Actions and goals of some of the Occupy Los Angeles participants could be labeled “Occupy the Taxpayers.” Members of the LA teachers union are using the protest as part of contract negotiations. Protestors at city hall are pushing for banking regulations that will cost the city millions. In the end, taxpayers have to decide if the Occupy protests are worth the cost that are certain to hit taxpayers in the wallet.

This is not a surprise as many of the protestors have left-leaning agendas with a demand for greater government as revealed in polling done with New York protestors. Douglas Schoen, who served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton, wrote in a Wall Street Journal article, “Sixty-five percent (of the protestors) say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost.

The two-pronged front on the LA Occupy scene yesterday dealt with, on one hand, teacher union members demanding to “Occupy LAUSD” for the offense of supporting both charter schools and reforms put forth by philanthropists, all of which undercut union power, and on the second front, protestors supporting a “responsible banking” ordinance being considered by the city council.

The ordinance would allow the city to rank banks according to the banks social responsibility. The idea is to help homeowners who have suffered when the housing bubble burst by pressuring banks to deal with those homeowners more compassionately.

There are plans being considered to help mortgage holders in trouble that should be pursued. However, setting up a bureaucracy to rank banks subject to subjective scoring and at a cost that taxpayers can hardly afford, is not the way to help homeowners.

How many police officers would lose their positions if the city administrative officer’s estimate of a $58-million tab for the banking bill is correct?

According to City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana as reported in the Los Angeles Times, “Severing agreements with major lenders could trigger sizable termination fees and lead to higher interest rates. That could in turn complicate financing for an array of city initiatives, from replacing deteriorating sewers to rebuilding part of the Convention Center to make way for an NFL football stadium.”

On this page last week, Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce president Gary Toebben observed, “The stated goal of the new banking ordinance is to reduce foreclosures in Los Angeles. But what the ordinance will do is create a new city bureaucracy that taxpayers cannot afford; assign already burdened City staff with collecting reporting documents they do not have time or expertise to review; evaluate banking services with criteria that violate state law. Here is what the proposed banking ordinance will not do: prevent one single foreclosure.”

While there may be sympathy for a few of the demands of the Occupy movement, there is a price to be paid and city officials and taxpayers have to decide if the goals are worth the price. The duty of the stewards of the taxpayers’ money is to get the best deal for taxpayers.

One supporter of the Occupy LA protestors, City Councilman Paul Koretz, had second thoughts when he learned of the costs attached to the bank bill. “If it costs us $20 million or $30 million or $40 million to do the right thing, then we’re probably doing the wrong thing,” he said.