budget

June 26 (UPI) — President Donald Trump held a “One Big, Beautiful Event” rally on Thursday afternoon to garner support for the federal budget bill that he wants passed before Independence Day.

Trump was backed by dozens of supporters who represented many occupations while addressing attendees at the event held in the East Room of the White House.

“We’re cutting $1.7 trillion in this bill, and you’re not going to feel any of it,” Trump told media and other event attendees.

“Your Medicaid is left alone. It’s the same,” Trump said. “Your Medicare and your Social Security are strengthened.”

He said Democrats would cut Medicare and Medicaid benefits in half and asked people to contact their senators and representatives to support the budget bill.

“Almost every major promise made in the 2024 campaign already will have become a promise kept,” Trump said. “That’s very important.”

He said the budget bill would eliminate federal income taxes on tips, overtime pay or Social Security.

A reconciliation bill before the Senate would limit the income tax deduction on tips to the first $25,000, though.

The president also said a trade deal has been reached with China and another might be coming with India, but he did not elaborate on them.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and several members of Trump’s Cabinet attended the event, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins.

Trump held the rally after the Senate parliamentarian earlier ruled several provisions in the Senate reconciliation bill violate Senate rules.

Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough nixed provisions that would have limited the use of healthcare provider taxes by states that recently expanded Medicaid coverage but did not increase Medicaid under the provisions of the Affordable Care Act.

Those proposed changes would cost states more to provide Medicaid coverage.

MacDonough is still reviewing the Senate reconciliation bill and might issue more objections to proposed measures.

The House already passed the bill, but the Senate is trying to hammer out a reconciliation package that would pass both chambers and be ready for signing by the Fourth of July.

Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., already has said she intends to vote against the reconciliation bill, The Hill reported.

New York Republican Rep. Nick LaLota also is skeptical of the package and a potential limit on state and local tax deductions for taxpayers.

He said changes being made in the Senate reconciliation package make it impossible for a reconciliation bill to win approval in the House.

June 25 (UPI) — White House budget director Russell Vought on Wednesday urged U.S. senators to approve the Trump administration’s proposed cuts of $8.3 billion in foreign assistance and $1.1 billion for public broadcasting.

Vought testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The cuts, which are from the Department of Government Efficiency, are a tiny fraction of the nearly $7 trillion the federal government spends each year

The House last week voted 214-212 to advance the request that reduces funds for the U.S. Agency for International Development, which has largely been dismantled, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which helps to fund NPR and PBS.

Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the Senate. A simple majority is needed for passage.

A group of protesters disrupted the meeting, saying “Vought’s Cuts Kill,” and “Vought Lies, People Die!”

Capitol Police officers forcibly removed some protesters from the room, with at least one hitting his head on the floor.

During his opening remarks, Vought touted the cuts as part of Trump’s “steadfast commitment to cutting wasteful federal spending antithetical to American interests.”

“Most Americans would be shocked and appalled to learn that their tax dollars, money they thought was going to medical care, was actually going to far-left activism, population control and sex workers,” Vought said. “To be clear, no lifesaving treatment will be impacted by this rescissions package.”

If Congress approves the cuts, the AIDS program would lose $400 million, and another $500 million would be stripped from global health programs that support child and maternal health, AIDS care and prevention of infectious diseases.

Lawmakers from both parties have criticized the proposed cuts.

“There’s no way that President Trump’s administration would allow such wasteful and questionable spending,” Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, told Vought.

“So, I am puzzled why you would be cutting funds that the president signed in March as part of the continuing resolution.”

Trump signed legislation in March to keep the government open through September.

Vought responded the costs are “largely multiyear funding,” and that “there is some expiring funds with regard to fiscal year ’25, but the way that this was structured was to find the waste.

“We are $37 trillion in national debt,” Vought said. “Our view is to see, when we look at these programs, can we do it cheaper, as evidenced by what we find, and then to reflect that, with some savings to the taxpayer.”

Collins also questioned the administration’s proposed cuts targeting the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.

“These are not only the right thing to do for humanitarian reasons, but they’re incredible instruments of soft power,” she said. That includes “lifesaving multivitamins for pregnant mothers and the food supplement that’s used for malnourished children.”

Collins held up a packet of Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Food used to treat malnutrition in babies and young children.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, the Republican serving South Carolina, said he was surprised that millions of dollars were being spent to support abortions and gender care under PEPFAR. The AIDS-fighting program has been credited for saving millions of lives since President George W. Bush launched it more than 20 years ago.

Graham said he would approve the measure though he backs the program.

“And to my Democratic colleagues: There is a consequence to this crap,” Graham said. “The first thing I thought about: How is PEPFAR fraud, waste and abuse? Well, I had no idea there was one dollar spent like this.”

GOP members in the House and Senate have voiced concerns about the potential impact cuts would have on local stations and rural radio.

“We have Native American radio stations in South Dakota. They get their funding through NPR,” Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said during the hearing. “Ninety-some percent of what they use.”

The director called PBS and NPR “radical far-left networks,” and “there is no longer any excuse for tax dollars to subsidize” them.

California leaders reached a tentative agreement Tuesday night on the state budget, which hinges on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s demand that the Legislature pass a housing reform proposal.

The eleventh-hour negotiations about the spending plan, which takes effect July 1, speak to the political challenge of overhauling longstanding environmental regulations to speed up housing construction in a state controlled by Democrats.

The party has been loath to do more than tweak the California Environmental Quality Act, or approve one-off exemptions, despite pressure from the governor and national criticism of a law that reform advocates say has hamstrung California’s ability to build.

The proposal is among a series of policies Newsom and Democratic lawmakers are expected to advance in the coming days as part of the $321.1-billion budget. The deal reflects the Legislature’s resistance to the governor’s proposed cuts to reduce a $12-billion budget deficit expected in the year ahead, citing uncertainty about the scope of the state’s financial problems.

“We appreciate the strong partnership with the Legislature in reaching this budget agreement,” said Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom. “The governor’s signature is contingent on finalizing legislation to cut red tape and unleash housing and infrastructure development across the state — to build more, faster.”

The consensus comes after weeks of conversations about how to offset the deficit, caused by overspending in California, and start to address even larger financial problems anticipated in the future, including from potential federal policy changes.

The tentative deal largely relies on borrowing money, tapping into state reserves, and shifting funding around to close the shortfall. By reducing and delaying many of the governor’s proposed cuts, the budget continues a practice at the state Capitol of sparing state programs from immediate pain while avoiding taking on California’s long-term budget woes.

Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) said the budget deal papers over the state’s financial problems.

“We’re in this situation because of overspending,” Gallagher said. “We’ve made long-term commitments to programs that Democrats have championed, and now, just like everybody warned, the money is not there to support them all, and they don’t want to cut back their program that they helped expand.”

The cuts lawmakers and the governor ultimately agreed to will reduce the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare to undocumented immigrants and reinstate asset limit tests for Medi-Cal enrollees. The final deal, however, achieves less savings for the state than Newsom originally proposed.

The plan restores cost-of-living adjustments for child-care workers, which the governor wanted to nix, and rejects his call to cap overtime hours for in-home caregivers.

Democrats in the Legislature successfully pushed to provide another $500 million in funding for Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention grants. The governor originally resisted giving more money to counties, which he has chastised for being unable to show results for the billions of dollars in state funding they have received to reduce homelessness.

Assembly Budget Chair Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) pushed back on the notion that the Legislature hasn’t done “real belt-tightening.” Lawmakers are trying to balance compassion and fiscal responsibility before making drastic cuts to safety net programs that Californians rely on, he said.

“That is the balance that we are trying to strike here with this budget of being responsible, of focusing on the work that we need to do regardless, but also understanding that there is a pretty high delta of uncertainty for a lot of reasons,” Gabriel said.

The budget also preserves Newsom’s plan to provide $750 million to expand the California Film and Television Tax Credit, a proposal supported by Hollywood film studios and unions representing workers in the industry.

The tentative agreement is expected to serve as a precursor to more challenging financial discussions about additional reductions in the months ahead.

California expects to lose federal funding from the Trump administration and state officials predict a potentially greater funding dilemma in 2026-27.

Here are few key elements of the budget deal, detailed in summaries of the agreement and legislation:

A housing caveat

Described colloquially as a “poison pill” inserted into the budget bill, the agreement between the Legislature and Newsom will only become law if legislators send the governor a version of a proposal initially introduced by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco).

Wiener’s bill is expected to lessen the number of building projects that would require a full environmental review under CEQA and make the process of developing environmental impact reports more efficient.

Paired with another proposal that could exempt more urban housing developments from CEQA, the legislation could mark a significant change in state policy that makes it easier to build.

Newsom is effectively forcing the Wiener proposal through by refusing to sign a budget deal without the CEQA exemptions. The proposal was still being drafted as of Tuesday evening.

The governor declared lofty goals to build more housing on the 2018 gubernatorial campaign trail, but he has failed to spur enough construction to meet housing demand and make homes more affordable.

New York Times columnist Ezra Klein effectively called out the inaction in California caused by the state’s marquee environmental law and a lack of political will in his recent book “Abundance,” which increased pressure on the governor and other Democrats to reconsider their approach and push for more substantial fixes this year.

The CEQA reform bill must be passed by Monday under the budget agreement, which omits a separate Newsom call to streamline the Delta tunnels project.

Changes to Med-Cal funding

Medi-Cal cost overruns are causing major problems for the California budget. The challenges stem from a higher-than-expected price tag for the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare to all income-eligible undocumented immigrants and medical care for other enrollees.

Newsom’s budget proposal in May suggested substantial trims to the healthcare program for people who are undocumented. His plan included freezing new enrollment as of Jan. 1, requiring all adults to pay $100 monthly premiums, eliminating long-term care benefits and cutting full dental coverage. The changes offered minor savings in the year ahead but could save billions of dollars in future years.

Lawmakers ultimately agreed to require undocumented immigrant adults ages 19 to 59 to pay $30 monthly premiums beginning July 2027. They plan to adopt Newsom’s enrollment cap but give people three months to reapply if their coverage lapses instead of immediately cutting off their eligibility.

Democrats agreed to cut full dental coverage for adult immigrants who are undocumented, but delayed the change until July 1, 2026.

State leaders agreed to reinstate much higher limits than the governor originally proposed on the assets Medi-Cal beneficiaries may possess and still get coverage. The new limits would be $130,000 for individuals and $195,00 for couples, compared to prior limits of a few thousand dollars.

They also adopted Newsom’s proposal to withdraw Medi-Cal benefits for specialty weight-loss drugs.

Shifting money around

The negotiations resulted in less general fund spending than the Legislature proposed in a counter to Newsom’s budget revision in May, dropping from $232 billion to an estimated $228 billion for 2025-26.

Officials are using more money from California’s cap-and-trade program, which sets limits on companies’ greenhouse gas emissions and allows them to buy pollution credits from the state, including $1 billion next year. They are also using $300 million from climate change bonds instead of the general fund to pay for environmental programs.

Lawmakers and the governor agreed to delay a $3.4-billion payment on a loan to cover Medi-Cal cost overruns and increase the loan by another $1 billion next year.

Trump uncertainty

The plan continues an agreement to take $7.1 billion from the state’s rainy day fund to help cover the deficit and taps into another $6.5 billion from other cash reserves to balance the budget.

California leaders for months have warned about the so-called Trump effect on the state budget.

Financial analysts at UCLA predict that the state economy is expected to slow in the months ahead due to the effects of Trump’s tariff policy and immigration raids on construction, hospitality, agriculture and other key sectors.

Meanwhile, the state is warning that federal funding reductions to California could require lawmakers to adopt additional budget cuts in August or September, during a special session in the fall or early next year.

State officials expect future deficit estimates to range from $17 to $24 billion annually, according to an Assembly summary of the budget deal.

More to come

The final budget agreement is being publicly released in bits and pieces this week through a series of trailer bills that appear online at random hours.

Lawmakers are expected to pass a main budget bill on Friday and approve additional legislation by Monday, before the July 1 deadline for the budget to go into effect. Some legislation, such as the CEQA housing exemptions, will not appear in print until the end of the week.

Other decisions, such as reauthorizing California’s cap-and-trade program, will be considered later in the year outside of the budget process.

June 24 (UPI) — Complications with the so-called “one big, beautiful” fiscal year 2026 budget bill might keep lawmakers at the Capitol until passing it instead of recessing for Independence Day.

President Donald Trump had announced a July 4th deadline for the budget bill, but Congress is slated for a week-long recess next week, which caused Trump to call on senators to stay at the capital until passing the budget bill.

“To my friends in the Senate, lock yourself in a room if you must, [but] don’t go home,” Trump said Tuesday morning in a Truth Social post, as reported by Roll Call.

“Get the deal done this week,” Trump said. “Work with the House so they can pass it immediately. No one goes on vacation until it’s done.”

Trump posted his comments before boarding Air Force One for a trip to The Hague to attend the 2025 NATO Summit.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., conducted a closed-door meeting with GOP House members on Tuesday morning during which he suggested the Senate might pass the reconciliation budget bill later this week, Roll Call reported.

He told GOP members to keep their calendars flexible to pass the reconciliation bill as soon as possible.

The Senate is working on the reconciliation budget bill that would negate a potential filibuster and enable its passage.

“If the Senate does its work on the timeline we expect, we will do our work, as well,” Johnson said. “I think everyone’s ready for that.”

Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough determined provisions in the bill regarding offshore oil and gas leases violate Senate rules and must be changed, The Hill reported.

Declaring offshore oil and gas projects as automatically complying with the National Environmental Policy Act usurps and nullifies the review of such projects, according to MacDonough.

She said a proposal allowing successful bidders of such leases to take possession within 90 days of respective lease sales is too soon.

MacDonough also rejected a provision requiring the Interior secretary to allow the construction of a 211-mile road to enable the development of four large and hundreds of small mines in northern Alaska.

Such provisions would require at least 60 votes for successful passage instead of a simple majority, she told the Senate.

MacDonough also nixed the proposed bill’s mandate requiring the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service to sell millions of acres of public lands.

The measure would require the federal agencies to sell up to 3.3 million acres of public land, but MacDonough determined that they violate Senate rules and either must be removed from the reconciliation bill or be revised.

“Public lands belong in public hands, for current and future generations alike,” Wilderness Society President Tracy Stone-Manning said in a prepared statement on Tuesday, The Denver Post reported.

“We trust the next politician who wants to sell off public lands will remember that people of all stripes will stand against that idea,” Stone-Manning added. “Our public lands are not for sale.”

MacDonough is reviewing other parts of the budget bill, which further could complicate its potential passage.

Los Angeles County’s looming agreement with its biggest labor union is expected to cost a little more than $2 billion over three years — the latest hit to a budget besieged by financial woes.

The cost estimate, provided to The Times on Monday by the county chief executive office, will necessitate more belt-tightening for a government that’s running out of notches.

The deadly January wildfires are expected to cost the county $2 billion. The Trump administration has threatened cuts that would ravage the county’s public health budget. The L.A. County supervisors agreed this year to a historic $4 billion sex abuse settlement — the largest of its kind in U.S. history — and required most departments to make 3% cuts to help pay for it.

The cuts aren’t done, Chief Executive Fesia Davenport warned the supervisors Monday as she walked them through the latest version of the county’s sprawling $49-billion budget.

To pay for salary bumps and bonuses for county workers in the tentative labor agreement, the updated budget slashes $50.5 million, cutting funding for parks, swimming pools and violence prevention, among other programs. Soon, each department will need to make an additional 5.5% cut, said Davenport, whose office drafts the budget and leads labor negotiations.

“We are taking this extraordinary step because we simply have no alternative,” she said.

The supervisors unanimously approved the recommended budget Monday, which included an initial round of cuts to pay for some of the expected labor costs and the multibillion-dollar sex abuse settlement.

Despite their unanimous vote, the supervisors had little nice to say Monday about the plan.

“While the budget may look like it’s healthy, it’s a sick patient,” said Supervisor Hilda Solis.

As a result of the cuts, two probation offices are expected to shutter. County swimming pools will shut down earlier. Regional parks will now close two days a week.

“Like every other Angeleno, I’m mad too,” said Supervisor Holly Mitchell, who noted a petition she had seen on Nextdoor that morning protesting the two-day-a-week closure of Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area in her district.

The county announced last week that it had reached a tentative agreement with SEIU 721, which represents 55,000 county workers. The agreement, which still needs to be ratified by the union membership and the supervisors, includes a $5,000 bonus in the first year, followed by a 2% cost of living adjustment and $2,000 bonus in the second year and a 5% salary increase the third year.

The county is in negotiations with 16 smaller unions. The $2.1-billion price tag assumes that those unions will adopt similar salary increases and bonuses as SEIU 721.

To pay for the new labor costs, the chief executive office said the county will dip into its general fund for $778 million. The remaining $1.2 billion or so will come from federal and state funds meant for staffing costs.

David Green, the head of SEIU 721, said his members were “thrilled” with the tentative contract — the fruit of months of negotiations and a two-day strike this spring.

Last year, the city of Los Angeles agreed to contracts covering 33,000 union workers, many of whom would receive a pay increase of 24% over the next five years. The contracts, which the city estimated would add $3.5 billion in costs over five years, were a contributing factor in a massive budget shortfall that the City Council closed with layoffs and other spending cuts.

Green, who negotiated with both the city and county, said comparing the two was like “apples and oranges.”

“The economic climate has gotten worse in a lot of ways,” he said. “I think you felt a little bit of that in L.A. county bargaining.”

County supervisors appeared supportive of the agreement in Monday’s meeting, though quick to pan the overall financial picture.

“This is a budget I don’t like — I don’t think anyone does,” said Hahn.

But it could be worse, she noted.

“I know this is a budget … that won’t put us in the hole,” she said.

As NATO leaders prepare to gather in The Hague on Tuesday, efforts to satisfy United States President Donald Trump’s call for a big new defence spending goal may be overshadowed by the repercussions of US military strikes on Iran.

Trump has demanded that NATO allies commit to spending 5 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defence at their two-day gathering, starting on Tuesday.

The summit is also intended to signal to Russian President Vladimir Putin that NATO is united, despite Trump’s previous criticism of the alliance, and determined to expand and upgrade its defences to deter any attack from Moscow.

On Monday, NATO chief Mark Rutte said the new defence spending pledge to be announced at the summit is fundamental for ensuring that the alliance can deter Russia.

“The defence investment plan that allies will agree in The Hague introduces a new baseline, 5 percent of GDP to be invested in defence,” Rutte said.

 “This is a quantum leap that is ambitious, historic and fundamental to securing our future.”

The US bombing of Iranian nuclear sites at the weekend, however, makes the summit much less predictable than Rutte – a former prime minister of the Netherlands hosting the gathering in his home city – and other NATO member countries would like.

In 2003, the US-led war on Iraq deeply divided NATO, as France and Germany led opposition to the attack, while Britain and Spain joined the coalition.

European allies and Canada also want Ukraine to be at the top of the summit agenda, but they are wary that Trump might not want President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to steal the limelight.

Iran adds uncertainty

Much will depend on the precise situation in the Middle East when the summit takes place – such as whether Iran has retaliated against the US – and whether other NATO leaders address the strikes with Trump or in comments to reporters.

On Monday, Rutte told reporters the strikes on Iran over the weekend did not violate international law.

Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett said that currently, European leaders are focused on diplomacy as the path towards de-escalation and limiting Iran from having nuclear weapons. However, an escalation in fighting, including Iran’s targeting of a US military base in Qatar on Monday, makes diplomacy more difficult.

“Given the escalation that has taken place in recent days, that is a task that has become much more challenging to accomplish, which is why this meeting [at the NATO summit] has become so much more critical,” Halkett reported from Washington, DC.

Speaking from The Hague, Al Jazeera’s Hashem Ahelbarra said Rutte’s view is that consensus among NATO allies is almost universal: “Blaming the Iranians for failing to come forward in the past and negotiate a way out with the international community and with the IAEA.”

A dangerous moment for NATO

If the meeting does not go to plan, NATO risks appearing weak and divided, just as its European members see Russia as at its most dangerous since the end of the Cold War and are bracing for possible US troop cuts on the continent.

On Monday, Putin dismissed NATO claims that Russia could one day attack a member of the alliance as lies that Western powers use to justify vast military spending.

Under the new NATO defence spending plan, countries would spend 3.5 percent of GDP on “core defence” – such as weapons, troops – and a further 1.5 percent on security-related investments such as adapting roads, ports and bridges for use by military vehicles, protecting pipelines and deterring cyberattacks.

Such an increase – to be phased in over 10 years – would mean hundreds of billions of dollars more spending on defence.

“The reason they’re doing this is so when Trump comes to the Hague, they’ll tell him: Listen, we’ve been listening to your concerns, therefore, we’re from now onwards committed to the 5 percent benchmark you have been talking about in the past,” said Ahelberra.

Trump has long insisted it is time for Europeans to take on more of the financial and military burden of defending their continent.

Rutte said Monday that Spain had not been granted an “opt-out” from the pledge, despite Madrid claiming it had agreed it would not have to reach the headline figure of 5 percent.

Last year, alliance members collectively spent about 2.6 percent of NATO GDP on core defence, amounting to about $1.3 trillion, according to NATO estimates. The lion’s share came from the US, which spent almost $818bn.

European Union leaders, said Ahelberra, “want to convince Trump that NATO is taking into account his demands, but they’re looking forward to being able to convince Trump to continue to team up with the military allies for the sake of tackling many issues … particularly Ukraine.”

“They don’t want the Americans to abandon the Ukrainians. They don’t want to see the Americans negotiate a settlement with Putin without taking into account the real concerns of Ukraine,” he added.

SACRAMENTO — California really does still have a Legislature, even if you haven’t been reading or hearing much about it. In fact, it’s currently making a ton of weighty decisions.

They’ll affect many millions of Californians — with a gamut of new laws and hefty spending.

But the lawmakers’ moves have been slipping under the news radar because of our focus on more compelling non-Sacramento events — including protests against overzealous federal immigration raids in Los Angeles, President Trump’s power trip of calling up the California National Guard over Gov. Gavin Newsom’s objections and Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla’s being shoved to the floor and handcuffed for simply trying to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a question.

Plus congressional wrangling over Trump’s “Big Beautiful” ugly, debt-hiking bill — and the eruption of a Middle East war.

Meanwhile, it’s one of the busiest and most important periods of the year in the state Capitol. This is budget time, when the Legislature and governor decide how to spend our tax dollars.

The Legislature passed a $325-billion so-called budget June 13, beating its constitutional deadline by two days. If it hadn’t, the lawmakers would have forfeited their pay. But although that measure counted legally as a budget, it lacked lots of details that still are being negotiated between legislative leaders and Newsom.

The final agreements will be tucked into a supplementary measure amending the main budget bill. That will be followed by a long line of “trailer bills” containing even more policy specifics — all currently being hammered out, mostly in back rooms.

The target date for conclusion of this Byzantine process is Friday. The annual budget will take effect July 1.

Some budget-related issues are of special interest to me and I’ve written about them previously. So, the rest of this column is what we call in the news trade a “follow” — a report on where those matters stand.

Prop. 36

For starters, there’s Proposition 36 funding.

Californians cast more votes for Proposition 36 last year than anything else on the ballot. The measure passed with 68% of the vote, carrying all 58 counties.

Inspired by escalating retail theft, the initiative toughened penalties for certain property and hard-drug crimes, such as peddling deadly fentanyl. But it offered a carrot to drug-addicted serial criminals. Many could be offered treatment rather than jail time.

Proposition 36 needs state money for the treatment, more probation officers to supervise the addicts’ progress and additional law enforcement costs. The measure’s backers estimate a $250-million annual tab.

Newsom, however, was an outspoken opponent of the proposition. He didn’t provide any funding for it in his original budget proposal and stiffed it again last month when revising the spending plan.

But legislative leaders insisted on some funding and agreed on a one-time appropriation of $110 million.

Woefully inadequate, the measure’s backers contend. They’re pushing for more. But some fear Newsom might even veto the $110 million, although this seems doubtful, given the public anger that could generate.

Greg Totten, chief executive of the California District Attorneys Assn., which sponsored the initiative, says more money is especially needed to hire additional probation officers. Treatment without probation won’t work, he insists.

Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) is trying to change the $110-million allocation mix. There’s nothing earmarked for county sheriffs who now are handling lots more arrests, she says.

“I want to make sure we uphold the voters’ wishes and are getting people into drug treatment,” Blakespear says. “This passed by such a high percentage, it should be a priority for elected officials.”

Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) predicts the Legislature will still be fiddling with the budget until it adjourns in September and vows: “I’ll continue to advocate for adequate funding for 36.” He asserts the budget now being negotiated won’t hold up because of chaos under Trump, who’s constantly threatening to withhold federal money due California.

Healthcare for immigrants

Another sticky issue is state-provided healthcare for immigrants living here illegally.

Newsom and the Democratic-controlled Legislature decided a few years ago to generously offer all low-income undocumented immigrants access to Medi-Cal, California’s version of federal Medicaid for the poor.

But unlike Medi-Cal for legal residents, the federal government doesn’t kick in money for undocumented people. The state foots the entire bill. And it didn’t set aside enough. Predictably, state costs ran several billion dollars over budget.

The Newsom administration claims that more adults enrolled in the program than expected. But, come on! When free healthcare is offered to poor people, you should expect a race to enroll.

To help balance the books, Newsom proposed $100 monthly premiums. The Legislature reduced that to $30. They both agreed to freeze enrollments for adults starting Jan. 1.

The Legislature also wants to freeze Medi-Cal enrollment for even more people who are non-citizens: those with what it considers “unsatisfactory immigration status.” What does that mean? Hopefully it’s being negotiated.

Delta tunnel

And there’s the matter of the governor’s proposed water tunnel in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Newsom tried to squeeze the controversial issue into the budget process, although it had nothing to do with the budget. But as a budget trailer bill, it could avoid substantive public hearings in the Legislature.

The governor wants to “fast-track” construction of the $20-billion, 45-mile tunnel that would transmit more Northern California water to Southern California. Delta farmers, local residents and coastal salmon interests are adamantly opposed. Fast-track means making it simpler to obtain permits and seize property.

Legislative leaders told the governor absolutely “No”: come back later and run his proposal through the ordinary committee process. Don’t try to fast-track the Legislature.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: ‘A good day’: Detained U.S. citizen said agents bragged after arresting dozens at Home Depot
The visit: Vice President JD Vance rips Newsom, Bass and mocks Padilla during visit to Los Angeles
The L.A. Times Special: Welcome to the deportation resistance, Dodgers. What’s next?

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SAN DIEGO — President Clinton arrived here Monday pledging again to make special efforts to help Californians with their economic problems but asking that they in turn agree to the sacrifices demanded in his pending budget plan.

Clinton, beginning a two-day campaign-style swing through the West to gather support for his agenda, reminded a crowd of several hundred that greeted him at the North Island Naval Air Station that he had vowed his help for California’s problems during his campaign.

“We are going to work our hearts out in Washington in order to move this state together,” he said. And he cited his proposals to foster defense conversion, to provide federal support for California’s special immigration problems and to stimulate the economy in a way that would help California’s ailing real estate industry and small businesses.

“California needs an economic strategy that will be built from the grass roots up, but will have a partner in the White House,” he declared, adding, “the federal government’s going to do more to pay our fair share.”

At the same time, Clinton renewed his call for Americans to support his budget against resistance from congressional Republicans and others.

“When you hear people say ‘No, no, no,’ ask where they were for the last 12 years,” he said. Referring to his Republican predecessors, he said “the most popular thing to do in public life is to cut taxes and raise spending. But sooner or later your string runs out.”

Clinton’s appearance began the second straight week of forays into the country to drum up support for an economic program that has lost ground in the polls. On Monday evening he was scheduled to take questions from the public in a live, hourlong TV “town hall” broadcast from San Diego’s KGTV, Channel 10. Today he is to visit Los Angeles Valley College in Van Nuys to talk about worker retraining, and later to stop at a business on Florence Avenue in South-Central Los Angeles to promote his plans for urban redevelopment.

He spent much of Monday at a stop in Los Alamos, N. M., pointing to the Los Alamos National Laboratories, where the atomic bomb was developed during World War II, as proof of the potential of his five-year, $20-billion defense conversion plan.

Clinton said the 50-year-old laboratory’s early move into commercial enterprises proves that defense industries can be successfully converted to commercial use in the aftermath of the Cold War. But he also used the occasion to stress his No. 1 theme, that Congress needs to pass his economic program to cut the deficit and step up spending that will strengthen the economy.

In remarks at Los Alamos High School, Clinton said the 7,600-employee nuclear laboratory had made important contributions to the weapons research that kept pressure on the Soviet Union during the Cold War. He said that in the last several years the lab’s efforts to find commercial applications for its research had spawned 30 companies and 100 government-industry partnerships.

Clinton said such relationships would begin the kind of “economic chain reaction” that could help the nation create high paying jobs.

The laboratory, with an annual budget of $1 billion, conducts commercial research into batteries, oil recovery, advanced materials and other such projects. Clinton cited its advances in the process called ion implantation, which is used to make stronger materials and which grew out of research begun on the Strategic Defense Initiative, or “Star Wars,” launched by President Ronald Reagan.

Only last week, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin declared an official end to the “Star Wars” program. But Clinton acknowledged: “Something good came out of it, because people were looking to break down frontiers.”

But as he spoke about defense conversion, Clinton repeatedly moved into discussion of the need for sacrifices to cut the federal deficit. “Everybody’s for deficit reduction in general, it’s the details that swallow us whole,” he told a crowd of several thousand.

The Los Alamos laboratory had been spared deep cuts, but under Clinton’s proposed budget it faces about $40 million in budget cuts that officials say could force the layoff of about 100 people.

Clinton’s two-month old defense conversion program proposes to spend $19.6 billion over the next five years. The money would go to retrain workers displaced by military cutbacks, to allow early retirement of some military and civilian workers, for environmental cleanup and for grants to help military contractors find civilian applications for their work.

Critics have charged that the program underestimates the difficulty of converting defense businesses to civilian work. And they say that in any case the $19.6 billion will have only a limited effect in helping the 2.5 million workers who could lose their jobs in the next decade.

But Clinton asserted: “It is a good beginning.”

Pressed by slumping polls and unresolved questions about his Bosnian policy, Clinton has sought to rebuild support for his program by explaining its payoff for Americans, and particularly for the middle class.

The President hopes that strong public support will bring pressure on Congress to go along with his economic and health care plans.

Clinton’s appearance in Los Alamos was well tailored to his goal of using the news media to drum up support. To ensure that enthusiasm was high, the organizers bused in thousands of high school students; they passed out American flags just before the event began.

Located on a valley overlooked by the snowcapped Sangre de Cristo mountains, the event made a striking picture.

Clinton came close to a faux pas at one point in his remarks, calling Los Alamos “Los Angeles.”

A chorus of boos followed. But Clinton tried to make a graceful recovery:

“I’m going there tomorrow,” he explained to the crowd. “And if I say ‘Los Alamos’ there, will you cheer?”

As has become his habit, Clinton spent part of his day conducting interviews with TV news stations, in an effort to give his message wide and largely unchallenged access to local markets.

The President’s California visit is his second since the election to a state that his advisers say is key to his strategy for 1996.

California’s unemployment rate fell to 8.6% in April, from 9.4% in March. But the state’s rate still lags far behind the national rate of 7%.

Part of Clinton’s hope to help California was stymied when Senate Republicans blocked the $19-billion economic stimulus proposal that would have channeled more than $2 billion to the state.

After the TV town hall, Clinton was scheduled to appear at a reception for local politicians and supporters at the television station, then to attend a dinner at the home of Larry and Shelia Lawrence. The Lawrences own the Hotel Del Coronado and are Clinton supporters.

The amount of money that the city of Los Angeles pays annually for police misconduct, trip and falls, and other lawsuits has ballooned, rising from $64 million a decade ago to $254 million last year and $289 million this fiscal year.

The reasons are complicated, ranging from aging sidewalks to juries’ tendency to award larger judgments to possible shifts in legal strategy at the city attorney’s office to an increase in the sheer number of lawsuits against the city.

The biggest chunk of payouts over the past five years were for “dangerous conditions” — lawsuits singling out faulty city infrastructure, such as broken elevators — at 32%, followed by civil rights violations and unlawful uses of force at 18%, and traffic collisions involving city vehicles also at 18%.

City officials have cited the legal payouts as a significant factor in a nearly $1-billion budget shortfall for fiscal year 2025-26 that was closed with layoffs and other spending cuts.

City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, who took office in December 2022, heads the office that defends the city against lawsuits.

In an interview with The Times and public appearances throughout the city, Feldstein Soto cited a backlog of cases from the COVID-19 pandemic, when courts were barely moving, that were settled or went to trial in recent years.

“Structured settlements” negotiated by her predecessor, Mike Feuer, which are paid out annually rather than in one lump sum, have also contributed to the tab, she said.

Feldstein Soto also said she believes juries are increasingly antagonistic to city governments, resulting in larger verdicts.

Feuer said in an interview that the city was entering into structured settlements before he took office, and he does not believe he increased their use.

To explain the rise in legal liability payouts during his tenure — from about $40 million in 2013 to about $91 million in 2022 — Feuer cited a lack of investment in city infrastructure like streets and sidewalks during the 2008 financial crisis.

In public appearances, Feldstein Soto has sometimes blamed plaintiffs for trying to get financial compensation for what she characterized as risky behavior or interpersonal disputes.

Speaking to the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association earlier this year, she said that two types of lawsuits — “dangerous conditions” lawsuits and those brought by city employees over working conditions — are ripe for abuse. Some employees who sue the city simply don’t like their bosses, Feldstein Soto said, citing a lawsuit by an LAPD captain, Stacey Vince, who alleged that higher-ups retaliated against her after she complained about her boss. Vince was awarded $10.1 million by a jury, and the city subsequently settled the case for just under $6 million.

Feldstein Soto also described one man who sued the city as an “idiot.” The man was riding his electric scooter without a helmet, Feldstein Soto said, when he crashed on an uneven sidewalk and into a nearby tree, suffering a traumatic brain injury.

According to Feldstein Soto, taxpayers ultimately pay the price for these lawsuits.

“Please understand that every dollar you award is your money,” she said.

The number of lawsuits filed against the city has risen each year since the pandemic, from 1,131 in 2021 to 1,560 in 2024.

At the same time, the average amount the city pays per case has increased dramatically, from under $50,000 in 2022 to $132,180 in 2024. A contributing factor is the increase in payouts of least $1 million, with 17 such cases in 2022 and 39 in 2024. (The city counts settlements or jury verdicts in the fiscal year they are paid out, not when the dollar amount is decided.)

From July 2024 to March 2025, the city paid $1 million or more in 51 lawsuits.

Feldstein Soto said these “nuclear verdicts” cut deep into the city budget and could raise payouts for similar cases in the future.

Total annual payouts in police misconduct cases jumped from $15 million in 2020 to $50 million in 2024. Dangerous conditions cases rose from around $41 million in 2020 to about $84 million in 2024.

Earlier this year, the city paid $21 million to plaintiffs in a series of lawsuits related to a botched LAPD bomb squad fireworks detonation that injured more than 20 people and displaced many residents.

Also this year, the city paid out a $17.7-million verdict to the family of a man with mental health issues killed by an off-duty LAPD officer.

This coming fiscal year, the city increased its allocation for liability payouts from about $87 million to $187 million — far less than what it has been paying in recent years — out of a $14-billion budget.

City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who chairs the council’s public works committee, said the rising payouts stem in part from the city’s long-term lack of investment in infrastructure. The city spent about 10% of its overall budget on streets and other public works last year — substantially less than it spent on police, said Hernandez, who favors a smaller LAPD.

“As a city, we don’t invest in the maintenance of our city,” she said. “I have felt like I’ve been screaming into the void about some of these things.”

In one lawsuit paid out this year, the city agreed to give $3 million to a man who tripped over a slightly uneven sidewalk and suffered a traumatic brain injury.

Last April, the city reached a $21-million settlement with a man whose skull was broken by a street lamp part that fell on him. The city had gone to trial, with a jury awarding the man $22 million, but the parties eventually settled for the slightly lower amount.

“I believe the driving force is the delays and lack of maintenance of the city that has caused an increase in such incidents,” said Arash Zabetian, a lawyer for the man hit by the streetlight.

Some plaintiffs’ attorneys say that Feldstein Soto’s legal strategies are contributing to the rising liability costs. They assert that she is taking more cases to trial, resulting in larger verdicts than if she had settled.

Matthew McNicholas, an attorney who often sues the city on behalf of police officers, said he recently went to trial in five cases and won all of them, for a total payout of more than $40 million.

He would have been happy to settle all five cases for a total of less than $10 million, he said.

One of the lawsuits, which ended with a $13-million verdict, was filed by two male officers accused of drawing a penis on a suspect’s abdomen. The officers alleged that higher-ups did not cast the same suspicion on their female colleagues.

In another of the lawsuits, a whistleblower alleged that he was punished for highlighting problems in the LAPD Bomb Detection K-9 Section. A jury also awarded him $13 million.

“It’s not a tactic to say we’re going to play hardball. It’s just stupid,” McNicholas said. “I am frustrated because she goes and blames my clients and runaway juries for her problems.”

Greg Smith, another plaintiffs’ attorney, said he has also noticed a tendency at Feldstein Soto’s office to push cases to trial.

“Everything is a fight,” Smith said. “I have been suing the city for 30 years, and this has been the worst administration with respect to trying to settle cases.”

Feldstein Soto said her office settles “every case we can.”

“It’s in nobody’s interest to go to trial. It’s a waste of resources,” she said. “But we will not settle cases where we don’t think we’re liable or where the demand is unreasonable.”

To stem the flood of large payouts, Feldstein Soto is looking to Sacramento for help, proposing a bill that would cap lawsuits against California cities at $1 million or three times the economic losses caused by an incident, whichever is greater. Caps on damages exist already in 38 states, according to Feldstein Soto’s office.

She has yet to find a state legislator to sponsor the bill.

Monza, Italy’s Grand Prix home since 1949, offers year-round F1-fuelled attractions at a fraction of the cost. The capital of the Province of Monza and Brianza is about 15km from Milan.

Italian glamour, local history and cheap drinks are all part of the charm in the home of Ferrari.

Whether you’re a long-term F1 fan, are inspired by next week’s F1 film premier, or just have an appreciation of Charles Leclerc, Monza is a good summer holiday spot for racing and non-racing fans alike. It also happens to deliver a lot of trackside vibes, without the eye watering prices.

With the average cost of a Grand Prix ticket costing upwards of £360 and flights, accommodation and expenses bringing the average for travelling to watch a race up to around £790, increasingly popular F1 tourism remains out of reach for many.

Monza, Italy’s Grand Prix home since 1949, offers year-round F1-fuelled attractions at a fraction of the cost. According to travel company First Choice, a two-night trip to Monza starts from £150 for flights and accommodation.

The capital of the Province of Monza and Brianza is about 15km from Milan, with a similar sunny climate and the same Italian charm, but with less of the tourists and a much more relaxed vibe. Compared to the high-energy, fashion-meets-finance, high-flying feeling of Milan, Monza offers a much more laid back, off-the-beaten-track approach.

During race weekend, the city is a hive of F1 activity, but the home of Ferrari is just as motor-mad throughout the year. The Autodromo Nazionale Monza, or the ‘temple of speed’ as it’s locally known, is set in the woodland park of the Royal Villa of Monza and is the oldest purpose-built racetrack in Europe, having been built in 1922. The track is part of F1 lore, hosting the Italian Grand Prix almost every year since the championship began in 1950.

The track offers year-round tour experiences of the paddock, control room, podium, and track for €20 (£17), while on Sundays, you can rent bikes and cycle the track yourself for €10 (£8.50).

For an alternative track experience, the Old Monza Oval, an abandoned high-speed race track from the 1950s, still exists in the Parco di Monza. The Old Oval was constructed in 1955 and operated until 1961 when it was abandoned following a series of deadly crashes caused by the dangerously steep banked track floor which reaches a gradient of 80%.

The track still exists as an overgrown silent homage to Monza racing history, and in 2014 opened to pedestrians and cyclist keen to experience this eery part of F1 history up close.

For a more up-to-date immersive experience, Saint Georges Premier restaurant is a firm favourite of F1 drivers and team-mates as the official hospitality partner for the race. Outside of race weekend, it’s open to the public, with a high-end premium menu of dishes ranging from €18 – €35.

But Monza isn’t all about high price tags. In fact, there are plenty of places to secure a very cheap deal. Speedy Pub is a casual spot, with sandwiches, deli goods and a large range of international beers starting from €3 (£2.50), while Solobirra is a dedicated beer bar with a big local reputation for the owner who knows a thing or two about draft.

For a fully immersive F1 drinking experience, Pit Stop Café is located near to the race circuit, with signed F1 cars on the wall, amazing food, beers and cocktails.

A few days is probably all you’ll need to soak in Monza’s charm, but those looking to stay a little longer can take a day trip to Milan where you’ll find the Ferrari flagship store as well as the Alfa Romeo museum; or an hour train to Maranello which is home Ferrari Factory, Fiorano test track and the Museo Ferrari Maranello.

Trips to Monza with First Choice start at £150 per person, staying at the BandB Hotel Milano – a modern, clean B&B a 15-minute drive from the racetrack.

Price is based on two adults sharing a double standard room, on a room-only basis for two nights, flights departing from London Stansted airport on 29 July 2025. Hand luggage only and transfers not included. For more information check out First Choice.

June 15 (UPI) — Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said Sunday that he is “not an absolute no” on the Trump administration’s House-passed budget reconciliation bill, which threatens cuts to social services and would increase the national spending deficit.

“I talked to the president last evening after the parade, and we’re trying to get to a better place in our conversations,” Paul said on NBC News’ Meet the Press Sunday. “And I’ve let him know that I’m not an absolute no.”

Paul has been a leading critic of the bill in its current form, along with a handful of other Republicans skeptical of the scope of the cuts. A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office report that shows that the measure would come at the expense of lower income Americans to benefit higher earners.

“I don’t have as much trouble with the tax cuts,” Paul continued. “I think there should be more spending cuts, but if they want my vote, they’ll have to negotiate,” specifically citing his opposition to raising the debt ceiling by trillions of dollars.

In its current form, the measure would increase the national deficit by $2.4 trillion over 10 years. Lawmakers are trying to pass the bill through a reconciliation process that only requires a simple majority for passage.

Paul said last week that tensions have come to the fore between him and his GOP colleagues, and that he was “uninvited” to a White House picnic that is typically attended by lawmakers and their families.

He called the move “petty vindictiveness,” and said he felt the White House was trying to “punish” him for his opposition to the bill as it stands. President Donald Trump said on his social media platform that “of course” Paul was invited to the picnic.

Republicans can only afford to lose three votes pending a tie breaking vote by Vice President JD Vance. The measure currently awaits action in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 seats. The body has taken a more conservative approach in the negotiations than the House.

Location, Location, Location viewers were left baffled while watching the Channel 4 show as one property hunter struggled to find a one bedroom flat in London with a hefty budget

Location, Location, Location fans were left enraged during a recent episode of the Channel 4 property show. It came after a woman with a whopping budget struggled to find a one-bedroom flat in the capital.

Hosts Phil Spencer and Kirstie Allsopp were back to help buyers find their dream homes, as Phil headed to central London to find a flat for Chloe. The medic had a generous budget of £450,000, and told the host she wanted a one-bedroom flat with parking for her motorbike.

Junior doctor Chloe had been searching for a flat for 7 months, telling cameras it had been “a bit of an epic fail.”

Viewers saw Chloe and Phil head to areas such as Tooting, Balham, and Earlsfield to find her dream home. However, fans were distracted as they left fuming with how little property hunter Chloe could get with her hefty budget.

“£475k for a one bed house, Wtaf #locationlocationlocation,” said one enraged fan, while another penned: “Nearly half a million pounds and yet still hard to find a one bedroom flat in South London with space to park a motorbike pretty much sums up how much London is f****d.”

A third called for Chloe to move out of London, by writing: “How can you have a budget of £450k and it not get you a one bed flat with a bloody front door? Just move out of rip off London!”

However, another thought Chloe was being “too picky” with her search. “To picky in London and she only has £450,000!” they exclaimed.

Despite the struggles, Phil helped Chloe to find a flat in Earlsfield for £415,000.

The episode comes shortly after duo Phil and Kirsty 25 years of Location, Location, Location. At the end of April, Channel 4 celebrated with a whole night of programming dedicated to the show, including a special containing never-before-seen bloopers and outtakes.

The series kicked off its 43rd run on 14 May, and just before, Phil and Kirstie took a look back at the changing socio economic trends of the UK property market over the period.

Speaking on their 25 years together, Phil gushed: “Although quite surreal, it’s also been fun looking back and seeing not only how we have changed through the 25 years, but also watching how our friendship developed and then strengthened across the years.

“Being able to visit every part of the four nations and support hundreds of people in their home searches has been an enormous privilege – none of which would have been achievable without so many brilliant people behind the camera.”.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.