Karen Bass unveils her ‘very difficult budget’ for LA

LOS ANGELES — Call it the Karen Bass special: a shot of optimism, followed by a bitter budget chaser. You could see this coming if you live in Los Angeles.

The Pacific Palisades (a district in the city) fire showed how the city was unprepared. There was a shortage of manpower. There was a shortage of functioning firefighting equipment. There was a lack of water pressure. There was a nearby reservoir that was empty due to a damaged lid.

That was the incongruous combination the Los Angeles mayor debuted on Monday, when she presented an upbeat outlook in her annual State of the City address, only to drop a gloomy spending proposal that could result in 1,600 layoffs.

The bracing split-screen is a result of the city’s cascade of disasters: historically devastating wildfires, a perennial homelessness crisis and a bleak budget outlook made worse by global economic upheaval. It lays bare the daunting climb awaiting Bass, whose flat-footed initial fire response has left her more politically vulnerable than ever as she seeks reelection in 2026.

Throughout her midday speech, Bass recounted Los Angeles’ woes in her typically sunny cadence, presenting the challenges as an opportunity to further transform the nation’s second-largest city.

“The state of our city is this: Homelessness is down, crime is down. These are tough challenges and they show that we can do so much more,” Bass said. “We still have a long way to go. We need a citywide turnaround, and we need a fundamental overhaul of city government to deliver the clean, safe and orderly neighborhoods that Angelenos deserve — and to reverse decades of failure on homelessness. ”When it came to the city’s fiscal crisis, though, Bass kept it simple and blunt: “Los Angeles, we have a very difficult budget to balance.”

That acknowledgement kicked off in earnest crunch time in charting the city’s coming fiscal year. On Monday, the deadline for Bass to unveil her budget proposal, the mayor released a $13.95 billion spending plan.

The proposal closed the nearly $1 billion deficit that Bass and city leaders had telegraphed in previous weeks. To do so, it proposes 1,600 layoffs, a move the mayor said was a “decision of absolute last resort.”

The layoffs would represent nearly 5 percent of the 32,405 positions currently filled in the city’s workforce.

City officials, who were granted anonymity to speak before the details of the budget were released publicly, said no sworn officers from the police or fire departments would lose their jobs and that Bass will seek to avoid layoffs through negotiations with labor unions.

“We’re also hoping to get some support from state government in order to mitigate or minimize the impact of layoffs on the budget,” one official said. Bass will be traveling to Sacramento later this week to make her case.

Bass is also proposing to find savings by eliminating several commissions, including an advisory Health Commission and another for Climate Emergency Mobilization; consolidating city departments for aging, economic and workforce development and youth development into one department; and delaying certain capital projects.

The city’s financial woes predate the recent turmoil in global markets. Liability payments have tripled, and revenues from business, sales and hotel taxes have lagged.

Bass, speaking of the fiscal crisis, called for “fundamental change” in the city’s operations and endorsed reforms such as multi-year budgeting and a capital improvement plan. She also restated her commitment to reform the city’s charter — an effort that caught momentum after a series of scandals in City Hall but had stalled after the mayor failed to appoint members to a commission to tackle the issue. Bass said she would soon announce an executive director for the commission and name her appointees, with the goal of getting the panel going by the end of the month.

Elsewhere in the speech, the mayor walked a finely calibrated line between boosterism and realism. She extolled the recovery from January’s Palisades fire as “the fastest in California history,” while acknowledging the impatience of fire victims for rebuilding to happen at a quicker clip.

“For those who have lost a home, each and every day is a day too long,” Bass said. “We want to be fast, we want to be safe and we want to be resilient.” She announced a trio of additional efforts on Monday to streamline the rebuilding process, including calling on city council to back a measure to waive all plan check and permit fees.

Elsewhere, there were glimpses of the speech she would be giving if not for the fires’ destruction, as she touted double-digit percentage drops in crime and homelessness — two issues that Bass had invested significant political capital in tackling during her initial years in office.

She acknowledged that Inside Safe, her signature program to move people out of street encampments and into motel rooms and other interim shelter, was not financially sustainable. But she had a pointed message for critics who said that she was spending too much on her priority cause.

“For me, housing these folks, saving lives and ending encampments that have been there for years and years — that is worth the cost,” she said. “Because the cost of leaving an encampment on the street impacts everyone around … It is clear that the cost of doing nothing is not just inhumane, it is also financially unsustainable.”

After roughly an hour of recounting the uphill climb that her city faces, Bass ended her speech playing the role of booster-in-chief, insisting that even a town as beset by obstacles in Los Angeles could, in just three years, be in the international limelight as the host the Summer Olympics.

“The games at its best are more than sport,” she said. “They are a stage for courage, for potential, for dreams. So, LA — let’s go win.”

An Eradic Behavior

“Trump’s ‘will he, won’t he’ tariff chaos is just one more con on working people.”

That’s what Melinda St. Louis, Global Trade Watch director at the watchdog group Public Citizen, said in a Wednesday statement after U.S. President Donald Trump announced a 90-pause for what he has called “reciprocal” tariffs, excluding China.

It seems Donald Trump wants a recession. Why? A recession will drive down the price of real estate, companies, and shares of stock. Trump and his fellow billionaires want o buy everything on the cheap and then enjoy the ride upward-no matter the cost to working people.

“OUR PLAN IS WORKING PERFECTLY AND IS JUST A NEGOTIATING TACTIC BUT IT IS ALSO GOING TO BE PERMANENT AND WE WILL BE THE WORLD LEADER IN TEXTILES AND NOW THERE IS A PAUSE AND EVERYONE NEEDS TO CHILL BUT ALSO WE WILL NEVER BACK DOWN AAAAAAHHHHHH.”

US stocks tumbled today after the White House clarified that its tariff on all Chinese goods was at least 145% — even higher than previously believed. This comes a day after US stocks skyrocketed following President Donald Trump’s announcement of a 90-day pause on all “reciprocal” tariffs, except for China. Beijing, meanwhile, implemented its own retaliatory tariffs of 84% on US goods.

• Trade negotiations: Trump just defended his tariff policy in a Cabinet meeting, saying his administration is “working on deals” with multiple countries. Earlier today, the EU announced it would pause its retaliatory US tariffs for negotiations. Even after Trump’s U-turn, economists say the damage is done.

DOW down 1,835.94, S&P 500 down 281.5 5.5% mid-day April 10,2025

A majority of Americans voted for Donald Trump!

How is your IRA and other savings accounts?

US stocks opened on a grim note in New York, with the Morningstar US Market Index down as much as 3.6% in early trading. Stocks were briefly more than 2% in the green, seemingly on rumors of a pause in the implementation of tariffs, but they quickly fell lower again.

The Nasdaq 100 was 1.8% lower in midmorning trading, while the S&P 500 was down 2.0%. The “Magnificent Seven” stocks continued their declines from the previous week, with Nvidia NVDA down 1.9%, Tesla TSLA down 6%, and Apple AAPL down 4.5%.

Since the imposition of Trump Tariffs.

As of 10:19 AM Pacific Coast Time

DJIA

37,447.63-5,096.59 (-11.98%)

S&P 500 Index

4,973.86-907.77 (-15.43%)

Nasdaq 100 Index

17,165.05-3,847.12 (-18.31%)

Freedom of Speech and Thought under Attack

Speaking your mind shouldn’t cost you your job, your education, or your rights. But right now, that’s exactly what’s happening all across America.

Example One:

President Trump on Thursday renewed a call to defund NPR and PBS a day after top executives from the public broadcasters faced an intense grilling from GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

“NPR and PBS, two horrible and completely biased platforms (Networks!), should be DEFUNDED by Congress, IMMEDIATELY,” Trump wrote late Wednesday on Truth Social. “Republicans, don’t miss this opportunity to rid our Country of this giant SCAM, both being arms of the Radical Left Democrat Party. JUST SAY NO AND, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!”

Example Two:

Students at public colleges and universities are protected by the First Amendment freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. Private schools do not have that protection.                         

Columbia University, officially Columbia University in the City of New York, is a private Ivy League research university in New York City. 

On 8 March, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agents arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a graduate student at Columbia University, as he was returning from dinner with his wife in New York. The agents said the state department had revoked his student visa and green card, though he had never been accused of, let alone convicted for, a crime. He was held in detention in New Jersey, then transferred to Louisiana. He has still not been accused a crime.

Nevertheless, Donald Trump’s state department, headed by Marco Rubio, seeks to deport him under a provision of federallaw that gives him the power to deport someone if their presence in the country is deemed to “have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”. Khalil’s crime? He was a lead organizer of Columbia’s protests for Palestinian rights.

“Who has the right to have rights? It is certainly not the humans crowded into the cells here,” Khalil, a Palestinian raised in exile in a Syrian refugee camp, wrote in a letter proclaiming his status as a “political prisoner”. He is the one of the most prominent targets of a chilling federal crackdown over pro-Palestinian advocacy in the US, particularly on college campuses. And he is one of the most forceful voices in The Encampments, a new documentary on the campus movement for Palestine that has drawn ire from across the US political spectrum, in particular the right.

Example Three:

The nation’s legal profession is being split between those that want to fight back against President Trump’s attacks on the industry and those that prefer to engage in the art of the deal.

Two big firms sued the Trump administration on Friday, seeking to stop executive orders that could impair their ability to represent clients. The lawsuits filed by Jenner & Block and WilmerHale highlight how some elite firms are willing to fight Mr. Trump’s campaign targeting those he doesn’t like, while others, like Paul Weiss and Skadden, have cut deals to appease the president.

In recent weeks, Mr. Trump has issued similarly styled executive orders against firms that he perceives as enemies and threats to national security. The orders could create an existential crisis for firms because they would strip lawyers of security clearances, bar them from entering federal buildings and discourage federal officials from interacting with the firms.

Tyrants

Tyrants view educated citizens as their greatest enemy. Slaveholders stopped the enslaved from learning to read. Nazis burned books. Dictators censor media. That’s why Trump is attacking education, science, museums, and the arts. Ignorance is the handmaiden of tyranny.

Trump consistently frames policy around ‘fairness,’ trading on American frustration

A long article worth reading.

By Kevin Rector, Staff Writer for the Los Angeles Times

In a sit-down interview with Fox News last month, President Trump and his billionaire “efficiency” advisor Elon Musk framed new tariffs on foreign trading partners as a simple matter of fairness.

“I said, ‘Here’s what we’re going to do: reciprocal. Whatever you charge, I’m charging,’” Trump said of a conversation he’d had with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. “I’m doing that with every country.”

“It seems fair,” Musk said.

Trump laughed. “It does,” he said.

“It’s like, fair is fair,” said Musk, the world’s richest person.

The moment was one of many in recent months in which Trump and his allies have framed his policy agenda around the concept of fairness — which experts say is a potent political message at a time when many Americans feel thwarted by inflation, high housing costs and other systemic barriers to getting ahead.

“Trump has a good sense for what will resonate with folks, and I think we all have a deep sense of morality — and so we all recognize the importance of fairness,” said Kurt Gray, a psychology professor at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and author of the book “Outraged: Why We Fight About Morality and Politics and How to Find Common Ground.”

“At the end of the day,” Gray said, “we’re always worried about not getting what we deserve.”

In addition to his “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” for tariffs, Trump has cited fairness in his decisions to pull out of the Paris climate agreement, ban transgender athletes from competing in sports, scale back American aid to embattled Ukraine and pardon his supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump has invoked fairness in meetings with a host of world leaders, including Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. He has suggested that his crusade to end “diversity, equity and inclusion” programs is all about fairness, couched foreign aid and assistance to undocumented immigrants as unfair to struggling American taxpayers, and attacked the Justice Department, the media and federal judges who have ruled against his administration as harboring unfair biases against him.

Trump and Musk — through his “Department of Government Efficiency,” which is not a U.S. agency — have orchestrated a sweeping attack on the federal workforce largely by framing it as a liberal “deep state” that either works in unfair ways against the best interests of conservative Americans, or doesn’t work at all thanks to lopsided work-from-home allowances.

“It’s unfair to the millions of people in the United States who are, in fact, working hard from job sites and not from their home,” Trump said.

In a Justice Department speech this month, Trump repeatedly complained about the courts treating him and his allies unfairly, and reiterated baseless claims that recent elections have been unfair to him, too.

“We want fairness in the courts. The courts are a big factor. The elections, which were totally rigged, are a big factor,” Trump said. “We have to have honest elections. We have to have borders and we have to have courts and law that’s fair, or we’re not going to have a country.”

Before a meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte this month, Trump complained — not for the first time — about European countries not paying their “fair share” to defend Ukraine against Russian aggression, and the U.S. paying too much.

“We were treated very unfairly, as we always are by every country,” Trump said.

Almost exclusively, Trump’s invocations of fairness cast him, his supporters or the U.S. as victims, and his critics and political opponents as the architects and defenders of a decidedly unfair status quo that has persisted for generations. And he has repeatedly used that framework to justify actions that he says are aimed at tearing down that status quo — even if it means breaching norms or bucking the law.

Trump has suggested that unfavorable media coverage of him is unfair and therefore “illegal,” and that judges who rule against him are unfair liberal activists who should be impeached.

The politics of feeling heard

Of course, grievance politics are not new — nor is the importance of “fairness” in democratic governance. In 2006, the late Harvard scholar of political behavior Sidney Verba wrote of fairness being important in various political regimes but “especially central in a democracy.”

Verba noted that fairness comes in different forms — including equal rights under the law, equal voice in the political sphere, and policies that result in equal outcomes for people. But the perception of fairness in a political system, he wrote, often comes down to whether people feel heard.

“Democracies are sounder when the reason why some lose does not rest on the fact that they are invisible to those who make decisions,” Verba wrote. “Equal treatment may be unattainable, but equal consideration is a goal worth striving for.”

According to several experts, Trump’s appeal is in part based on his ability to make average people feel heard, regardless of whether his policies actually speak to their needs.

Gray said there is “distributive fairness,” which asks, “Are you getting as much as you deserve?” and “procedural fairness,” which asks, “Are things being decided in a fair way? Did you get voice? Did you get input?”

One of Trump’s skills, Gray said, is using people’s inherent sense that there is a lack of distributive fairness in the country to justify policies that have little to do with such inequities, and to undermine processes that are in place to ensure procedural fairness, such as judicial review, but aren’t producing the outcomes he personally desires.

“What Trump does a good job at is blurring the line between rules you can follow or shouldn’t follow,” he said. “When he disobeys the rules and gets called out, he goes, ‘Well those moral rules are unjust.’”

People who voted for Trump and have legitimate feelings that things are unfair then give him the benefit of the doubt, Gray said, because he appears to be speaking their language — and on their behalf.

“He’s not just saying that it’s him. He’s saying it’s on behalf of the people he’s representing, and the people he’s representing do think things are unfair,” Gray said. “They’re not getting enough in their life, and they’re not getting their due.”

Lawrence Rosenthal, chair of the Center for Right-Wing Studies at UC Berkeley and author of “Empire of Resentment: Populism’s Toxic Embrace of Nationalism,” said Trump and his supporters have built him up as a leader “interested in fixing the unfairness to the working class.”

But that idea is premised on another notion, even more central to Trump’s persona, that there are “enemies” out there — Democrats, coastal elites, immigrants — who are the cause of that unfairness, Rosenthal said.

“He names enemies, and he’s very good at that — as all right-wing authoritarians are,” Rosenthal said.

Such politics are based on a concept known as “replacement theory,” which tells people to fear others because there are only so many resources to go around, Rosenthal said. The theory dovetails with the argument Trump often makes, that undocumented immigrants receiving jobs or benefits is an inherent threat to his MAGA base.

“The sense of dispossession is absolutely fundamental and has been for some time,” Rosenthal said.

John T. Woolley, co-director of the American Presidency Project at UC Santa Barbara, said Trump has “a remarkable capacity for constructing the world in a way that favors him” — even if that’s as the victim — and appears to be an “outlier” among presidents in terms of how often he focuses on fairness as a political motif.

“Certainly since his first term with impeachment, ‘the Russia hoax,’ ‘dishonest media,’ ‘fake news’ and then ‘weaponizing’ of justice — he’s constructed a kind of victim persona, in battle with the deep state, that is now really basic to his interaction with his core MAGA constituency,” Woolley said.

An idea for Democrats

In coming to terms with Trump’s win in November, Democrats have increasingly acknowledged his ability to speak to Americans who feel left behind — and started to pick up on fairness as a motif of their own, in part by zeroing in on mega-billionaire Musk.

In an interview with NPR last month, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) evoked the idea of unfairness in the system by saying American government is working for rich people like Musk, but not for everyone else. “Everything feels increasingly like a scam,” she said.

She and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have since embarked on a nationwide “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, where they have blasted Musk’s role in government and questioned how his actions, or those of Trump, have helped average Americans in the slightest.

“At the end of the day, the top 1% may have enormous wealth and power, but they are just 1%,” Sanders wrote Friday on X. “When the 99% stand together, we can transform our country.”

Trump Versus Canada

Donald Trump wants to annex Canada and Greenland. To accomplish that goal without an invasion he is using tariffs. Trump doesn’t want to use the military to obtain his objectives. Vladimir Putin’s effort to annex Ukraine using his military is a message that Trump should not use military force to reach his objectives. 

Mr. Trump followed through on a threat at midnight Wednesday to slap 25-per-cent tariffs on aluminum and steel from all countries including Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Australia and Europe. The 27-nation European block joined Canada with retaliatory tariffs of US$28-billion on American goods.

“These tariffs are completely unjustified, unfair and unreasonable,” Canada Finance Minister Dominic LeBlanc told a news conference on Wednesday, warning U.S. protectionist measures will hurt American and Canadian consumers.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the tariffs put in place Wednesday will stay in effect until there is a strong U.S. aluminum and steel industry. That is not a likely scenario.

Ontario premier Mr. Ford on Monday announced a 25-per-cent surcharge on electricity exports to three U.S. states, but suspended it Tuesday after a call with the Commerce Secretary. The Premier said Mr. Lutnick “extended an olive branch” to start a conversation about the future of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly said she’ll once again told Mr. Rubio that Canadians are fed up with Mr. Trump’s call for the annexation of Canada. “Everything that has to do with the 51st state rhetoric is unacceptable,” she said.

The President also defended his whipsaw approach to tariffs, after weeks of threats followed by retreats – and then new rounds of levies.

“It’s called flexibility,” he said. “It’s not called inconsistency.”

Will the American congress assert itself? The authoritarian has control for now.