more money

The Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday approved a fivefold increase to its contract with a law firm that drew heated criticism for the invoices it submitted in a high-stakes homelessness case.

Three months ago, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher billed the city $1.8 million for two weeks of legal work, with 15 of its attorneys billing nearly $1,300 per hour. By Aug. 8, the cost of the firm’s work had jumped to $3.2 million.

The price tag infuriated some on the council, who pointed out that they had approved a three-year contract capped at $900,000 — and specifically had asked for regular updates on the case.

Despite those concerns, the council voted 10-3 Wednesday to increase the firm’s contract to nearly $5 million for the current fiscal year, which ends in June 2026. Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky supported the move, saying Gibson Dunn’s work has been “essential to protecting the city’s interests.”

“At the same time, we put new oversight in place to ensure any additional funding requests come back to council before more money is allocated,” said Yaroslavsky, who heads the council’s budget committee.

Councilmembers Tim McOsker, Adrin Nazarian and Nithya Raman voted against the contract increase.

McOsker, who also sits on the budget committee, said he was not satisfied with Gibson Dunn’s effort to scale back the amount it is charging the city. After the council asked for the cost to be reduced, the firm shaved $210,000 off of the bill, he said.

“I think Gibson should have given up more, and should have been pressed to give up more,” McOsker said after the vote.

A Gibson Dunn attorney who heads up the team that represents the city did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Meanwhile, an aide to City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto welcomed the council’s vote.

“We are pleased that the City Council recognizes and appreciates the strong legal representation that Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher has provided and continues to provide to the city,” said Karen Richardson, a spokesperson for Feldstein Soto, in a statement.

Gibson Dunn was retained by the city in mid-May, one week before a major hearing in the case filed by the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights, a nonprofit group that has been at odds with the city over its handling of the homelessness crisis since 2020.

The city reached a settlement with the L.A. Alliance in 2022, agreeing to create 12,915 homeless shelter beds or other housing opportunities. Since then, the L.A. Alliance has repeatedly accused the city of failing to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement.

In May, a federal judge overseeing the settlement called a seven-day hearing to determine whether he should take authority over the city’s homelessness programs from Mayor Karen Bass and the City Council, and hand them over to a third party. Alliance lawyers said during those proceedings that they wanted to call Bass and two council members to testify.

In the run-up to that hearing, the city hired Gibson Dunn, a powerhouse law firm that secured a landmark Supreme Court ruling that upheld laws prohibiting homeless people from camping in public spaces.

Feldstein Soto has praised Gibson Dunn’s work in the L.A. Alliance case, saying the firm helped the city retain control over its homelessness programs, while also keeping Bass and the two council members off the stand. She commended the firm for getting up to speed on the settlement, mastering a complex set of policy matters within a week.

Feldstein Soto initially hoped to increase the size of the Gibson Dunn contract to nearly $6 million through 2027 — only to be rebuffed by council members unhappy with the billing situation. On Wednesday, at the recommendation of the council’s budget committee, the council signed off on nearly $5 million over one year.

A portion of that money will likely go toward the filing of an appeal of a federal judge’s order in the LA Alliance case, Feldstein Soto said in a memo.

Faced with lingering criticism from council members, Feldstein Soto agreed to help with the cost of the Gibson Dunn contract, committing $1 million from her office’s budget. The council also tapped $4 million from the city’s “unappropriated balance,” an account for funds that have not yet been allocated.

By transferring the money to the Gibson Dunn contract, the council depleted much of the funding that would have gone to outside law firms over the current budget year, said McOsker, who called the move “bad fiscal management.”

Raman, who heads the council’s homelessness committee, said her dissenting vote wasn’t about the price of the services charged by Gibson Dunn, but rather the fact that so much was spent without council approval.

“As someone who is watching that money very closely, I was frustrated,” she said. “So my ‘no’ vote was based on that frustration.”

Having extended most of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and added even more tax breaks, Congress is once again punting on the central fiscal question of our time: What kind of government do Americans want seriously enough to pay for?

Yes, the Big Beautiful Bill avoided a massive tax increase and includes pro-growth reforms. It also adds to the debt — by how much is debatable — and that’s before we get to the budgetary reckoning of Social Security and Medicare’s impending insolvency. Against that backdrop, it’s infuriating to see a $9-billion rescission package — one drop in the deficit bucket — met with cries of bloody murder.

The same can be said of the apocalyptic discourse surrounding the Big Beautiful Bill’s reduction in Medicaid spending. In spite of the cuts, the program is projected to grow drastically over the next 10 years. In fact, the reforms barely scratch the surface considering its enormous growth under President Biden.

Maybe we wouldn’t keep operating this way — pretending like minor trims are major reforms while refusing to tackle demographic and entitlement time bombs ticking beneath our feet — if we stayed focused on the question of what, considering the cost, we’re willing to pay for.

Otherwise, it’s too easy to continue committing a generational injustice toward our children and grandchildren. That’s because all the benefits and subsidies that we’re unwilling to pay for will eventually have to be paid for in the future with higher taxes, inflation or both. That’s morally and economically reprehensible.

Admitting we have a problem is hard. Fixing it is even harder, especially when politicians obscure costs and fail to recognize the following realities.

First, growing the economy can, of course, be part of the solution. It creates more and better opportunities, raising incomes and tax revenue without raising tax rates — the rising tide that can lift many fiscal boats. But when we’re this far underwater, short of a miracle produced by an energy and artificial intelligence revolution, growth alone simply won’t be enough.

Raising taxes on the rich will fall short, too. Despite another round of loud calls to do so, like those now emanating from the New York City mayoral campaign, remember: The federal tax code is already highly progressive.

Here’s something else that should be common knowledge: Higher tax rates do not automatically translate to more tax revenue. Not even close. Federal revenues have consistently hovered around 17% to 18% of GDP for more than 50 years — through periods of high tax rates, low tax rates and every combination of deductions, exemptions and credits in between.

This remarkable stability is no fluke. It reflects a basic reality of human behavior: When tax rates go up, people don’t simply continue what they’ve been doing and hand over more money. They work less, take compensation in non-taxable forms, delay selling assets, move to lower-tax jurisdictions or increase tax-avoidance strategies.

Meanwhile, higher rates reduce incentives to invest, hire, and create or expand businesses, slowing growth and undermining the very revenue gains legislators expect. It’s why economic literature shows that fiscal-adjustment packages made mostly of tax increases usually fail to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio.

Real-world responses mean that higher tax rates rarely generate what static models predict as we bear the costs of less work, less innovation and less productivity leading to fewer opportunities for everyone, rich or poor.

If the underlying structure of the system doesn’t change, no amount of rate fiddling will sustainably result in more than 17-18% in tax collections.

Political dynamics guarantee further disappointment. When Congress raises taxes on one group, it often turns around and cuts taxes elsewhere to offset the backlash. Then, when the government does manage to collect extra revenue — through windfall-profits taxes, inflation causing taxpayers to creep into higher brackets, or a booming economy — that money rarely goes toward deficit reduction. It gets spent, and then some.

It’s long past time to shift the conversation away from whether tax cuts should be “paid for.” Instead, ask what level of spending we truly want with the money we truly have.

I suspect that most people aren’t willing to pay the taxes required to fund everything our current government does, and that more would feel this way if they understood our tax-collection limitations. That points toward the need to cut spending on, among other things, corporate welfare, economically distorting subsidies, flashy infrastructure gimmicks, and Social Security and Medicare.

Until we align Congress’ promises with what we’re willing and able to fund, we’ll continue down this dangerous path of illusion, denial, and intergenerational theft — as we cope with economic decline.

Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.

For 46 years it’s been a wonderful ride, the sweetest of sagas, the Buss family treating the Lakers like their precocious child, nurturing, embracing, empowering, transforming them into arguably this country’s most celebrated sports franchise.

But it’s time.

It’s time to give their baby to somebody who won’t be burdened by the family ties or deep friendships that have increasingly interfered with the chasing of championships.

It’s time to hand their beloved to somebody with enough money to keep it strong and enough vision to keep it relevant.

It’s time for the Lakers to… become the Dodgers?

Yes! It’s them! They’re here! Welcome, welcome, welcome! Come on in! Make yourself at home! History has been waiting for you!

This is really happening, the majority ownership of the Lakers is really being sold to Dodgers chairman Mark Walter and his TWG Global group at a franchise valuation of $10 billion, making it the richest transaction in sports history.

To Los Angeles sports fans, it’s worth even more.

For the future of professional sports in this city, it’s priceless.

This is the best thing to happen to the Southland’s sports landscape since, well, the last time Walter’s TWG Global group bought something this big.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

It was 2012, and they bought the Dodgers, and just look what they’ve done with them.

Since 2013, Walter’s team has been in the playoffs every year, won their division 11 of those 12 years, appeared in four World Series and won two of them.

Since 2013, the Lakers have won one title in their only Finals appearance during that period while making the playoffs only half the time.

Mad respect to the Buss family, who oversaw 11 championships while providing the stage for greats from Magic Johnson to Kobe Bryant to LeBron James. But since the death of patriarch Jerry Buss in 2013, the organization has lacked a sustained championship vision and effective championship culture.

Everybody loves Jeanie Buss, who will continue in her role as Lakers governor, but she has grown increasingly out of touch with the demands of the modern game.

Where contending teams are now led by analytics-driven minds, she would rely on old friends like Linda and Kurt Rambis and Rob Pelinka, who became part of the family by being Kobe Bryant’s agent.

Where contending teams increasingly relied on younger players, Buss’ Lakers were always tied to aging superstars, their title hopes crashing around a hobbled Bryant and now buckling under a slowly eroding James.

Lakers owner Jerry Buss with children (clockwise from top left) Jeanie, Johnny, Jim and Janie in 1979.

(Gunther / mptvimages.com)

Since Jerry Buss’ death, the vision-less Lakers have wandered through the NBA desert in search of a strong leader who could build for sustained success.

In Walter’s group, they have that leader.

If the Dodgers are any indication, the Lakers are in for the sort of massive facelift that would make even a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon blush.

There will be money poured into the Lakers’ woefully small infrastructure, more money for coaches, more money for scouts, more money for trainers, more money for the amenities at Crypto.com Arena.

Who knows, maybe even more money for a new arena eventually? Don’t scoff, the Dodgers spent more than $500 million just to put a shine on Dodger Stadium, they will dig deep for that fan experience. They will dig deep for everything.

If there’s an insanely expensive but wildly successful general manager candidate out there — former Golden State guru Bob Myers comes to mind — the new Lakers will buy him.

Jeanie Buss attends a game between the Lakers and the Milwaukee Bucks at Crypto.com Arena on March 20.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

If there’s an experienced but costly head coaching candidate hanging around, the new Lakers will nab him.

Although they will be somewhat constrained by the salary cap, the new Lakers will go deep into any tax to buy the best players as long as they can retain their draft picks.

The Dodgers are about winning every year, not just the next year, so expect the new Lakers to covet the future as much as the present.

This is good news for young Luka Doncic. This is not such good news for James.

The Buss family always vowed to do whatever it takes to keep James happy and allow him to retire here. The new Lakers won’t be so sentimental. James hasn’t signed on for next season yet, and maybe this change of ownership changes what once appeared to be a slam dunk.

The new Lakers won’t have the rich heart of the old Lakers. But they also won’t have the old destructive loyalties.

The new Lakers will be only about winning, something Jerry Buss understood and amplified, something which has been sadly lost since his passing.

Lakers owner Jerry Buss celebrates with the Larry O’Brien Trophy after the team’s 1980 NBA championship victory.

(NBAE / Getty Images)

The Buss family was good for Los Angeles, and their stewardship of one of this city’s crown sports jewels should be celebrated.

But it’s time, and it’s perfect that their neighbors down the road have decided to be the ones to spruce up the place.

Before this sale, the only thing the Dodgers and Lakers shared occurred after victories, when both team’s sound systems would blare, “I Love L.A.”

Now they share a championship bank account, a championship vision, and a championship commitment.

Man, I love L.A.