Those wacky budget numbers from L.A. City Hall

So is next year's deficit $350 million or $500 million? Budget chief Miguel Santana told the City Council this week that it was $350 million. But Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa threw out the $500 million figure at yesterday's press conference where he and other honchos announced a significant - but hardly groundbreaking - deal with the Coalition of L.A. City Unions. Now, I haven't a clue where Villaraigosa came up with that $500 million - it's in none of the budget documents, and the mayor, as is his way, did not offer any explanation. But even if you're willing to give Villaraigosa the benefit if the doubt (a tall order, I realize), it does point up the weak communication skills among city officials when it comes to money matters.

But what else is new? Frankly, it's near impossible to follow the bouncing budgetary ball - and what precisely L.A. does and does not have to cut. Just a couple of weeks ago, the City Council was told of a looming $54 million deficit for the current fiscal year ending June 30, presumably because it decided against leasing nine of the city's parking garages. Santana had recommended additional furloughs and layoffs to make up the difference, something the Council summarily nixed. But this week, he came back to the council with only a $47 million deficit and a revised plan that would cut all but $4 million of that, largely by moving around a bunch of unspent money. In other words, never mind, things are under control.

In fairness, budgets are living things. They change almost by the day, depending on how much revenue is coming in, as well as the operating needs of dozens of city departments. But they shouldn't change to the tune of tens of millions of dollars over a matter of a few weeks - and those changes shouldn't result in such herky-jerky public policy. As for next year, well, the deficit will be enormous, whether it's $350 million or $500 million. And 2011-2012 is only the first of four crushing years where expenditures will far outweigh revenue. We're talking about a shortfall of almost $2 billion, a good portion of it the result of pension obligations. So the potential savings from the health care agreement with the unions, estimated at $69 million next year, comes nowhere close to solving the overall problem. No matter for the mayor - he unabashedly peddled the deal "landmark pension and healthcare reform" (even though it centers only on health care costs for current employees, which, while substantial, are not as serious an issue as pensions). So the mayor's comments about this being "a watershed moment, make no mistake" is not only wrong, but deflects the serious problems about to be faced.