Understandably, there is a lot of cynicism about government and our elected officials these days. I share it, too, and often wonder if any ethics reforms could ever be enacted to regain voters’ trust.

As the City of Los Angeles grapples with a $200 million budget deficit in the midst of the Great Recession, City Hall seems inept in addressing the budget problems or even identifying the problem.

(Incidentally, the budget deficit is projected to be $400 million next year.)

For years, many of us have been urging City Hall to rein in spending and work on improving our business climate, all the while warning them about the cyclical nature of economics and L.A.’s real estate market.

(Nobody likes party poopers to rain on a good parade; people like me are typically called buzzkills).

Until the mayor finally began to appropriately consolidate niche agencies such as human relations and environmental affairs last week, the only casualty was the monthly city council meetings in Van Nuys.

Hopefully, we’ll see more examples of fiscal responsibility this month.

Here in the Valley, the growing cynicism about city government runs much deeper than just fiscal mismanagement. DWP rates have increased significantly, while its failing infrastructure has flooded neighborhoods and destroyed homes and businesses. Our trash fees have gone up, but have not been spent entirely on what we were told originally. And none of the city councilmembers, who earn $178,000 a year plus health benefits, pensions and free cars, have offered to take a pay cut.

To me, the most outrageous thing about our city’s budget deficit is how many of previous Controller Laura Chick’s audits have been ignored.

Some of these could have saved the city hundreds of millions of dollars and averted the current crisis.

My personal favorite Chick audit is the one that found that more than $1 billion is written off by the city each year as uncollected debt.

That means that Los Angeles is unable to collect on fines, fees and penalties that are owed for such offenses as false fire and burglar alarms, unpaid business taxes, code violations, and ambulance costs.

In other words, it pays to ignore the city’s laws.

Collectively, our elected officials are letting us down. For most Valley taxpayers, it seems that too many decisions are made for the benefit of those who have the most resources to contribute to city officials’ campaigns. While there is some degree of truth about that, I don’t think money plays quite as much of a role as people think. Surely, money plays a role, but I think that money buys access more than favorable outcomes.

Nonetheless, in the effort to earn back the trust of regular people, it would be interesting if a series of ethics reforms were to be proposed for L.A. politicians.

For starters, what if a state law governing our Metro board was extended to city officeholders that prohibited them from voting on matters in which any of their contributors had a financial interest?

Developers and lobbyists would definitely be impacted, as would unions and corporate interests doing business with the city. How would that impact public policy in Los Angeles? Would decisions be made more objectively, or would officeholders’ decisions be influenced by the millions of dollars spent on independent expenditures each election cycle?

A proposed reform that is being discussed by city officeholders this month is public financing of campaigns so that candidates could opt not to accept campaign contributions and instead rely on taxpayer dollars to get their messages out.

Prop. 15, which is on the June 8 ballot, seeks to do something similar for candidates running for Calilfornia Secretary of State. However, the Prop. 15 system would be paid through fees on registered lobbyists and their clients. Many business and labor groups don’t like it because they end up funding the entire program for the benefit of the entire state. Good point. Lobbying on legislative issues does not influence the outcome of elections the way campaign contributions do.

Here is an idea for public financing of campaigns at the state and local levels: What if 3-5 percent of each campaign contribution over $100 was earmarked for a “good government fund” that would be allocated to candidates who reject three and four digit campaign contributions?

And while the City of L.A. is at it, let’s stop pretending that we already have matching funds for candidates. The system is rigged in a way that candidates don’t become eligible for matching funds until they’ve raised $50,000 from private individuals. Out of the dozens of election cycles for all city offices since this ethics rule went into effect, how many “grassroots” candidates have actually qualified for matching funds? By my count, just two – David Vahedi who narrowly lost to Paul Koretz and Walter Moore who came in a distant second to Antonio Villaraigosa last year. Let’s lower the threshold for qualifying for matching funds so city races become more competitive and therefore more substantive.

In any event, the city’s handling of the budget deficit is outrageous, which has resulted in a dramatic increase in cynicism.

There might be a revolution being waged over the local blogs and within neighborhood councils, but until meaningful political reform laws are enacted, I’m afraid the budget deficit and levels of cynicism will both get worse.

Brendan Huffman is the owner of Huffman Public Affairs, a San Fernando Valley-based consulting business, and the co-host of Off the Presses, an internet radio talk show broadcast on www.LATalkRadio.com every Thursday morning.