Did Mayor Bass really cut fire department budget?


Question is being asked by main stream media, and folks on the ground who lost it all in California but did Mayor Karen Bass really cut the fire department budget? Well here is the answer... When Mayor Karen Bass unveiled her budget plan for 2024-25, she called for a 2.7% reduction in spending at the Los Angeles Fire Department. Her proposal, unveiled in April, sought $23 million in cuts to the department, with much of it focused on reduced equipment purchases. 

But while her citywide spending proposal was being reviewed, Bass was also in closed-door negotiations over a major boost in pay for the city’s 3,300 firefighters. Those pay hikes four years of raises and an array of other financial incentives were not finalized until several months after her budget went into effect. The City Council approved the firefighter raises in November, adding more than $53 million in additional salary costs. By then, the council had also signed off on $58 million for new firetrucks and other department purchases.

Once those two line items were added, the fire department’s operating budget actually grew by more than 7% compared to the prior fiscal year, according to the city’s financial analysts. The issue of fire department spending, boring and burdened with specifics in normal times, is now a critical issue in Los Angeles following the massive destruction caused by a wildfire in Pacific Palisades, which continues to burn. The Eaton fire, which has destroyed swaths of Altadena, is outside L.A. city limits. While the L.A. fire department’s annual operating budget has been growing overall and is on track to exceed $950 million the agency also has had to scale back some of its operations.

This idiot Mayor who looks like the new California version of Chicago disgraced Mayor Lori Lightfoot and both look a like, both are black lesbians, and both are morons... We need to stop voting DEI on these dumb people just because they check off a box in DEI! This is costing lives! 

I don't care what color the person is but if she looks like these two bitches don't vote for them. Other officials said the reductions have not affected the department’s ability to fight the Palisades fire. After the blaze broke out on Tuesday, critics of the Los Angeles Police Department seized on the numbers in Bass’ 2024-25 budget document, arguing that funds allocated for police came at the expense of firefighters. 

Elon Musk, owner of the social media platform X, shared a post that bemoaned “LAFD under funding.” Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, who owns the Los Angeles Times, has also criticized the city’s handling of the fire department budget on social media and elsewhere.

Bass, who was in Africa when the fire broke out, has sought to counter the budget cut narrative, saying that spending at the department has grown during the current year. She said funding for firefighter raises was part of her budget from the beginning but was included in an account separate from the fire department budget. “Money was allocated to be distributed later on, which actually went to support salaries and other parts of the fire department,” Bass told reporters at a briefing on Thursday. Last year, faced with a serious budget crunch, Bass and the council eliminated dozens of civilian positions in the department, all of them already vacant.


Those cuts have hampered “core functions” in the department, including payroll, community education programs and the equity and human resources bureau, which addresses personnel grievances and workplace equity, according to a Dec. 4 memo by Fire Chief Kristin Crowley. In her memo, Crowley said a $7-million reduction in overtime variable staffing hours, or “v-hours,” had “severely limited the department’s capacity to prepare for, train for, and respond to large-scale emergencies, including wildfires.” 

According to the memo, the loss of the overtime funding has hindered the department’s ability to test radio equipment, complete pilot training and carry out brush clearance inspections, which are “crucial for mitigating fire risks in high-hazard areas.”

Crowley, appearing Friday on Fox11, was asked whether the city of Los Angeles failed her and her department. After the question was posed multiple times, she said, “Yes.” City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo, whose office helps prepare the city budget, said that overall fire department overtime, counting all categories, actually increased in this year’s budget by nearly $18 million. In addition, he said the budget reductions did not limit the number of firefighters who responded to the Palisades fire, or how long they worked. “The fire department is authorized to deploy whatever emergency resources are necessary, and those costs will be covered as they are every year,” Szabo said. Bass, appearing at the news conference earlier this week, echoed that message, saying the reductions at the fire department “did not impact what we’ve been going through the last few days.” Freddy Escobar, president of the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City Local 112, said he does not fault Bass over her handling of fire department spending. 

At the same time, he said, “the fire chief does not have the money to staff the resources that are needed” to address the city’s public safety needs. “Unfortunately, everything was lined up to have a disaster,” Escobar said in an interview. “And it occurred with winds that were 80, 85 miles per hour.”

Jack Humphreville, who serves on the watchdog group Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates, said the fire department had to scale back operations to make way for employee raises. Now, employee overtime from the Palisades fire, along with pay increases approved for the entire city workforce, are going to make the city budget crunch worse at least in the short term, he said. “I think the city’s in for a real world of hurt,” he said. 

In May, the City Council approved the mayor’s 2024-25 budget, reducing the size of her proposed spending reductions at the fire department to $17 million, down from $23 million. Council member Traci Park, for example, was able to restore funds for a handful of department mechanics. As part of the budget, more than $100 million for salary increases was placed into an account known as the “unappropriated balance,” which serves as something of a holding tank for expenses that are expected but not finalized. About half of those funds were set aside for firefighter raises, Szabo said.

The money went into that account, and not the fire department one, because the city’s labor negotiating committee, made up of Bass and four council members, had not yet signed off on the firefighter contract, Szabo said. The deal also needed to go to the firefighter union for a ratification vote by its members and could have been rejected, requiring additional negotiations. 

That four-year agreement, which included annual pay hikes of 3% and improved healthcare benefits, provided the same types of increases that Los Angeles police officers received a year earlier, according to a city analysis. The starting salary for a firefighter is $85,315, Szabo said, and is expected to reach $90,514 in the coming months, not including overtime and bonuses. Szabo said he will ask the council in the coming weeks to move the $53 million for firefighter raises out of the unappropriated balance and into the fire department budget. 

The salary deal will consume an additional $23 million in increased pension and healthcare costs, he said. Separately, the council is expected to put into the fire department budget an additional $27 million for the transportation of MediCal patients by city paramedics, a service that will be reimbursed by the state.

Those changes, planned last year, would push the fire department’s operating budget to $963 million a 9% increase over the previous year, Szabo said. Tracking spending at the city’s public safety agencies is a difficult task. Both the police and fire departments routinely overspend their budgets, particularly after emergencies or unexpected public safety needs. 

Bass’ first budget as mayor, covering the 2023-24 fiscal year, allocated $837 million to the fire department. By the time she released the 2024-25 budget, her office was expecting fire department spending for that first year to exceed $900 million. Last month, Szabo informed the council that the fire department had already begun to overspend its budget for the new budget year, due to expenditures such as overtime pay.

Trump response to Judge Merchan


What a joke to say that this was a "deeply divided Supreme Court" is a joke! But they have decided to permit New York to brand President-elect Trump as a convicted felon ten days before he enters the White House. With Chief Justice John Roberts and Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett (TRAITORS!) joining the Court’s three progressives Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson the Court greenlighted New York State Judge Juan Merchan’s determination to sentence the president-elect at 9:30 a.m. Friday morning. 

The sentencing was triggered by a jury’s guilty verdicts in May on 34 counts of business-records falsification brought by Manhattan’s elected progressive Democratic district attorney, Alvin Bragg. Four conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh indicated that they would have granted Trump’s petition to postpone sentencing. 

But In a ruling last week, denying Trump’s post-trial motions and scheduling sentencing for Friday morning, Judge Merchan indicated that he would sentence Trump to an unconditional discharge meaning no jail time, no probation, no fine, and no post-sentencing monitoring of any kind. Merchan also ruled that Trump would not need to attend the sentencing in person. 

The president-elect has announced that he will not be in attendance at the courthouse in lower Manhattan on Friday. He will attend the sentencing remotely to minimize the burden the proceeding will place on the ongoing transition leading up to Inauguration Day on January 20.



The majority rationalized that Trump will not be meaningfully harmed by the sentencing, for two principal reasons. First, the Court did not rule on the merits of Trump’s contention that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution was violated by the district attorney’s introduction at trial of evidence of his official presidential acts. That is, Trump will still be able to raise on appeal his immunity claim, along with various other claims of significant error in the proceedings. The appeal cannot proceed until Trump is sentenced and the judgment is entered, so sentencing will clear the way for that process.

Second, the Court effectively locked Merchan into his stated inclination to give Trump a conditional discharge sentence. In theory, Merchan’s signaling of that intention (in a written opinion last week) was not binding technically, a judge is not supposed to decide the sentence until hearing from the parties at the sentencing proceeding, which won’t happen until Friday morning. Regardless, the Supreme Court majority’s conclusion that the sentencing poses minimal burden on Trump’s presidential transition hinges on Merchan’s assurance that he was leaning toward a no-jail, no-probation sentence. 

If Merchan were to change his mind at this point and impose a term of incarceration, the High Court would regard it as a betrayal. Practically speaking, then, Merchan has no choice but to do what he indicated he would do. The majority also relied on Merchan’s directive that Trump did not need to attend the sentencing in person, meaning the proceeding should be brief and minimally intrusive to Trump’s conduct of the presidential transition. There is no dissenting opinion from the four conservative justices. 

Presumably, they concluded that the same considerations that induced the Court to recognize presidential immunity in its July opinion (in Trump v. United States) also supported immunity for presidents-elect principally, the imperative that the president not be distracted by the anxiety and stigma attendant to criminal proceedings while executing his unparalleled constitutional responsibilities. 

In presidential transitions, as Congress has legislatively underscored, a president-elect is engaged in preparing to take on those responsibilities from the first hours of a new administration. 
With Trump having exhausted his avenues to prevent the sentencing, it proceeded which is just a shame but it is what it is.


This trial is a joke and we all know it is and as Trump said it's 'Great embarrassment' and he said it in the courtroom response to Judge Merchan's 'political witch hunt' trial which like he said "Should have never been brought..." The audio tape of President-elect Trump’s New York City sentencing hearing was released to the public on Friday, giving insight into the unprecedented conviction against a former president where Trump was ultimately sentenced to an unconditional discharge. 

"This has been a very terrible experience," Trump, who virtually attended the criminal trial sentencing hearing, told the New York City courtroom on Friday morning. "I think it's been a tremendous setback for New York and the New York court system." But Trump really did express the facts here in the statement he gave as he brought up the clear fact that and I quote again "This is a case that Alvin Bragg did not want to bring. 

He thought it was, from what I read and from what I hear, inappropriately handled before he got there. And a gentleman from a law firm came in and acted as a district attorney," President Trump continued. "And that gentleman, from what I heard, was a criminal or almost criminal in what he did. It was very inappropriate. It was somebody involved with my political opponent." And he continued by saying During the hearing, Merchan defended the actions he took along the way.


"The imposition of sentence is one of the most difficult decisions that any criminal court judge is called to make," Merchan said, noting the court "must consider the facts of the case along with any aggravating or mitigating circumstances." Merchan reflected on the case, saying that "never before has this court been presented with such a unique set of circumstances." The judge said it was an "extraordinary case" with media interest and heightened security but said that once the courtroom doors were closed, the trial itself "was not any more unique or extraordinary" than any other case.

Merchan acknowledged that Trump is afforded significant legal protections, but argued that "one power they do not provide is the power to erase a jury verdict." This will be pardoned when he becomes President and another Appeal should be done to make sure that lump sum of money is not paid as Trump did nothing wrong, and I hope he spends a little time taking aim at this crooked Judge when he becomes President in a few days and gets the Judge disbarred and thrown in PRISON! 

"I think it's an embarrassment to New York and New York has a lot of problems, but this is a great embarrassment," he added. At one point, Trump, appearing virtually, leaned forward, looking at Judge Juan Merchan, and referenced the November election, suggesting that it represented a repudiation of this case.

"It's been a political witch hunt," Trump explained. "It was done to damage my reputation so that I'd lose the election. And obviously, that didn't work. And the people of our country got to see this firsthand because they watched the case in your courtroom. They got to see this firsthand. And then they voted, and I won." 

Assistant District Attorney Josh Steinglass stated that there was "overwhelming evidence to support the jury's verdict" and was critical of Trump, claiming the president-elect "has caused enduring damage to public perception of the criminal justice system and has placed officers of the court in harm's way" with the comments he publicly made during the trial. 


"I very, very much disagree with much of what the government just said about this case, about the legitimacy of what happened in this courtroom during the trial and about President Trump's conduct fighting this case from before it was indicted, while it was indicted, to the jury's verdict, and even to this day," Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche said in response to the prosecution.

During the hearing, Merchan defended the actions he took along the way. "The imposition of sentence is one of the most difficult decisions that any criminal court judge is called to make," Merchan said, noting the court "must consider the facts of the case along with any aggravating or mitigating circumstances." Merchan reflected on the case, saying that "never before has this court been presented with such a unique set of circumstances."

The judge said it was an "extraordinary case" with media interest and heightened security but said that once the courtroom doors were closed, the trial itself "was not any more unique or extraordinary" than any other case. 

Merchan acknowledged that Trump is afforded significant legal protections, but argued that "one power they do not provide is the power to erase a jury verdict." A Verdict on charges which are a joke! The Jury was a joke, and this Judge and his daughter made money off this case.

This is a disgusting betrayal of the Judge seat he holds and this and all these corrupt judges need to be removed and disbarred. "Sir, I wish you Godspeed as you assume the second term in office," Merchan said at the close of the hearing.