Meatless Mondays: L.A. City Council's Wealthy, $178,789 Salaried Members Tell Los Angeles Households, Many of Which Rely on Frijoles

By Jill Stewart Mon., Nov. 12 2012 at 1:56 PM

L.A. City Council, Tin Ear Division, advises Meatless Mondays in L.A., where families struggle to afford it. Why not let them eat cake?

Also See: L.A. City Council Approves Meatless Mondays in Squid Ink.

The Los Angeles City Council really failed a pop quiz showing how disconnected, overpaid and puffed-up its 15 elected politicians have become, when it voted 14-0 to urge L.A.'s 3.8 million residents to adopt Meatless Mondays.

Would they mean the 80% of LAUSD kids on a federal school lunch program, who get at least some meat while their struggling parents often rely on a ubiquitous pot of frijoles to provide the family its protein? Or perhaps Ed Reyes and Jan Perry, who authored this idea, are aiming at the 19.5% of L.A. households below poverty? It's tough to relate to these vast communities who can't afford meat when you're an L.A. City Council member paid $178,789, and given eight free cars at taxpayer expense yearly (yes, eight) not to mention free gasoline year-round:

The vote in Council Chambers last Friday even made USA Today, where a columnist breathlessly reported about Meatless Mondays:

Meatless in LA: If you are reading this over breakfast in Los Angeles, you better put down the bacon -- at least if you want to stay in line with a city-wide "Meatless Monday" effort just endorsed by the city council. Participation is voluntary, of course ...

Well thank God for that.

Someday, somebody will place on the Los Angeles ballot a measure to roll back the curious, sky-high salaries and benefits paid to the "civil servants" of the Los Angeles City Council. They earn nearly four times the household income in L.A. -- they are paid more than top-educated federal judges and members of the U.S. Congress.

SoulStealer.co.uk

L.A. City Council and its entourage respond to the call for a freebie meal.

Many on the City Council get quite rich during their 12 years in office, since taxpayers also cover their personal overhead: car payments, gas, some of their food, and unusually large chunks of their health care bills. It's a deal no working Angeleno can get.

Years ago, 45 words were inserted into the City Charter that grant automatic pay raises to the 15 council members (no matter how bad or good a job they do) whenever local Superior Court judges get a raise.

As David Zahniser at the Los Angeles Times reports, an incredible 62 people are running for eight open seats next March for L.A. City Council. Clearly, one reason for this is that the job pays damn good money and amazing benefits, lasts 12 years almost without fail -- and lets you imagine a dreamscape L.A. made up of millions of people eating a daily meal of meat.

Tags:

$178, 789, City Council salaries, Los Angeles poverty rate, meatless mondays, school lunch program

We Recommend

sunTech

apalemick: "lessen demand and therefore resources" huh? I always thought that steaks come from steers not cows, but i must be lapping up the "witless snark" to believe that, right?

In any event, pause for a moment and let this thought seep into your brain (anyone using "witless snark" has some promise, so I am hoping this persuades you):

lessened demand will punish the providers of beef by dropping prices, ruining beef provider's financial condition etc: continued demand --meat eating--will enable them to sell their beef at a profit and raise more steers, thus increasing supply.

And then there is the real point of Ms. Stewart's story: the government is composed of hypocrites for the most part: when urging us to use mass transit, the former head of the city's transit agency was driving a Hummer.

while urging us to go without meat, the city's leaders show no comparable sacrifice. Indeed, they have built in pay escalators, free gas and cars. Maybe they should donate their gas to cattlemen--oops, no, its gas we pay for.

When government officials start to act like they want us to act, instead of posturing for the credulous masses and taking advantage of their good will (that would be you as of now, but as I said, I have hope for you--you seem smart), then I might be persuaded. But until Al Gore sells his private jet and downgrades to a condo, and when Donald Trump stops grandstanding on every issue, I'll regard the preachy city as Ms. Stewart suggests--hypocrites.

apalemick

I'm often amazed by the stupidity of writers on this site. It's okay to read and have knowledge instead of vomiting gratuitous amounts of rather witless snark upon these pages.

We had one of the worst droughts in American history across the place where cows are raised. That has led to a government decision to try to get people to eat less meat in order to lessen demand and therefore resources.

Seriously. Stupid. Article.

relakkuma

@apalemick

Wholeheartedly agree. So the council members are ridicuously compensated. So what? Are we supposed to be surprised? What does that have to do with a program to get people to reduce their meat consumption?