ability

SACRAMENTO — The final pieces of a multi-bill legislative package needed to implement a $52.1-billion state budget stalled in the state Senate on Monday as lawmakers made last-minute efforts to change or derail several measures.

The major issues still on the table include a proposed suspension of the renters tax credit and legislation to allow local governments to implement cheaper retirement plans for their workers.

The Senate shut down late Monday afternoon without taking major action. Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Van Nuys) said members would return at noon today, and “we will go until all business is completed, exhausted or until all hope is dead.”

In one late maneuver that was outside the framework of the bipartisan budget agreement, a proposal was emerging to give local governments the proceeds of a new statewide tax on tobacco while stripping them of much of their authority to regulate smoking.

Gov. Pete Wilson was awaiting passage of the package to which he had agreed last week with Democratic and Republican leaders of the Assembly and Senate. The new fiscal year begins Thursday.

“The governor will sign the budget as soon as he has the entire package on his desk,” said Dan Schnur, Wilson’s chief spokesman. “Every piece of the budget package is critical. You take out one piece and the package doesn’t fit together anymore.”

There was disagreement, however, over just what constituted the agreed-upon package.

Wilson Administration officials have said all five members of the leadership group agreed to suspend the renters tax credit for two years. The Assembly passed a bill to do that last week.

But the legislation has hit a snag in the Senate, where Roberti insists that the deal included an agreement to place a measure on the ballot next year that, if approved by the voters, would embed the renters credit in the state Constitution. Such a move would make it impossible for the Legislature to tamper with it again.

Roberti and Wilson appeared to be on the verge of a compromise late Monday, although it was not clear if there was sufficient support in the Legislature. The new deal would put the issue to the voters, as Roberti wants, but would reinstate the $60 credit only for tenants who have a state tax obligation. The credit now goes–in the form of a refund–even to renters who pay no taxes.

Senate Democrats also appeared to be dragging their feet on the local government retirement issue. That bill, passed by the Assembly, would allow local governments to implement pension options for new employees that would save the governments money over time.

In holding up the bill, which is opposed by organized labor, Democrats appeared to be gambling that Wilson would look the other way because the measure produces no immediate savings to any level of government. But Schnur said the governor would not give up any piece of the package, no matter how minor.

“Even if the specific legislation doesn’t have direct fiscal impact, it is still the part of an overall agreement,” Schnur said. “We want to get this signed before midnight Wednesday. But we need the whole package in place before he can sign it.”

Schnur said the retirement bill, and another measure pending to allow counties to reduce general assistance welfare payments by as much as 27%, helped provide the rationale for the governor’s proposed shift of $2.6 billion in property tax revenue from local government to schools.

The so-called mandate relief, he said, was intended to give counties more control of their shrinking budgets.

The tobacco tax proposal floated Monday, although not part of the package, would address the same issue.

Local government reportedly could realize about $300 million annually through the 15-cent per pack tax. But in return, they would have to agree to strict limits on their ability to control smoking, perhaps leading to a state-imposed repeal of anti-smoking ordinances in place.

Several sources said Monday that the proposal had the tacit support of the tobacco industry and of Los Angeles County, which would stand to gain several millions dollars.

Sen. Charles M. Calderon (D-Whittier) confirmed that he was pushing the tobacco tax legislation. He said it made sense to restrict local government’s regulatory powers at the same time–a goal long sought by the tobacco industry.

“If we’re going to dedicate a revenue source, we have to make sure that the locals cannot circumvent or cut down the revenue source by continuing to impact the sales of cigarettes,” Calderon said.

But anti-smoking activists were out to kill the plan before it could even become an official proposal.

“Everybody wants to do something for (Los Angeles) County, but not under these conditions,” said Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles). “This is the most dishonest, diabolical scheme. It’s the worst kind of politics.”

Times staff writer Dan Morain contributed to this report.

State Budget Watch

Less than three days before the end of the fiscal year, these were the key developments in Sacramento:

THE PROBLEM: The state will end the year with a $2.7-billion deficit and faces a $9-billion gap between anticipated tax revenues and the amount needed to pay off the deficit and provide all state services at the current levels for another 12 months.

THE LEGISLATURE: Final legislative approval of the last handful of bills to complete the 1993-94 state budget was making no progress by late afternoon. The Senate met in the morning but recessed without voting on four budget bills, the stickiest of which would suspend the renters tax credit for two years.

GOV. PETE WILSON: Wilson was holding fast to his vow not to sign a new budget until all companion measures are passed by the Legislature.

KEY DEVELOPMENTS: Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Van Nuys) was one of those holding up his approval of legislation reducing the renters tax credit. He was seeking as a condition assurances in the form of a proposed constitutional amendment, to be considered by voters, that the credit would be protected and fully funded in future years.

Polls find large majorities of people in the US oppose military action against Venezuela, where Trump has ramped up military pressure.

Republicans in the United States Senate have voted down legislation that would have required US President Donald Trump to obtain congressional approval for any military attacks on Venezuela.

Two Republicans had crossed the political aisle and joined Democrats to vote in favour of the legislation on Thursday, but their support was not enough to secure passage, and the bill failed to pass by 51 to 49 votes.

“We should not be going to war without a vote of Congress,” Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said during a speech.

The vote comes amid a US military build-up off South America and a series of military strikes targeting vessels in international waters off Venezuela and Colombia that have killed at least 65 people.

The US has alleged, without presenting evidence, that the boats it bombed were transporting drugs, but Latin American leaders, some members of Congress, international law experts and family members of the deceased have described the US attacks as extrajudicial killings, claiming most of those killed were fishermen.

Fears are now growing that Trump will use the military deployment in the region – which includes thousands of US troops, a nuclear submarine and a group of warships accompanying the USS Gerald R Ford, the US Navy’s most sophisticated aircraft carrier – to launch an attack on Venezuela in a bid to oust President Nicolas Maduro.

Washington has accused Maduro of drug trafficking, and Trump has hinted at carrying out attacks on Venezuelan soil.

Senator Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, referencing Trump’s military posturing towards Venezuela, said on Thursday: “It’s really an open secret that this is much more about potential regime change.”

“If that’s where the administration is headed, if that’s what we’re risking – involvement in a war – then Congress needs to be heard on this,” he said.

Earlier on Thursday, a pair of US B-52 bombers flew over the Caribbean Sea along the coast of Venezuela, flight tracking data showed.

Data from tracking website Flightradar24 showed the two bombers flying parallel to the Venezuelan coast, then circling northeast of Caracas before heading back along the coast and turning north and flying further out to sea.

The presence of the US bombers off Venezuela was at least the fourth time that US military aircraft have flown near the country’s borders since mid-October, with B-52s having done so on one previous occasion, and B-1B bombers on two other occasions.

Little public support in US for attack on Venezuela

A recent poll found that only 18 percent of people in the US support even limited use of military force to overthrow Maduro’s government.

Research by YouGov also found that 74 percent of people in the US believe that the president should not be able to carry out military strikes abroad without congressional approval, in line with the requirements of the US Constitution.

Republican lawmakers, however, have embraced the recent strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific, adopting the Trump administration’s framing of its efforts to cut off the flow of narcotics to the US.

Questions of the legality of such attacks, either under US or international law, do not appear to be of great concern to many Republicans.

“President Trump has taken decisive action to protect thousands of Americans from lethal narcotics,” Senator Jim Risch, the Republican chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in remarks declaring his support for the strikes.

While only two Republicans – Senators Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski – defected to join Democrats in supporting the legislation to limit Trump’s ability to wage war unilaterally on Thursday, some conservatives have expressed frustration with a possible war on Venezuela.

Trump had campaigned for president on the promise of withdrawing the US from foreign military entanglements.

In recent years, Congress has made occasional efforts to reassert itself and impose restraints on foreign military engagements through the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which reaffirmed that Congress alone has the power to declare war.