If there is one lesson from California politics that politicians never seem to learn, it’s that yesterday’s coalition rarely wins tomorrow’s election.

That reality may be staring Rep. Young Kim directly in the face.

For years, Kim has carefully cultivated an image as a pragmatic Republican capable of navigating the complicated political terrain of Southern California. It has been a useful brand. In a state where Republicans have become increasingly rare in federal office, Kim managed to survive while many of her party’s colleagues disappeared.

The problem is that survival and comfort are two very different things.

In California’s 40th Congressional District, The most uncomfortable truth of all for Young Kim is there simply aren’t enough reliable Republican votes available to guarantee victory.  Not with Rep. Ken Calverts large primary vote margin.

That means Kim faces a challenge familiar to every Republican who hopes to win in modern California: convincing voters who are not Republicans to support her.

Kim’s challenge is particularly difficult because the national political environment continues to push voters toward partisan camps. The middle ground keeps shrinking. Independent voters have become more unpredictable. Democratic voters have become increasingly skeptical of crossing party lines. Republican activists often demand ideological purity.

That leaves little room for error.

The irony is that Kim’s greatest political strength may also be her greatest vulnerability. Her moderate image has helped her appeal to voters outside the Republican Party. But every move toward the center risks criticism from conservatives who view compromise as weakness rather than strategy.

It’s a balancing act with no perfect solution.

What makes the situation especially interesting is that Kim’s path forward isn’t really about changing Republicans’ minds. Most Republicans have already made up their minds about her. The real battleground lies elsewhere—with independent voters, moderate suburbanites, and Democrats who remain open to evaluating candidates individually rather than strictly by party label.

Those voters will ultimately decide whether Kim remains in Congress.

That’s why future campaign messaging is likely to focus less on partisan combat and more on practical accomplishments. Expect discussions about constituent services, local infrastructure, economic issues, public safety, and bipartisan legislative efforts. Expect fewer ideological battles and more attempts to project competence and stability.

Whether that strategy works is another question entirely.

The result is a political paradox. To survive politically, Kim may need to spend much of the campaign talking to voters who are not traditional Republicans. At the same time, she must reassure Republican voters that she hasn’t abandoned them in pursuit of crossover support.

That’s a difficult needle to thread.  And I think Kim is doomed.  Electoral success is rarely permanent, especially in California.

Political rumors are like coming across a roundabouts: nobody asked for them, nobody knows who started them, and somehow you wind up going going in circles.

My in-box on the latest bit of City Hall chatter making the rounds is that Irvine Councilmember Kathleen Treseder is allegedly trying to convince former Congresswoman Katie Porter to run for mayor of Irvine. Is it true? Nobody knows for sure. Is it plausible? Sure. Is it politically intelligent? No.

If this rumor is true, it may represent one of the more questionable strategic calculations to emerge from Irvine politics in recent memory.

Let’s begin with the obvious problem: Katie Porter has not exactly been on a winning streak.  I voted for her for governor and stand by my vote.  I also voted for her in the 2024 senate primary.  It’s goddamn shame Katie Porter isn’t in office right now.

Porter lost her bid for the U.S. Senate in 2024, finishing behind both Adam Schiff and Steve Garvey in California’s top-two primary. She never made it to the general election.  Fast forward to 2026 and Porter again sought higher office, this time running for governor. She conceded on election night after failing to advance to the general election.

There is nothing shameful about losing. Plenty of successful politicians lose races. Richard Nixon lost races. Ronald Reagan lost races. Jerry Brown lost races.  But there is a difference between losing once and developing a pattern.

If Porter were to run for Irvine mayor, she would effectively be attempting a political reset after two consecutive statewide defeats. That’s not impossible. But it certainly isn’t the kind of resume that screams “unstoppable political force.”  Ask Loretta Sanchez how running for Community College Board worked for her.  Loretta was the best political endorsement for decades in OC.  Then she ran for Senate and lost to Kamala Harris.  Then she ran for County supervisor and lost to Don Wagner.  And then she ran for Rancho Santiago Community College board and lost.  And Loretta remains a friend to this blog but I think her time is better spent in her new endeavors in business.  There’s is already a standard for this sort of candidacy.

Why would Kathleen Treseder want to attach herself to that risk?

Political endorsements are investments. Smart politicians invest in candidates who can strengthen their coalition, expand their influence, and deliver wins. Recruiting a candidate who has just suffered back-to-back losses is a bit like buying stock in a company immediately after two earnings disasters and then announcing you’ve found the next tech giant.  Maybe you’re a genius. Or maybe you’re about to discover why everyone else sold.  The most fascinating aspect of this rumor is what it says about political judgment.

Treseder has often presented herself as one of Irvine’s more strategic and forward-thinking elected officials. Yet if she is genuinely spending political capital trying to recruit Porter, she appears to be focusing on celebrity rather than political reality.  Name recognition is not the same thing as electoral strength.

Ask Meg Whitman. Ask Carly Fiorina. Ask any number of candidates who discovered that voters do not automatically transfer admiration for a public figure into actual votes.

Porter remains well known. She remains a skilled fundraiser. She still has loyal supporters. But political gravity is real.

The Senate race showed limitations in her statewide appeal. The governor’s race reinforced them.

A mayoral campaign would inevitably become a referendum not just on Irvine’s future but on Porter’s political comeback.  And that’s where the danger for Treseder emerges.  If Porter runs and loses, nobody will remember the volunteers, consultants, or donors who encouraged her.  They will remember the political figures who championed the effort.

Politics is a results business.  A Porter loss would not merely be a Porter loss. It would become evidence that Treseder misread the electorate.  It would raise questions about her political instincts.  It would provide ammunition for rivals eager to portray her as someone more interested in progressive wish-casting than practical electoral analysis.  And let’s be honest: Irvine politics already has plenty of ambitious people waiting for opportunities to question one another’s judgment.

The irony is that Treseder may not actually need Porter at all.

If the goal is to build a durable political movement in Irvine, there are plenty of local leaders, community advocates, commissioners, and emerging candidates who have spent years developing relationships with Irvine voters.

Recruiting a political celebrity after two high-profile defeats can sometimes look less like strategic thinking and more like a search for a shortcut.

Shortcuts rarely end well in politics.  Especially in a city as politically engaged as Irvine.   Of course, all of this assumes the rumor is true.  I’m hoping Porter has no interest whatsoever in running for mayor.

Maybe Treseder never made such an overture. I hope so.

Maybe this entire story belongs in the same category as UFO sightings, secret campaign plans, and every “inside source” who swears they know exactly what is happening.  But if the rumor turns out to be accurate, it deserves scrutiny.  Because political intelligence isn’t measured by how famous a candidate is.  It’s measured by understanding whether that candidate can actually win.

And after two consecutive statewide losses, convincing Katie Porter to jump into another race may not be a display of political genius.  It may be an expensive lesson in the difference between name recognition and electoral reality.

A thoughtful reminder from the Irvine Police Department on Monday’s USMNT soccer practice at the Great Park in Irvine:

We’re excited to welcome fans to the U.S. Men’s National Team Community Training Session Monday, June 8, at the Great Park Championship Soccer Stadium, but we want to be clear: a valid, claimed ticket is required for entry into the event.

If you do not have a ticket, please do not come to the park Monday hoping to watch practice, see players or training activities, meet players or obtain autographs, or access the stadium or event area. Please note that ticket screenshots will not be accepted. Tickets cannot be sold, purchased, transferred, or redistributed.

Any tickets offered for sale or transfer through another platform or individual are not valid and will be voided.

Don’t get any ideas … drones will not be allowed in the park either. The FAA has designated the Great Park as a Temporary Restricted Area for drones from June 1–July 20.

This event will bring increased traffic to the area surrounding the Great Park Monday from 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. If you will be traveling through the area, please allow additional time to reach your destination. You can opt in to receive traffic-related updates by texting GREATPARK to 888777. The system will only be used to communicate critical information. Standard text messaging rates apply.

*photo above is the only one I have for soccer and it’s what soccer is to most families in Irvine; AYSO stands for “All Your Saturdays — Ours”

It’s Election day; go Vote!

I’ve been watching polls with an eye towards the independent polls.  I have this odd feeling Xavier Becerra and Tom Steyer emerge at the top two, and Republican Steve Hilton doesn’t make the cut.  If that happens, get ready for a barrage of “rigged election” from Republicans in California and the White House.

While Hilton has been leading in a number of polls dating back to the first of the year, Democrats have rallied behind a couple of candidates and every poll conducted had the largest percentage assigned to “undecided.”  Hilton’s also been running against Gavin Newsom rather than the current Democratic field.  His answer, during a televised debate, that he’d extradite a California doctor for sneding Plan B pills to a pregnant woman in Louisana didn’t hit the way he thought it did.

While outside OC, the LA Mayor’s race is fascinating.  You think voters would remeber that Reality Show characters make horrible public officials.  Maybe Spencer Pratt makes the top two only to be crused in November.

This press release is courtesy of the Joe Kerr for Congress campaign.

Republicans are using a fake progressive PAC to help the Democrat they want to face in November

CALIFORNIA’S 40TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT— A bombshell investigation from Popular Information has exposed what CA-40 voters deserve to know before Election Day: a supposedly progressive super PAC boosting Esther Kim Varet is linked to House Republican political networks.

The PAC, California Blue, claims to support candidates who will “fight Donald Trump and MAGA extremists.” But according to Popular Information, the money trail tells a very different story.

California Blue registered with the FEC on April 24 and has spent exclusively in California’s 40th Congressional District to support Esther Kim Varet. The group’s money is being routed through a newly formed Wyoming LLC, Four Ponies Consulting, a setup Popular Information reports appears designed to obscure the PAC’s true political intentions.

The investigation also links the operation to the same Austin mailbox used by other suspicious political committees, including one connected to Republican operative Lisa Lisker, treasurer for House Speaker Mike Johnson’s campaign committee and a firm that works with the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC).

California Blue has one purpose: spending money in CA-40 to benefit Esther Kim Varet.

Voters should ask why a newly created “progressive” PAC with reported ties to Republican political networks chose to involve itself in exactly one Democratic primary race.

For months, Esther Kim Varet has pointed to Republican attacks as evidence that she is the Democrat Republicans fear most. The Popular Information investigation tells a different story. Republican-linked operatives have been spending money to help elevate her candidacy.

That’s not fear. That’s political strategy.

In California’s top-two primary, Republicans don’t need to beat every Democrat on Tuesday. They only need to help the Democrat they believe will be easiest to defeat in November. This is a classic pied-piper strategy: boost the opponent you want, weaken the opponent you fear, and hope voters don’t notice until it is too late.

“Republican operatives aren’t spending money to help the Democrat they’re afraid of,” said Joe Kerr. “They’re spending money to help the Democrat they think they can beat.”

Joe Kerr is the only Democrat in this race who has already demonstrated the ability to build a districtwide coalition capable of winning in CA-40. In 2024, Kerr earned 171,637 votes, improved Democratic performance in the district, and built support among Democrats, independents, labor households, working families, first responders, and crossover voters. That is exactly the kind of coalition Republicans don’t want to face in November.

CA-40 voters deserve to know when Republican political networks are attempting to influence a Democratic primary. “Democrats should choose their nominee,” Kerr said. “Republicans shouldn’t be choosing our nominee for us.”

# # #

Senator Who Flipped a Trump District as a First-Time Candidate, a Leading Advocate for ICE Accountability, Backs Kim-Varet in the Final Days Before CA-40’s June 2 Primary

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA – Esther Kim-Varet, Democratic frontrunner to flip California’s 40th Congressional District, today announced the endorsement of U.S. Senator Andy Kim of New Jersey, one of the most prominent national voices for immigration accountability and a Democrat who knows firsthand what it takes to flip a Republican seat. The endorsement lands in the final stretch of a race that a new Tulchin Research poll shows is a three-way dead heat tie between Esther Kim-Varet and Republican incumbent Representatives Ken Calvert and Young Kim for the top two June 2 primary spots.

In 2018, Andy Kim was a first-time candidate and former Obama national security aide who took on a two-term Republican incumbent in a district Donald Trump had carried by six points. Almost no one gave him a chance. He won anyway, unseating Republican Tom MacArthur and becoming the first Asian American ever elected to Congress from New Jersey. Six years later, he won a U.S. Senate seat. Sen. Andy Kim knows better than almost anyone in American politics what it takes to flip a Republican district, and how rare is the kind of candidate who can actually pull it off.

Senator Kim has been at the forefront of Senate efforts to demand accountability and reform at Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Just this week, on May 25, he was hit with pepper spray deployed by federal agents while he stood outside Delaney Hall, an ICE detention facility in Newark, where roughly 300 detainees were on a hunger strike over spoiled food, lack of medical care, and denial of due process. Kim said he had tried to position himself between the agents and the crowd to de-escalate. “This was never about me,” he said afterward, refocusing attention on the detainees and civilians who were in harm’s way.

“Like Esther, I first ran for Congress in a district many said couldn’t be flipped,” said Senator Andy Kim. “I can see she has the grit, the message, and the grassroots support to win. This district is one of the handful of seats around the country that will decide control of the House, and with this rogue president attacking the Constitution and creating skyrocketing costs for families, flipping CA-40 is necessary. Esther Kim-Varet is the Democrat who can win it. I am proud to endorse her campaign for Congress.”

“Senator Kim is living proof that the so-called experts are wrong about which seats can be won,” said Esther Kim-Varet. “In 2018 he was a first-time candidate, written off by everyone, who flipped a Trump district through sheer determination and a refusal to back down. That is exactly the kind of campaign we are running in CA-40. And when I watched him stand between ICE agents and the people they were terrorizing this week, I saw the kind of courage I want representing all of us. His endorsement means the world to me, and it tells voters in this district that the people who have actually done this believe we can do it here.”

Senator Kim’s endorsement adds to a growing coalition of Democratic Congressional leaders backing Kim-Varet, including Rep. Gil Cisneros, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, Rep. Laura Friedman, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Rep. Grace Meng, Rep. Marilyn Strickland, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (ASPIRE PAC), former Rep. Harley Rouda, and former Rep. Dean Phillips, alongside many state and local leaders who have recognized Kim-Varet as the only viable candidate to flip CA-40 red to blue.

###

California’s newly drawn 40th Congressional District, spanning portions of Riverside County and Orange County, is one of the most consequential U.S. House district battlegrounds in the nation. CA-40 includes the cities of Rancho Santa Margarita, Murrieta, Menifee, Lake Elsinore, Wildomar and Canyon Lake as well as parts of Mission Viejo, Orange, Anaheim and Corona.

First-time candidate Esther Kim-Varet has raised $3 million to date, powered by over 65,000 individual small dollar contributions from across the nation, with no corporate or foreign PAC money whatsoever. Esther is not a politician. She is a working mom of two young kids, running for Congress to restore the American Dream for all. In Congress, Esther will combat corruption, defend democracy, and fight for the middle class, small businesses, public education, and healthcare access.

Before I get to the gist of this post, of the three Irvine City Council members who want to move Irvine to Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), only Melinda Liu would have likely prevailed in her election in 2024.  If RCV was in place, Anthony Kuo would be on the city council now — three candidates, two Republicans and less than 50% for Betty Martinez-Franco.

In 2022, the last full city no-district council elections, Kuo would have been the beneficiary of John Park’s votes and would be on the council instead of Kathleen Treseder.  As a first time candidate, there’s no way Treseder would have eclipsed Democratic votes that would have gone to Larry Agran.

That all said, I’m getting a lot of calls and emails — even from RCV fans — who believe a massive decision on how Irvine votes should be done by the voters and no the city council.  Of course, Liu, Martinez-Franco and Treseder could all make this right by putting this on the ballot for 2026.  All three are up for re-election, so its entirely possible the voters will make them pay for their decision to move it forward.

I have an official inquiry with the OC ROV on exact costs but was able to research the cost of implementing RCV should the Irvine measure move forward without the voice of voters.  It’s going to cost us.

TheLiberalOC accepts contributed content from Democratic candidates for public office; this was submitted by Esther Kim-Karent, a candidate for Congress in CA40.

Dear Fellow Democrat,

I’m Esther Kim-Varet — I am your neighbor. I am a full-time working mom, small business owner, educator, food equity advocate, and the daughter of North Korean immigrants. I’m a fighter and I’m running for Congress right here in CA-40 to kick out the corrupt politicians, Young Kim and Ken Calvert, who no longer serve our community. I promise you, I have built a top-tier national Democratic campaign that will make you proud to fight alongside me.

The New York Times published our latest poll by award-winning pollsters, Tulchin Research, best known for their consistent accuracy. The poll was conducted with 500 likely voters in the new CA40 in both English and Spanish. This poll shows Ken Calvert in the lead at 24%, Young Kim at 22%, and myself at 20%. There is a 4% margin of error, so we are certainly in a statistical tie. The next Democrat in the race is at 6% and rapidly trending downwards because of their limited ability to message.

We have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to flip CA-40, but only if we back a campaign that is viable, rooted in the community, and capable of building the coalition needed to win. I’m tired of purity politics. Do we not remember how we got here? All the Democratic voters, even after seeing the data, that decided to sit out the last presidential election or vote for Jill Stein are also responsible for the current mess we are in today. It’s not just the Trump voters.

Our campaign is the ONLY viable Democratic campaign in CA-40. I have refused corporate PAC money and are powered by more than 65,000 grassroots donors, which have helped us raise $3 million (more than 20x the next highest Democrat). More than 5,000 of those donations have come in from the new CA40. Let those numbers sink in. This is why we are leading by such a big margin against other Democrats in the race. We are the only ones that have built the extensive resources and grassroots base across the district to message to the voters.

I am fighting because I want government accountability, transparency, and reform. We desperately need this and the first step is to win back the House this fall. I am the only candidate in this race that has made a public pledge to impose term limits on myself.  I am also the only candidate that has made a commitment to banning stock trading by Members of Congress, overturning Citizens United, and putting an end to the revolving door between Congress and lobbying firms. Again, not every candidate in this race agrees on those things, but I believe cleaning up corruption and strengthening our democracy is essential to protecting our freedoms and rebuilding trust.

My values and background are both true to our Democratic coalition and can connect with critical independent voters. I invite you to review my policy positions and priorities—written in my own words— at: estherkimvaret.com/priorities — and my bio at: estherkimvaret.com/about

Let’s be real here. We cannot win on hopes and dreams. We cannot win by putting forward a candidate unable to attract substantial funding on a national scale.

I am building the only real movement that can flip this Red seat to Blue. But I cannot do it alone. I’m asking for your urgent support so we can flip this district, defend democracy, and deliver for working familiesin Riverside and Orange Counties.

Democratically yours,

Esther Kim-Varet

Candidate for Congress, CA40

For years, former Irvine City Manager Oliver Chi was praised as the polished technocrat who could keep Irvine running like a luxury electric vehicle: quiet, sleek, expensive, and mostly hidden under the hood. But now that Irvine is facing its first serious structural budget deficit in modern memory, residents are finally getting a look at the invoice.

And it is staggering.  If you’re an Irvine resident, be glad he’s running Santa Monica now.

The uncomfortable truth is this: Irvine’s financial problems were not caused by parks, cultural programs, or diversity initiatives. They were caused by unchecked bureaucratic expansion, runaway staffing growth, and a City Council that increasingly treated taxpayer dollars as a private staffing allowance.

If Irvine is serious about restoring fiscal discipline, the solution is obvious. The city must reduce payroll positions added during the Oliver Chi era and dramatically scale back the bloated staffing budgets allocated to City Councilmembers themselves.  That should begin immediately.  And this is what businesses do.

According to statements made during recent budget discussions, Irvine’s full-time staffing exploded from 856 employees to 1,103 employees in just five years — an increase of roughly 250 positions. Councilmember James Mai correctly summarized the issue during debate: expenditures have grown much faster than revenues. That is not complicated economics. It is simple arithmetic.

The city simultaneously created entirely new departments, including Communications & Engagement, the Office of Health & Wellness, and Project Delivery & Sustainability. Community Services was expanded into Community & Library Services. More administrators were hired. More communications staff appeared. More coordinators, assistants, managers, and consultants filled payroll rosters.

No one seriously asked whether Irvine residents needed an expanding municipal bureaucracy that increasingly resembles a mid-sized corporation. No one demanded measurable benchmarks to show that these departments generated value proportionate to their costs. No one required performance audits before adding hundreds of permanent positions with salaries, pensions, healthcare obligations, and long-term liabilities attached.  Instead, City Hall behaved as though Irvine’s revenue growth would continue forever.

That fantasy is now over.

The irony is impossible to ignore. Some councilmembers are now demanding audits of select projects and politically fashionable targets while carefully avoiding the most obvious source of spending growth: City Hall itself.

At a recent council meeting. former Mayor Sukhee Kang recently pointed out that each councilmember is now allocated more than $600,000 annually, totaling over $4 million every year. Even using more conservative calculations from prior budget documents, the spending is breathtaking for a city council whose members are technically part-time elected officials.

In 2021, the Irvine City Council voted to dramatically expand individual council office budgets. According to reporting by Voice of OC, councilmembers moved away from a centralized funding model and instead handed themselves vast discretionary budgets approaching $275,000 per member at the time. Since then, with expanded staffing and operational costs, the total expense has reportedly ballooned even higher.  Today, Irvine residents are effectively funding miniature political offices for each elected official.

Why does a suburban city council require staffing levels that resemble congressional district offices? No other city in Orange County has the luxury of having a Chief of Staff or any other discretionary spending in their council budget. And expanded staff meant Irvine had to spend lots of money to remodel the 3rd floor to house more than 35 new staff members working for the City Councilmembers.  Ever hear of work from home?

Why should residents pay for six staffers per councilmember while the city warns about deficits?  Why should taxpayers finance political entourages while city leaders lecture residents about “hard budget choices”?  This is not sustainable.

A city councilmember is not a cabinet secretary or a member of Congress. Irvine is not Sacramento or Washington DC. Yet council offices have evolved into semi-permanent bureaucracies complete with communications support, policy aides, schedulers, and personal staff infrastructures that would have been unthinkable just a decade ago.

Reducing a council members office staffs with strict compensation control is not radical. It is common sense.  And if done, that would still leave Irvine councilmembers with more support than many elected officials in similarly sized municipalities.

The argument for oversized council staffs usually falls into one of three categories.

First, supporters claim councilmembers need large staffs to address constituent concerns. But Irvine residents managed to receive city services for decades before this staffing explosion occurred. The city already has professional departments tasked with constituent services, public works, parks, planning, and communications. Residents do not need six layers of political intermediaries to report a pothole or ask about zoning.

Second, defenders argue the city has become “more complex.” That is partially true — but much of that complexity was self-created. Bureaucracies naturally generate additional process, reporting structures, meetings, and internal coordination demands that then justify hiring even more staff. It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.  Taxpayers should not subsidize political branding exercises.  Meanwhile, the real financial pressures facing Irvine continue to mount.

The city’s withdrawal from the Orange County Public Libraries system has created new operational burdens and ongoing lease obligations. Reports indicate the University Park branch alone carries a lease cost of roughly $40,000 per month. Whether residents supported the decision or not, the financial implications are substantial.  This was supposed to save the city money.  It’s not.

Then there is the Orange County Great Park, a project that has spent years oscillating between visionary civic centerpiece and endlessly expanding financial obligation. The current framework plan promises amphitheaters, sports facilities, and hundreds of acres of amenities, but recent projections reportedly show a growing operating deficit approaching $7.5 million.

Irvine’s next city manager — whoever ultimately fills the role permanently — must conduct a serious top-to-bottom staffing review focused specifically on positions added during the Oliver Chi expansion years.  Not every position should be eliminated. Some departments may genuinely need additional personnel due to population growth and evolving service demands. But pretending all 250 added positions are equally essential insults taxpayers’ intelligence.

A hiring surge implemented during years of booming revenues cannot automatically become permanent entitlement spending during deficit years.  The private sector understands this. When revenue growth slows, companies restructure. Layers of management are consolidated. Nonessential hiring freezes occur. Duplication gets eliminated.  Government should not be exempt from the same reality.

The Communications & Engagement department deserves particular scrutiny. Modern governments certainly need competent communications operations, but residents should ask whether Irvine truly requires an ever-expanding media apparatus while simultaneously warning of deficits. Public information is important. But PR staff empires are not.  And I say this as a Public Relations professional.

Similarly, Project Delivery & Sustainability may contain worthwhile initiatives, but every department must now justify measurable value relative to cost. “Sustainability” cannot become a blank check for administrative growth disconnected from fiscal sustainability itself.

And if councilmembers genuinely believe sacrifice is necessary, they should begin with themselves.  Reducing council office staffing from six employees to one or two would send an immediate message that elected officials are willing to participate in the same fiscal discipline they demand elsewhere.  It would also restore an important principle that has quietly eroded in Irvine politics: public office is supposed to be public service, not the construction of taxpayer-funded political machines.  There are three council seats and a mayor’s chair up for re-election – so council members Melinda Liu, Betty Martinex-Franco and Kathleen Treseder can led the way.  Liue in particular since her own chief of staff has the time to write political attacks on the city’s dime as we reported a few weeks ago.

Some defenders of the current system will inevitably accuse critics of attacking public workers. That misses the point entirely. Most city employees are simply doing the jobs city leadership created and funded. The responsibility lies with policymakers who expanded payroll without adequately preparing for economic slowdowns or long-term obligations.

Others will claim any staffing reductions threaten Irvine’s quality of life. But Irvine became one of America’s safest and most desirable cities long before the current hiring binge. Competent government does not require unchecked administrative sprawl.  I’ve been here nearly 30 years, and more city staff won’t improve the quality of life here.

Every new layer of administration creates additional meetings, reporting requirements, approvals, and internal coordination. Decisions slow down. Accountability diffuses. Costs rise. Taxpayers end up funding process instead of outcomes.  The city now has an opportunity to correct course before the problem worsens.  That requires political courage — something often in short supply when staffing reductions affect entrenched bureaucratic interests or politically connected offices. But residents deserve honesty.

Irvine’s deficit did not emerge from nowhere. It was built incrementally through years of expansionist budgeting, optimistic assumptions, and a City Hall culture that increasingly viewed growth in government itself as evidence of progress.  Now the bill has arrived.

And before city leaders slash programs, wage ideological battles, or demand audits designed more for political theater than fiscal repair, they should first look inward.

• Cut the excess council staffing.
• Review the hundreds of positions added during the Oliver Chi years.
• Freeze unnecessary hiring.
• Consolidate overlapping departments.
• Restore the principle that government exists to serve residents — not endlessly expand itself.

Because if Irvine cannot impose fiscal discipline in one of the wealthiest and most professionally managed cities in California, what message does that send to everyone else?