WE'RE ALWAYS SUSPICIOUS when politicians talk about solving budget problems by eliminating "government waste and fraud." Too often that's jargon for cutting social programs instead of making the real, hard choices – like raising taxes on the wealthy or telling people they're going to have to give up services they need and are used to. Yes, there's waste and fraud in the public sector, but the worst of it tends to be in areas nobody wants to touch – like no-bid contracts to (private) campaign contributors and well-juiced lobbyists.

That's why it's so frustrating to realize there's massive, obvious mountains of waste in a San Francisco department – tens of millions of dollars that could be diverted to other crucial programs – and Mayor Gavin Newsom, who campaigned on changing business as usual, isn't doing nearly enough about it.

As Steven T. Jones reports on page 20, the San Francisco Fire Department is practically burning cash. Outdated procedures, union work rules that have no basis in public safety (or sanity), and a climate hostile to reform have created a fiscal monster.

This is no secret: the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury, the city Controller's Office, and the Board of Supervisors' budget analyst have all pointed to millions of dollars of unnecessary spending. A group of activists, including several fire department veterans (and one former firefighters union official), have identified $50 million – yes, $50 million – in unadulterated bloat. And that money could be saved without any real risk to public safety.

The truth is, like that of most fire departments, the SFFD's mission has changed dramatically in the past 20 years. Modern building codes, sprinklers, fire-suppression procedures, and public education have been tremendously successful; there just aren't as many fires as there used to be. In fact, these days the vast majority of the department's calls are for emergency medical services.

And yet the bulk of the department's budget continues to go to old-fashioned firefighting staff and equipment. Sometimes the results are almost comical: department rules put only one paramedic (along with several firefighters) on every truck, but the rules also (with good reason) require two paramedics to respond to every high-level medical emergency. So when someone calls 911 to report chest pains, two fully equipped fire trucks rush to the scene – and while the emergency medical technicians treat the patient, a half dozen or more firefighters stand around doing nothing.

Baltimore, which faces many of the same firefighting challenges as San Francisco, has the same number of stations for nearly twice as much territory – and fire officials there say they have no problem fulfilling their mission of protecting the public. Some of San Francisco's neighborhood fire stations average just a few calls a day, almost all of them medical emergencies.

We're acutely aware of the need for top-quality fire service in San Francisco. This is a city built largely of wood, a city that was almost destroyed several times by fire, a city where experts say a major, perhaps catastrophic earthquake is a virtual certainty in the next 30 years. This isn't the place for a bargain-basement fire department, and we're more than happy to pay for what detractors like to call "Cadillac service." And we recognize that firefighting is a tough, dangerous job, and the people who do it should be paid well.

But at a time when the city is considering a long list of budget cuts to other departments that are not only unpleasant but in some cases (like public health) also life threatening, it's imperative residents get their money's worth – and with the SFFD, that's just not happening.

There are reforms that will actually make the city better prepared for a disaster: for starters, a willingness among old-school department leaders to treat emergency medical services as a valued part of the department's mission. There are reforms that will improve performance (cross-training firefighters and medics to do both jobs). But as the grand jury pointed out, making reforms will require strong leadership – and that's in short supply.

Before the supervisors make deep cuts to libraries, parks, children's programs, public health, and Muni, they need to look at the fire department budget. In a year as financially brutal as 2004, the city can't afford to accept this sort of waste.