There were two recent letters concerning the city budget crunch. One, from a gentleman named Chip Bonghi, claims the crisis was wholly preventable because it’s the result of all the additional costs of enforcing the alcohol ban. Mr. Bonghi’s “evidence” of this consists of the fact that he warned us not to do it, plus he claims he saw more cops and lifeguards on the beach this year. On a more serious note, District 2 City Councilman Kevin Faulconer tells us we need to address both the short- and long-term issues of city spending that exceeds the city budget, on both a short- and long-term basis. He claims the short-term crisis, which would have resulted in some cuts in fire and police plus closing branch libraries and recreation centers, was averted by the council’s action to raid city reserves. Then he proposes, as part of a longer-term plan, one-week furloughs of city employees, rolling closures of fire facilities and more community dialogue. To his credit, he says City Hall must look internally for savings instead of continually cutting public services like police, fire, libraries and parks. I say “amen” to that last idea, but I’m afraid Faulconer is whistling past the graveyard with the type of savings he describes. The stock market meltdown may well double the required city contribution to the pension plan next summer, at a time city receipts take a downward path for the first time in recent memory. We have a “structural” deficit, according to the council’s own budget analyst (translation: the city always spends more than it takes in each year in recurring revenues like taxes and fees, so it makes up the difference with one-time actions like selling city property). Structural deficits suggest structural solutions. The city needs to restructure and simplify its internal operations, eliminating the “nice to have” areas. What’s really needed is for the voters to start doing some homework, study the city budget, which is easily accessible on the city website, and force the mayor and council to answer a few questions. For example, did you know that the city has a housing commission, staffed by more than 240 people, that manages 1,800 apartments? Why do we need three separate redevelopment organizations? How do you justify an arts commission, staffed not by volunteers but by paid city employees, whose primary function appears to be recommending to the mayor where to spend public funds on the arts? I’m sure there are many more questions to be asked, but I’d like to mention two more, based on a comparison of San Diego’s budget with that of Phoenix, also available on the web. Phoenix has a group of 14 administering its pension plan; San Diego requires 65. The Phoenix City Council is supported by a staff of 48; San Diego has 96 for the same number of council districts. There may be explanations; I think we’re entitled to hear them before any more talk of cutting parks and libraries, don’t you?