Speaking of taxes...

Daily News astute reader Fernando Torres, or phone tax as everyone's calling it. I have to point out that he was whipped into an outrage by a DN editorial called Cynical Leaders. Sadly, due to the limitations of the "new, improved" DN web site, it is no longer available online. You'll just have to trust that it was compelling enough to move at least one reader to bug his city representative.

Here it is in it's entirety: (Forgive the weird formatting, it was a forwarded e-mail.)

I received your email expressing your concerns
about the Telephone User's Tax. Occasionally issues come before the
City Council that rise to a different level. While the voters have
elected their representatives to be their voice on a daily basis,
some issues have such significant impacts that the voice of the
voters needs to be heard directly if possible. The continuance of the
telephone tax is, in my opinion, just such an issue. For decades,
cities across America, including Los Angeles, have assessed a users
tax on telephones. Because of the size of Los Angeles' population,
that tax now amounts to $270 million. Due to a change of Federal
rules and the passage of Proposition 218, the tax needs to be
re-authorized by local voters. Hundreds of cities have already held
such elections, and in almost every case have voted to continue the
tax to maintain vital city services, such as police and
firefighters. While I fully understood the severe consequences of
not extending the tax, I also have generally opposed new taxes. The
proposal sent to the Council had a lot of vague information in it.
Those concerns led me, along with Councilmember Dennis Zine, to vote
NO on the original presentation. However, Councilmember Zine asked
for a detailed report of the impacts on City services. When that was
presented it became abundantly clear that the reduction of personnel
in all departments of the City would have a very negative impact on
vital services. Last year I asked over 100 individuals from our
local Neighborhood Councils to study the City Budget and try to find
make significant changes or reductions. They worked for hours, but at
the end of the exercise, they were only able to find $32 million in
cuts, a tiny fraction of the $270 million impact of this tax issue.
Particularly faced with the fact that over 60 percent of the City's
budget is dedicated to the Police and Fire Departments and the
collection of trash, this demonstrated how little room there is in
the City Budget for cuts of this magnitude. Let me make it clear,
contrary to the news reports on this item, the Council did NOT
approve the tax. Faced with the realities of the facts of the matter
the Council merely put it on the ballot for the voters to decide. I
determined that the best thing to do would be to ask the voters to
debate the issue and take a vote, which is after all the very basis
of American democracy. It's my pleasure serving as your
Councilmember. Please feel free to contact me any time.> > >
Sincerely, > > GREIG SMITH>

Smith is correct. The council members approved it for the ballot, is all. Of course, if they hadn't approved it for the ballot, then we wouldn't be talking about.