope of the fiscal crisis we are facing and the painful, but necessary solutions," she said in a press release. "What is needed are sustainable long term solutions that we can depend upon."

Well, good luck with that. What's missing in this is a comprehensive streamlining of city government, something that's probably a political nonstarter because of all the layoffs and dislocations it would require. Is Villaraigosa betting that he can get away with a nip-and-tuck approach to deficit reduction for the remaining two years of his term? Certainly looks that way. Over the long haul, of course, nipping and tucking is clearly unsustainable.