spending

Survivors of the devastating Eaton fire called on state lawmakers on Wednesday to pass a bill requiring audits of spending by Southern California Edison and the state’s two other big for-profit electric companies on wildfire prevention.

The survivors pointed to an investigation by The Times that found that Edison had not spent hundreds of millions of dollars that it told regulators before the fire was needed to keep its transmission system safe. Edison had begun charging customers for the costs.

“Californians funded the wildfire prevention,” Joy Chen, executive director of Every Fire Survivor’s Network, told members of the Assembly Utilities and Energy Commission on Wednesday. ”And we survivors paid the price when that work was not done.”

While the government’s investigation into the fire has not yet been released, Edison has said it believes that a century-old transmission line, which had not carried power since 1971, may have briefly re-energized on the night of Jan. 7, 2025, to ignite the fire. The inferno killed 19 people and destroyed thousands of homes and other structures in Altadena.

Chen’s wildfire survivors group and Consumer Watchdog sponsored the bill, known as Assembly Bill 1744. It would require the wildfire safety spending by Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric to be audited by an independent accounting firm.

The state Public Utilities Commission would have to consider the audits’ findings before agreeing to raise customer rates to cover even more wildfire spending.

“Had Edison known it would be accountable for those funds, that wildfire may not have started,” Jamie Court of Consumer Watchdog told the committee, referring to the Eaton fire.

All three utilities said at the hearing they opposed the bill.

A lobbyist for San Diego Gas & Electric said he believed the audits were unnecessary because the commission was already reviewing the spending.

“We think it creates a duplicative process,” he said.

At the committee hearing, Edison’s lobbyist did not say why the company was opposed to the bill.

The company has previously said that safety is its top priority and that it does not believe maintenance on its transmission lines suffered before the Eaton fire.

Also voicing support for the bill at the hearing were survivors of other deadly wildfires in the state, including the 2018 Camp fire, which killed 85 people and destroyed much of the town of Paradise. Investigators found that the fire was ignited when equipment failed on a decades-old PG&E transmission line.

The bill’s author, Assemblywoman Tasha Boerner, an Encinitas Democrat, pointed to how independent audits of the three companies’ wildfire spending from 2019 to 2020 found that $2.5 billion could not be accounted for.

Those were the last independent audits of the three companies’ wildfire spending.

Despite the findings, the commission did not require the companies to return any of the questioned amounts to electric customers. Instead, the commission agreed the companies could spend billions of dollars more, Boerner said.

“This is frankly unacceptable,” she said.

Asked for a response to those audits, the lobbyist from San Diego Gas & Electric told the committee he wasn’t familiar with the findings.

California electric rates are the nation’s second highest after Hawaii.

In 2024, wildfire expenses amounted to 17% to 27% of the costs the three companies charge to consumers, according to a legislative analysis of Boerner’s bill. The average residential customer pays $250 to $490 a year for that spending.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has proposed boosting defense spending to $1.5 trillion in his 2027 budget released Friday, the largest such request in decades, reflecting his emphasis on U.S. military investments over domestic programs.

The sizable increase for the Pentagon had been telegraphed by the Republican president even before the the U.S.-led war against Iran. The president’s plan would also reduce spending on non-defense programs by 10% by shifting some responsibilities to state and local governments.

“President Trump is committed to rebuilding our military to secure peace through strength,” the budget said.

The president’s annual budget is considered a reflection of the administration’s values and does not carry the force of law. The massive document typically highlights an administration’s priorities, but Congress, which handles federal spending issues, is free to reject it and often does.

This year’s White House document, prepared by Budget Director Russ Vought, is intended to provide a road map from the president to Congress as lawmakers build their own budgets and annual appropriations bills to keep the government funded. Vought spoke to House GOP lawmakers on a private call Thursday.

Trump, speaking ahead of an address to the nation this week about the Iran war, signaled the military is his priority, setting up a clash ahead in Congress.

“We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of day care,” Trump said at a private White House event Wednesday.

“It’s not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicaid, Medicare — all these individual things,” he said. “They can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal.”

Immigration enforcement, air traffic controllers and national parks

Among the budget priorities the White House called for:

-Supporting the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement and deportation operations by eliminating refugee resettlement aid programs, maintaining Immigration and Customs Enforcement funds at current year levels and drawing on last’s year’s increases for the Department of Homeland Security funds to continue opening detention facilities, including 100,000 beds for adults and 30,000 for families.

— A 13% increase in funding for the Department of Justice, which the White House said would be focused on violent criminals.

— A $10 billion fund within the National Park Service for beautification projects in Washington, D.C..

— A $481 million increase in funding to enhance aviation safety and support an air traffic controller hiring surge.

With the nation running nearly $2 trillion annual deficits and the debt swelling past $39 trillion, the federal balance sheets have long been operating in the red.

About two-thirds of the nation’s estimated $7 trillion in annual spending covers the Medicare and Medicaid health care programs, as well as Social Security income, which are essentially growing — along with an aging population — on autopilot.

The rest of the annual budget has typically been more evenly split between defense and domestic accounts, nearly $1 trillion each, which is where much of the debate in Congress takes place.

The GOP’s big tax breaks bill that Trump signed into law last year boosted his priorities beyond the budget process — with at least $150 billion for the Pentagon over the next several years, and $170 billion for Trump’s immigration and deportation operations at the Department of Homeland Security.

The administration is counting on its allies in the Republican-led Congress to again push the president’s priorities, particularly the Defense Department spending, through its own budget process, as it was able to do last year.

It suggests $1.1 trillion for defense would come through the regular appropriations process, which typically requires support from both parties for approval, while $350 billion would come through the budget reconciliation process that Republicans can accomplish on their own, through party-line majority votes.

Congress still fighting over 2026 spending

The president’s budget arrives as the House and Senate remain tangled over current-year spending and stalemated over DHS funding, with Democrats demanding changes to Trump’s immigration enforcement regime that Republicans are unwilling to accept.

Trump announced Thursday he would sign an executive order to pay all DHS workers who have gone without paychecks during the record-long partial government shutdown that has reached 49 days. The Republican leadership in Congress reached an agreement this week on a path forward to fund the department, but lawmakers are away on spring break and have not yet voted on any new legislation.

Last year, in the president’s first budget since returning to the White House, Trump sought to fulfill his promise to vastly reduce the size and scope of the federal government, reflecting the efforts of billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

As DOGE slashed through federal offices and Vought sought to claw back funds, Congress did not always agree.

For example, Trump sought a roughly one-fifth decrease in non-defense spending for the current budget year ending Sept. 30, but Congress kept such spending relatively flat.

Some of the programs that Trump tried to eliminate entirely, such as assisting families with their energy costs, got a slight uptick in funding. Others got flat funding, such as the Community Development Block Grants that states and local communities use to fund an array of projects intended mostly to help low-income communities through new parks, sewer systems and affordable housing.

Lawmakers have also focused on ensuring the administration spends federal dollars as directed by Congress. This year’s spending bills contained what Sen. Patty Murray, the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, described as “hundreds upon hundreds of specific funding levels and directives” that the administration is required to follow.

Mascaro and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP reporter Bill Barrow in Atlanta contributed to this report.

Expense reports filed over a decade of the Calderon family’s engagement in the California Legislature sheds light on the variety of ways political funds can be spent.

The expenses include $1 million spent at golf resorts, $220,000 on steak dinners, $4,000 for cigars, and $325 for a set of false eyelashes. The filings also show $1.3 million charged on credit cards, where expenses are not itemized and the monthly bill sometimes topped $27,000.

The reports, filed with the California secretary of State’s office, cover 23 political accounts active since 2000 for former Assembly Majority Leader Charles Calderon, his brothers Sen. Ron Calderon and former Assemblyman Tom Calderon, and Charles’ son Assemblyman Ian Calderon. All hail from the Los Angeles County town of Montebello and have represented districts in or near there.

The reports detail extended stays in spa resorts and hideaways in such settings as Las Vegas, Hawaii, Tahoe and Palm Springs. The getaways are sometimes listed as fundraisers, but also as conferences, retreats and “holiday” events.

The expenses include more than $135,000 spent on trips to Vegas, $115,000 on events at the Bandon Dunes Resort in Oregon, and $101,000 for trips to Hawaii during which Calderon family members sometimes also accepted “gifts” to attend conferences at those locations at the same time, staged by two California foundations that don’t reveal their funding sources or publish public agendas.

Gifts can be a big part of public office. The more than $27,000 the Calderons spent giving away money from campaign contributions includes gift certificates for contributors and staff members, and also more than $4,000 in gifts from one Calderon to another. Those include a $325 certificate for Calderon sister-in-law and campaign manager Leslie Rodriguez at Longmi Lashes, a Beverly Hills eyelash extension salon that touts its celebrity clientele. The “appreciation” gift came from the Assembly campaign of Charles Calderon, who married Rodriguez’s sister and listed Leslie Rodriguez as a campaign consultant.

California campaign finance laws generally give politicians wide latitude on how they can spend campaign funds. Fair Political Practices Commission records show few enforcement actions against Calderon family members. Charles Calderon, fined in 1995 and again in 1998 for misusing campaign funds for family birthdays and vacations, in 2009 was found to have failed to report all gifts, but the commission accepted his explanation and took no action. The commission in 2009 dismissed a complaint that Ron Calderon used three of his campaign funds for personal expenses with a warning that crossing the line between personal and political benefit in the future “could result in an enforcement action.”

ALSO:

Calderon fundraisers double up on limits

Subpoena seeks water agency records

After FBI raid, Sen. Ron Calderon opens legal defense fund

paige.stjohn@latimes.com

March 27 (UPI) — All 32 NATO nations met or exceeded the alliance’s target for defense spending last year, Secretary-General Mark Rutte said, as Canada and several ally nations increased their investment in defense amid war in Europe and the Middle East.

“We see clearly that our world is constantly changing. And we are adapting to ensure we remain prepared,” he said during a press conference in Brussels, as he released the alliance’s 2025 Annual Report.

“The threat picture across 2025 made clear that we need to do more. And throughout the year, NATO continued to come together to ensure that we are ready and able to respond to any threat, across all domains, both now and in the future.”

The defensive military alliance has called on member states to invest at least 2% of their gross domestic product in defense since at least 2006, with allies in 2014 pledging that those below the guideline would move toward it within a decade — though few nations did so for years.

Amid what he described as a more dangerous security environment — including Russia’s war against Ukraine, the Kremlin’s support from China, Iran, North Korea and Belarus, as well as the broader instability centered on Iran — countries are stepping up, he said, calling 2025 “a landmark year for NATO.”

Amid the protracted war in Europe and uncertainty about the United States’ cooperation with the alliance, defense ministers last year made a commitment to investing 5% of GDP annually in core defense requirements by 2035.

Among nations Rutte highlighted for reaching the 2% benchmark was Canada, which, under the Liberal government of Prime Minister Mark Carney, has sharply increased its defense spending as its once iron-clad relationship with the United States has frayed under the weight of U.S. President Donald Trump‘s incendiary rhetoric, threats of annexation and tariffs.

In the last 10 months of the Carney government, Canada has spent more than $23.8 billion on defense and security, pushing it over the 2% threshold for the first time since the end of the Cold War — and well ahead of the 2032 pledge made by former Defense Minister Bill Blair in 2024.

“As a result of our efforts, this morning, NATO confirmed that Canada has achieved its 2% defense expenditure target — half a decade ahead of the original schedule,” Carney said during a press conference held Thursday aboard a Royal Canadian navy vessel in Halifax Harbor.

“Canadians are responding to our renewed commitment and call to serve.”

The Liberal leader described the 2% target as “the foundation” for further investment in the country’s defense expenditure, as he announced a further $2.1 billion defense package for Atlantic Canada.

“Over the past 11 months, one of our government’s key priorities has been to reinvest in rebuilding and rearming the [Canadian Armed Forces] to provide you with the support you need to achieve mission success,” he said.

“We will continue our efforts with the same speed and determination that we have shown from the very beginning.”

March 24 (UPI) — Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth plans to request $200 billion in funding from Congress as the cost of the United States’ war with Iran grows.

The request comes on top of an already record-setting Pentagon budget passed by Congress last year. Transparency over how funds are being spent continues to dwindle, experts told UPI.

As of March 15, 16 days into the war, it had cost the United States about $12 billion, Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, said in an interview on Face the Nation.

Linda Bilmes, a Harvard Kennedy School professor and former assistant secretary and chief financial officer of the U.S. Department of Commerce under the Clinton administration, told UPI the reported cost is “just the very tip of the huge iceberg.”

“The $11 billion or whatever it is that they’re quoting is just the immediate operational spend in terms of munitions and fuel and such in the first couple weeks,” Bilmes said. “That doesn’t cover any kind of medium-term expenditures around reset, repair, resupply, replenishment of weapons and systems and munitions and so forth, which is a much bigger number.”

“We’ve probably spent at least $40 billion if you bring into account already everything that has been spent and the fact that it needs to be restocked in the inventory,” Bilmes said.

There are also longer-term costs yet to come, such as the lifetime disability benefits that some 50,000 U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East will be eligible to receive.

“The vast majority of them have been exposed to toxins, contamination from oil fumes, formaldehyde, benzine, all of these things that are in the air,” Bilmes said.

In a 2011 study, Bilmes estimated that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs would pay up to $1 trillion in benefits to veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the subsequent 30 to 40 years. In 2021, that estimate increased to $2.5 trillion as the war in Afghanistan continued until August of that year.

During a press briefing last week, Hegseth said the $200 billion request to Congress would be to “ensure that our ammunition is refilled and not just refilled but above and beyond.”

“That’s like the [gross domestic product] of Hungary, the GDP of New Zealand. Medium-sized countries have GDPs the size of just this increase,” Bilmes said. “That’s $1,500 for every household in America.”

The cost of war continues to increase for U.S. taxpayers. The U.S. military is using some advanced weapons technologies, such as AI-powered systems in combat for the first time in the Iran war. Defense contractors are preparing to increase their production of weapons for the United States four times over, President Donald Trump said following a meeting with several earlier this month.

“They have agreed to quadruple production of the ‘Exquisite Class’ weaponry in that we want to reach, as rapidly as possible, the highest levels of quantity,” Trump posted on social media on March 6. “Expansion began three months prior to the meeting and plants and production of many of these weapons are already underway.”

Trump did not clarify which companies were a part of the meeting, nor did he define what “exquisite class weaponry” is.

Bill Hartung, senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told UPI it is becoming increasingly challenging to analyze defense spending as the Pentagon has become less transparent.

Hartung’s research focuses on the arms industry and the U.S. military budget. He is the former director of the Arms and Security Program and the Center for International Policy and co-director of its Sustainable Defense Task Force.

When the United States began sending defense aid to Ukraine in 2022, the government would periodically report what weapons it was sending and the types of training missions it was involved in. That is yet to take place for the war in Iran.

“In this war, really other than a leak, they really haven’t put out much in the way of justification or what exactly is being spent,” Hartung said. “They haven’t put out even a detailed budget this year the way they normally would. Normally an administration that’s been in power a while puts it out in early February. Now, we’re kind of flying blind as to what it’s exactly all going to.”

Transparency has waned from the Pentagon over the course of years. Funding put toward defense in last year’s budget reconciliation was marked in broad categories, rather than a more detailed, itemized budget.

Hartung said it was not the “normal budget process” and that hearings over the Pentagon’s budget lacked the same level of substance and oversight of years passed.

In July, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense published its budget request for program acquisitions for the 2026 fiscal year. It requested $179.1 billion dedicated to research, development, test and evaluation of major weapon systems, $205.2 billion for procurement and $961.7 billion for total Department of Defense research and procurement. This accounts for about 40% of the department’s total funding.

The reconciliation bill passed by Congress added $150 billion in new defense spending, increasing the department’s total budget to more than $1 trillion.

Among the biggest expenditures approved by Congress were more than $25 billion for munitions and supply chain resiliency, $24 billion for integrated air and missile defense, $29 billion for shipbuilding, and $14 billion for enhancing resources for nuclear forces.

About $10 million was approved for department oversight.

The longer the war continues, the greater the cost will be to the United States. Then comes the matter of reconstruction.

The United States has historically been involved in reconstruction efforts following wars it was engaged in, including World War II and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

The U.S. government spent about $141 billion on reconstruction in Afghanistan between 2002 and 2021, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported.

The war with Iran has spread beyond its borders already. As of Monday, Fatih Birol, head of the International Energy Agency, said that at least 40 energy sites have been damaged in the war, including sites belonging to U.S. allies.

Whether and to what extent the United States would be involved in reconstruction efforts in Iran and among affected allies is another variable that will not be known until the fighting stops.

Beyond the budget implications is the human cost of war. Hartung said, depending on the decision to put U.S. troops on the ground in Iran, the toll paid by service members could be larger yet. At least 13 U.S. troops have already been killed in action.

The Iran Health Ministry reported earlier this month that more than 1,200 civilians have been killed. Among them are at least 165 people killed in a strike on an elementary school for girls in Minab, Iraq. Many of the victims in the school bombing were children.

A preliminary investigation by the U.S. military has found that the United States is likely responsible for the deadly strike on the school by a Tomahawk missile on Feb. 28. The United States is the only country involved in the war that uses Tomahawk missiles.

The cost of the operation that killed the victims at the elementary school likely exceeds $1 million. A Tomahawk missile costs about $2 million.

“It could have been a million or two to hit that one target,” Hartung said. “They do have a small drone-like system they’ve been using that’s like $35,000 each but I don’t know exactly what they used. A cruise missile’s $2 million but then some of the other bombs could be a few hundred thousand but it’s remarkable how much even one strike can cost. Some of the planes are thousands or tens of thousands an hour.”

Unlike the Vietnam and Korean War and those that preceded them, the United States does not pay for its modern war efforts by raising taxes. Instead, it incurs an ever-growing debt that now accounts for about 17% of the government’s budget in fiscal year 2026.

Bilmes is writing about the changing approach to funding war in her upcoming book The Ghost Budget: Paying for America’s Wars. It is due to be released in the fall.

“We’ve borrowed every penny that has been spent right now. We’re just adding to the debt,” Bilmes said.

As the United States takes on more debt to fund a growing defense budget, it has also cut taxes, reducing revenues.

“Arguably, our approach to this, in engaging in another war of choice, is positioning us closer to another major economic crisis,” Bilmes said.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. economy was supposed to start the year with a bang, fueled by a jump in tax refunds from President Trump’s tax cut legislation. But soaring gas prices are on track to eat up those refunds, leaving most Americans with little extra to spend.

“Next spring is projected to be the largest tax refund season of all time,” Trump boasted in a prime-time speech in December intended to address voter concerns about the economy and stubbornly high prices, though exaggerating the anticipated refunds.

But that was before the Iran war, which the U.S. and Israel began on Feb. 28. Oil and gas prices have skyrocketed since then, with the nationwide average price of gas reaching $3.94 Sunday, up more than a dollar from a month earlier.

Gas prices are likely to remain elevated for some time, even if the war ends soon, because shipping and production have been disrupted and will take time to recover. Economists now expect slower growth this spring and for the year, as dollars that are spent on gas are less likely to be used for restaurants, new clothes or entertainment.

Lower- and middle-income households are likely to be hit particularly hard, because they receive smaller refunds and spend a greater proportion of their earnings on gas.

“The energy shock is to going to hit those who have the least cushion,” said Alex Jacquez, chief of policy at the left-leaning Groundwork Collaborative and a former economist in the Biden White House. “And it doesn’t look like those tax refunds are going to be here to save them.”

Neale Mahoney, director of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, calculates that gas prices could peak in May at $4.36 a gallon, based on oil price forecasts by Goldman Sachs, followed by slow declines for the rest of the year. The notion that gas prices decline much more slowly than they rise is so ingrained among economists that they refer to it as the “rocket and feathers” phenomenon — rising like a rocket before falling like a feather.

In that scenario, the average household would pay $740 more in gas this year, nearly equal to the $748 increase in refunds that the Tax Foundation has estimated the average household will receive.

Through March 6, refunds have risen by much less than that, according to Internal Revenue Service data: They have averaged $3,676, up $352 from $3,324 in 2025. Still, average refunds could rise as more complex returns are filed.

Other estimates show similar impacts. Economists at Oxford Economics, a consulting firm, estimate that if gas prices average $3.70 a gallon all year, it will cost consumers about $70 billion — more than the $60 billion in increased tax refunds.

The gas price spike comes with many consumers already in a precarious position, particularly compared with 2022, when gas prices also soared because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. At that time, many households still had fattened bank accounts from COVID-19 pandemic-era stimulus payments and companies were hiring rapidly and sharply lifting pay to attract workers.

Now, hiring is nearly at a standstill and Americans’ saving rate has steadily fallen in the last few years as many households borrow more to sustain their spending.

“When you start looking across the perspective from a consumer side, you’re seeing people who have maxed out their credit cards, are using ‘buy now, pay later’ to purchase their groceries,” said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of the Century Foundation think tank. “They’re making it work for now, but that can fall apart quite quickly.”

The consequences are likely to worsen the “K-shaped” phenomenon in the U.S. economy, analysts said, in which higher-income households have fared better than lower-income households. The bottom 10% of earners spend nearly 4% of their incomes on gasoline, Pantheon Macroeconomics estimates, while the top 10% spend just 1.5%. The Trump tax breaks also benefited the wealthiest taxpayers most.

For now, most analysts still expect the U.S. economy to expand this year, even if more slowly, given the gas price shock. Higher gas prices will probably worsen inflation in the short run, and over time weaker spending will also slow growth.

American consumers and businesses have repeatedly shaken off shocks since the pandemic emergency — soaring inflation, rising interest rates, Trump’s tariffs — and continued to spend, defying concerns that the economy would tip into recession. Many economists note that the proportion of their incomes that Americans spend on gas and other energy has fallen significantly compared with a decade ago.

Data from the Bank of America Institute released Friday showed that spending on gas on the bank’s credit and debit cards shot 14.4% higher in the week ended March 14 compared with a year ago. Before the war, such spending was running 5% below the previous year, a benefit to consumers.

Spending on discretionary items — restaurants, electronics and travel — is still growing, the institute said, evidence of consumer resilience. But there is little sign it is accelerating, as many economists had hoped.

“The longer these gasoline prices persist, the more that will gradually sap consumer discretionary spending,” said David Tinsley, senior economist at the institute.

Other analysts expect growth will slow because of the war. Bernard Yaros and Michael Pearce, economists at Oxford Economics, forecast that the U.S. economy will grow just 1.9% this year, down from an earlier estimate of 2.5%.

“We had anticipated a lift in spending from a bumper tax refund season,” they wrote, “but the rise in gasoline prices, if sustained, would more than offset that boost.”

Rugaber writes for the Associated Press.