Last week, Mayor Breed asked her department heads to propose 10% spending cuts for the upcoming year, along with 5% “contingency reductions” she could draw on if the city needs to make even deeper spending cuts down the line. City officials are now projecting the budget deficit could reach $800 million over the next two years, up almost $300 million from projections in October, when Breed pushed for atypical mid-year spending reductions. These initial cuts are “just a small down payment,” the Mayor said earlier this month. “Much larger [ones] will be needed in the months ahead.”

Disaster comes at you fast. Remember, this July, Breed signed a $14.6 billion budget that purported to close the deficit using one-time funds drawn mainly from an opioid lawsuit settlement with Walgreens and FEMA reimbursements for pandemic spending. The crisis seemed (temporarily) averted at the time, though City Controller Ben Rosenfield quietly warned “the use of one-time or nonrecurring sources to support ongoing operations creates a future budget shortfall.” Four months later, Rosenfield resigned, the deficit returned, and Breed began the first round of cuts. Now, city officials desperate to shirk responsibility are pointing fingers at late FEMA payments and lower-than-expected tax revenue.

Two observations here. First, on an immediate level, the recurrence of the deficit almost immediately after it was supposedly closed reflects very poorly on the Controller’s Office, which should have been more careful with its predictions. (Unless outside actors were pressuring the Controller to “make the numbers work” — a plausible, if entirely speculative, thought.)