(May 8, 2008) -- "How are we going to pay for this?" Councilwoman Rae Gabelich asked.

We hope every LB taxpayer watches the video of the May 6, 2008 City Council meeting (upgraded link coming on our front page). They'll see Mayor Bob Foster and eight other Councilmembers shrink, reduced to cliches, when asked to explain how they plan to pay for multi-million dollar taxpayer-impacts they voted to invite.

In two votes (8-1, 7-2, Gabelich dissenting on both, DeLong on one), the Council took actions that will affect what it will be like for all of us to live in LB for the next half decade. They saddled LB taxpayers with longer-than-usual five year obligations for LB's already-pension-spiked non-public-safety city employees and LB's firefighters, a staggering $26.5 million hit to LB's General Fund over the next half decade.

That's in addition to millions more under last year's non-required, voluntarily reopening of City Hall's contract with LB's police officers.

That's while LB is "living paycheck to paycheck" Mayor Foster said in August 2007. That's while City Hall's budget isn't structurally balanced (ongoing spending exceeding ongoing revenue) Mayor Foster said in January 2008. All this while city management has told the Council that property tax and sales tax revenues are declining.

As LB businessman and former RDA Boardmember Terry Jensen put it at the speaker's podium, "We're broker now than we were then."

In response to Councilwoman Gabelich's businesslike question, Councilmembers, the Mayor and city management were reduced to babbles. City Hall would become "leaner," return to providing "core services," living within its means, possibly with fewer employees.

Well...if it's so easy to become $30 million leaner, why hasn't City Hall done it already?

Whom are these guys kidding? They're not advocating smaller government to reduce spending and make things easier for taxpayers. They're increasing spending while shrinking services and telling taxpayers to shut up while paying more while getting less.

Corporations know the trick. Make the chocolate bar smaller, charge more and pretend nothing's changed.

We think Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal (to her credit) spilled the beans. After discussing uncertainties in multi-year agreements and the need to return to what she called the "basic provision of civic services," she got down to business:

Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal: ...And lastly we have to firmly support recovering costs for services. We are often challenged when we are approached by community groups for a waiver of fees but when we have identified that it costs a certain amount to provide a service, when we don't capture that cost for that service, we're further and further away from the goal of paying for what our basic charge is. And I firmly believe our basic charge is looking at us in this audience and nothing more and we have to return to that time. So with that I am in full support of this. I am confident that we are taking the measures to scale back to our basic provision of services that we should do and that we will pay for this in that way.

Our translation: There may be some employee reductions, but City Hall plans to pay for a good chunk of these new contracts by "recovering costs" from LB residents and LB businesspeople.

Get set for possible new oppressive "fee increases" for who knows what. Applications. Permits. Approvals. Licenses. Maybe even calls for service.

City Hall will portray these as fees, not taxes, to "recover costs" but in their economic effect they'll pay for the raises that a majority of the Council just approved. You have Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal's word for it. She deserves credit for candor in this that others didn't show...although we regret that she didn't do what Councilwoman Gabelich did: make City Hall candor a prerequisite for her public vote.

This isn't over; it's about to begin. LB taxpayers are fed up with being treated like former East Berliners, answering to a well-paid ruling class, reading Party-line robot media, living amid crumbling infrastructure while failed "Five Year Plans" beget new "Five Year Plans." LB residents can look right across the border to Lakewood and Cerritos where residents have well maintained infrastructure and efficient services...and in many cases pay less for them.

In 2006, Mayoral candidate Foster sandpapered his opponent, then-Councilman Frank Colonna, over joining in a costly 2002 vote (9-0) spiking pensions after management said everything would be OK. Foster criticized Colonna and the past Council for accepting what they were told and not applying common sense.

In our view, what occurred at the May 6, 2008 Council meeting was even worse.

On May 6, 2008, the Council was again told that everything would be OK. However this time, Councilmembers knew or should have known that things aren't OK.

It had Len Woods' 2003 report warning against spending into structural deficits. It had city management's public reports on declining property tax and sales tax revenue. The Mayor has said City Hall is living "paycheck to paycheck" and is spending despite a structural deficit.

Yet despite all this, a majority of the Council didn't want to hear -- or more accurately didn't want to let taxpayers hear -- how it plans to pay for the mammoth financial obligations it was incurring in taxpayers' names.

The Council voted down a motion (1-8) by Councilwoman Gabelich (classy second by Councilwoman Reyes Uranga) that allowed management 30 days more to explain how it proposed to pay for the mammoth proposed financial obligation. (In our view, management should have been prepared to explain this when it presented the agreements to the Council.)

Councilman Gary DeLong, who chairs of the Council's "Budget Oversight Committee" (a body created after Len Woods' devastating 2003 report on LB City Hall spending) argued against Gabelich's motion. He asked City Manager West if he planned to submit a balanced FY 09 budget to Mayor Foster. City Manager West said yes...and to our surprise, Councilman DeLong -- among the most laser-like questioners on fiscal matters when he's so inclined -- didn't inquire further. We had to take an extra blood pressure pill.

What is the difference between what the Council did in 2002...and the 2008 Council majority's faith based fiscal conduct now? In our view, it's less justifiable today.

The 2002 Council vote had political consequences. So will its 2008 vote.