New California budget could slash $1.5 billion from transit
California leaders are poised to cut $1.5 billion in funding for public transit from a state greenhouse gas emissions program, a move that could cripple agencies already devastated by COVID.
The funds at issue come from California's Cap-and-Invest plan, which collects fees from oil and fossil fuel companies and distributes them among projects and agencies that reduce pollution. Some of that money goes toward transit infrastructure, and over the past two years lawmakers have also dedicated a portion toward basic service.
But Gov. Gavin Newsom removed that economic life raft in the 2025-2026 budget proposal he rolled out last week, at a moment of economic austerity. Many programs could be scaled back as the state faces a $12 billion shortfall. Newsom's draft budget did not fulfill a request from state Sen. Jesse Arreguin, D-Berkeley, to set aside $2 billion for transit operations.
With roughly a month left in the budget process, agencies and advocates are vying for the governor's ear, and scrambling to convey their importance. Legislators must pass a budget for Newsom to sign before the next fiscal year starts on July 1.
'Throughout their history, California transit agencies have been partners with the state in combatting climate change and addressing air quality issues by inciting mode shift, incubating and deploying near-zero and zero-emission vehicle technologies, and facilitating sustainable growth patterns throughout California,' wrote Michael Pimentel, executive director of the California Transit Association, in a letter to Newsom, State Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, and State Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire.
The letter called for $1.6 billion in continuous appropriations for transit, along with $1.1 billion in one-time funding.
State Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat and longtime steward of public transportation, fervently objected to what he sees as the gutting of an emergency bailout. Wiener had pushed Newsom and his legislator colleagues to commit money in 2023 so that bus and rail agencies could keep running a reasonable amount of service. He's worried those funds will evaporate in the next budget.
On Thursday, Wiener voiced objections on social media to the governor's 'proposed sweep of $1.5 billion from cap and trade funds.' He predicted drastic ripple effects, including a $290 million cut from BART, $200 million slashed from Muni and $250 million from Los Angeles Metro. Projects in San Diego, Orange County, Sacramento, the Central Valley and the Inland Empire could all be imperiled, among them high-speed rail and the BART extension to downtown San Jose.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal cuts ripple through bioscience hub in Hamilton
Protesters march in downtown Hamilton. (Photo by Kathryn Houghton for KFF Health News). HAMILTON — Scientists are often careful to take off their work badges when they leave the campus of one of the nation's top research facilities, here in southwestern Montana's Bitterroot Valley. It's a reflection of the long-standing tension caused by Rocky Mountain Laboratories' improbable location in this conservative, blue-collar town of 5,000 that was built on logging. Many residents are proud of the internationally recognized research unfolding at the National Institutes of Health facility and acknowledge that Rocky Mountain Labs has become an economic driver for Hamilton. But a few locals resent what they consider the elitist scientists at the facility, which has employed about 500 people in recent years. Or they fear the contagious pathogens studied there could escape the labs' well-protected walls. That split widened with the COVID-19 pandemic and the divisions that emerged from mask mandates and vaccine development. In 2023, Matt Rosendale, a Republican who was then a U.S. representative from Montana, falsely tied the lab to the origins of covid in an attempt to cut its funding. Now, Hamilton is a prime example of how the Trump administration's mass federal layoffs and cancellation of research grants are having ripple effects in communities far from Washington, D.C. On an April afternoon, hundreds of people filled the sidewalks at an intersection of Hamilton's usually quiet downtown, waving signs that read 'Hands Off Federal Workers' and 'Stop Strangling Science.' Some driving by honked in support, rolled their windows down, and cheered. Others flipped off the rallygoers and cast insults at them. A passing bicyclist taunted protesters with chants of 'DOGE' — short for the Department of Government Efficiency, the federal initiative led by billionaire Elon Musk to cut costs that has driven mass layoffs and slashed programs. Kim Hasenkrug, a former Rocky Mountain Labs researcher of 31 years, who retired in 2022, joined the crowd. He slammed President Donald Trump's promise to let Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 'go wild' on health issues. 'We're beginning to see what 'going wild' looks like,' Hasenkrug said. 'These cuts will not streamline research. They will throttle it.' As of early May, 41 Rocky Mountain Labs workers had been let go or told their contracts would end this summer, and nine more had retired early, according to researchers employed by the facility. KFF Health News spoke with 10 current or former Rocky Mountain Labs workers who requested anonymity to speak about information that has not been publicly released. The federal government has also slashed billions of dollars for research, including at least $29 million in grants to Montana recipients, ranging from university scientists to the state health department. That's according to HHS data confirmed by KFF Health News. Scientists who remain in Hamilton said research has slowed. They've struggled to buy basic gear amid federal directives that changed how orders are placed. Now, more cuts are planned for workers who buy and deliver critical, niche supplies, such as antibodies, according to researchers at the labs. The Department of Health and Human Services didn't respond to repeated requests for more information on the government's cuts to research, including questions about the changes in Hamilton. Deputy press secretary Emily Hilliard said the department is committed to the 'continuity of essential research.' Some within the lab feel as if they've become public enemies or outcasts, unable to defend themselves without risking their jobs. Postdoctoral scientists just starting their careers are seeing options dwindle. Some workers whose employment contracts expire within days or weeks have been in the dark about whether they'll be renewed. At least one Rocky Mountain Labs scientist moved to another country to research infectious disease, citing 'current turmoil,' according to an email sent from the scientist to co-workers that was reviewed by KFF Health News. 'The remaining staff has been discredited, disrespected, and discouraged from remaining in public service,' Hasenkrug said. The National Institutes of Health is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world. It has 27 institutes and centers focused on understanding illness and disabilities and improving health. The agency's research has helped lead to vaccines against major diseases — from smallpox to COVID — and has been behind the majority of medicines approved for the U.S. market. That research also generated more than $94.5 billion in new economic activity nationwide, according to United for Medical Research, a coalition of research groups and advocates. The Trump administration aims to eliminate roughly 1,200 jobs at the NIH and shrink its budget by 40%. The administration's budget proposal to cut NIH funding calls the agency's spending 'wasteful,' deems its research 'risky,' and accuses it of promoting 'dangerous ideologies.' It's a dramatic political turnabout for the NIH, which for decades enjoyed bipartisan support in Washington. From 2015 to 2023, its annual budget grew by more than $17 billion. As of 2023, Rocky Mountain Labs was one of only 51 facilities in the world with the highest level of biosafety precautions, according to the Global BioLabs mapping project. In April, HHS indefinitely stalled work at another of those labs, the Integrated Research Facility in Frederick, Maryland, Wired reported. Kennedy has said the nation should pause funding infectious disease research, and the White House has said it plans to intensify scrutiny of gain-of-function research, which involves altering a pathogen to study its spread. Hamilton, in Ravalli County, is a place of scientists, ranchers, and outdoor recreationists. Here, 1 in 8 people live below the federal poverty line. Nearly 70% of county residents who participated in the 2024 presidential election voted for Trump, and Trump signs still dot U.S. Highway 93 leading to town. In the thick of the COVID pandemic, the sheriff and county commissioners refused to enforce a statewide mandate to mask in public spaces while Rocky Mountain Labs researchers worked to understand the virus. The lab's work dates to 1900, and even early on it was controversial. Rocky Mountain spotted fever was killing people in the valley. Researchers found the cause — ticks — and worked to eradicate the disease-carrying bugs by requiring ranchers to treat their cattle. That created resentment among locals who 'already harbored a healthy distrust of government-imposed programs,' according to an NIH account. The tension came to a head in 1913 when a 'dipping vat' used to chemically treat cattle was blown up with dynamite and another damaged with sledgehammers. Now, some residents and local leaders are worried about the economic consequences of an exodus of federal workers and their salaries. Most of the county is government-managed public land, and the first wave of federal cuts hit U.S. Forest Service workers who do everything from clear trails to fight wildfires. Rocky Mountain Labs generates hundreds of millions of dollars for the local economy by creating more work for industries including construction and bringing more people into the city's shops, a 2023 University of Montana study found. The rural community is also a base for international vaccine developer GSK due to the lab's presence. Kathleen Quinn, a vice president of communications for the company, said GSK's business with government agencies 'continues as usual' for now amid federal changes and that it's 'too early to say what any longer-term impact could be.' 'Our community is impacted more than most,' said City Councilor Darwin Ernst. He spoke during an overflowing March town hall to discuss the federal government cuts. Hundreds of people turned out on the weeknight asking city councilors to do something. Ernst, a former researcher at the lab who now works as a real estate broker and appraiser, said in an interview he's starting to see more homes enter the market, which he attributed to the atmosphere of uncertainty and former federal workers' having to find jobs elsewhere. 'Someone recently left with her entire family. Because of the layoffs, they can't afford to live here,' he said. 'Some people retire here but that's not everyone.' Jane Shigley said she's been a Hamilton resident for more than 30 years and initially thought the government would find 'some inefficiencies, no big deal.' But now she's worried about her hometown's future. 'Something's going on that we can't control,' Shigley said. 'And the people that it's happening to aren't allowed to talk to us about it.' The City Council sent a letter to federal officials in April asking for formal consultation prior to any significant changes, given Hamilton's 'interdependence' with Rocky Mountain Labs and the federally controlled lands surrounding Hamilton. As of May, city leaders hadn't received a response. People in town are split on how badly the federal cuts will affect Hamilton. Julie Foster, executive director of the Ravalli County Economic Development Authority, said the community survived the decline of logging, and she thinks Rocky Mountain Labs will survive, too. 'It will be here. There may be bumps in the road, but this is a resilient place,' Foster said. Even amid the cuts, Rocky Mountain Labs is in the process of a building expansion that, so far, hasn't stopped. And researchers' work continues. This spring, scientists there helped make the first identification in Montana of a species of tick known to carry Lyme disease. KFF Health News correspondent Rae Ellen Bichell contributed to this report. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Spending Review: Massive cheques from the chancellor for some - but what do totals hide?
The next few days are vital – "one of the last moments to weave it all together – to look politically credible to the people Labour has lost", one senior figure reckons. There have been huge fights inside government about the looming Spending Review. As I write, the home secretary and deputy prime minister are both still in dispute with the mighty Treasury over the amount of cash they'll have to spend. But the Treasury's already trying to convince the public the review is about significant investment. On Wednesday Rachel Reeves boasted of funnelling billions more taxpayers' cash to big transport projects outside the wealthier south east of England, having tweaked the Treasury rules to do it. Now, with five days still to go, I've been passed some of the information that'll be in the pages of Wednesday's review. It's one crucial chart that will be in the huge bundle of documents heading to the printing presses on Tuesday night that shows what's called TDEL – the Total Departmental Expenditure Limit. In other words, the total that government spends, including the day-to-day costs of running public services and long-term spending on big projects. But it doesn't include costs that government can't set in advance – like pensions and benefits, or debt interest. The chart spans 2010 to 2030, so takes in the coalition years, where you can see the total sliding down, then the Conservative years when spending starts rising after the Brexit referendum, then leaps up during Covid. And then, when Labour took charge, the red line going up steeply at first, then more slowly towards the end of this parliamentary term. The total real terms spending by 2029-30? More than £650bn – roughly £100bn more than when Labour took office. The pale blue line is what would have happened to spending if the Conservatives had managed to hang on to power last year. The government now is allergic to accusations that any cuts they make will be a return to austerity. And this chart shows that overall spending is going up considerably, compared to those lean years. The political argument around spending will rage but the chancellor did - to use the ghastly technical term – set out the "spending envelope" in her autumn Budget, indicating rises were coming. You can bet they'll want to use every chance they have to say they are spending significantly more than the Tories planned to under Rishi Sunak. The government's political opponents on the other hand, may look at that red line as it climbs steeply upwards and say: "See, public spending is ballooning out of control". This chart does illustrate very significant rises in public spending. But be careful. What this chart doesn't give us is any idea of how those massive totals break down. Massive chunks will go to favoured departments, suggestions of an extra £30bn for the NHS today. And a very significant part of that steep rise will be allocated to long-term projects, not running public services, some of which are struggling. The overall total may be enormous, but a couple of parts of government greedily suck in billions - others will still feel the pain. A case in point – as I write on Saturday morning, the Home Office is still arguing over its settlement, believing there isn't enough cash to provide the number of police the government has promised, while the front pages are full of stories about the NHS receiving another bumper deal. So observe this big health warning. The chart gives us a sense of the political argument the chancellor will make. But it doesn't tell the full story or give the crucial totals, department by department, decision by decision. It's worth saying it's incredibly unusual to see any of this before the day itself, hinting perhaps at jitters in No 11 about how the review will be received. Until we hear the chancellor's speech, and then see all of the documents in full on Wednesday, the story of the Spending Review won't be clear. There will be reams of statistics, produced by government, and the official number crunchers, the OBR, and then days of analysis by think tanks and experts in the aftermath. But bear in mind these three core facts. Rachel Reeves will put a huge amount of cash, tens and tens of billions, towards long term projects. Short-term spending money will be tight, with no spare cash for sweeteners. And the government is not popular, so there's huge pressure to tell a convincing story to try to change that, not least because of what went wrong the last time. "We can't ever do it like this again." After Labour's first Budget, government insiders concluded next time, it had to be different. A source recalls: "It was a very brutal exercise - it was literally just making the sums add up, there was no collective approach to what the priorities were." Alongside a lot of extra cash for the NHS, there was a big tax rise for business that came out of the blue. No one wants a repeat of that experience. The "next time" is now – and a Labour source warns the review might be as "painful as hell" . So the task for a government struggling in the polls is to make this moment more than just a gruesome arithmetic problem, instead, to use the power of the state's cheque book to make, and go on to win an argument. Stick a fiver on Rachel Reeves referring back to that first Budget as "fixing the foundations" of the economy and public services, this week then being the moment to start, "rebuilding Britain". Sources suggest she has three aspects in mind: security for the country (which will explain all those billions for defence), the health of the nation - that does what it says on the tin, and "investing", all that cash for long-term projects. Next week's decisions will be followed soon after by the government's industrial strategy which will promise support for business, possibly including cash to help with sky-high energy costs. And it comes after several big staging posts – the immigration white paper, trade deals, the defence review. In government circles there's hope of denting some of the criticisms that they have been slow to get moving in office, that, frankly, Sir Keir Starmer arrived in government without having worked out what he really wanted to do. One Whitehall insider tells me, "Now the buses are all arriving at once – maybe the idea of this lacklustre government that didn't have a plan will be blown away by July?" Another Labour source suggests the threat from Nigel Farage has actually forced the government to get moving, visibly, and decisively: "Reform gives us the impetus to actually shake this stuff down." That's the rosy view of how the chancellor might be able to play a difficult hand. It might not be reality. It is profoundly uncomfortable for a Labour government to make cuts. There is already a whiff of rebellion in the air over ministers' welfare plans. Expanding free school meals for kids in England seems designed to placate some of those critics in advance, but there could be more to make them mutinous. Don't forget Reeves has several different audiences – not just the public and her party, but the financial bigwigs too. This time last year all Labour's schmoozing was paying off, and she enjoyed good reviews in the City. One year on, that mood has shifted, in part because of the autumn budget. According to one city source, it "damaged her. People saw it as an about turn on her promises. Raising National Insurance, however they want to present it, went against the spirit of the manifesto… confidence in her in the City is diminished and diminishing", not least because there is chatter about more tax hikes in the autumn budget. Sign up for the Off Air with Laura K newsletter to get Laura Kuenssberg's expert insight and insider stories every week, emailed directly to you. You probably don't need me to remind you that the level of taxes collected by government are historically sky high. So too, at the other end, is the amount of government debt. A former Treasury minister told me this morning, "debt is the central issue of our time, nationally and globally". "There is a real risk our debt becomes unsustainable this Parliament, unless we make tough choices about what the state does. We can't keep on muddling through." Add in the twists, tariffs and tantrums of the man in the White House, that make the global economic situation uncertain and the picture's not pretty. But politics hinges on finding advantage in adversity. Polling suggests much of the country reckons Labour inherited a bad hand and has played it badly. This week, the chancellor has a chance to change the game. No 11 is determined to prove that she has made decisions only a Labour chancellor would make. And Reeves is gambling that her decisions to shovel massive amounts of money into long term spending helps the economy turn, and translates into political support well before the next general election. A senior Labour source said, Wednesday will be "the moment, this government clicks into gear, or it won't". There's no guarantee. 'It's going to be ugly': Westminster braces for Spending Review The Conservative Party faces problems - is its leader one of them? The country where the left (not the far right) made hardline immigration laws BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
"I Voted For Trump, But I'm On Elon's Side Here" — MAGA Is Choosing Sides In Trump/Musk's Breakup, And The Reactions Are Priceless
As the whole world knows by now, former besties Donald Trump and Elon Musk have beef. This week, their bromance turned into an online feud after a string of chaotic posts slamming each other went viral, all because of differing views on Trump's "Big, Beautiful, Bill." Trump's Vice President JD Vance quickly took Trump's side on X, saying he's "proud to stand beside him." Twitter: @JDVance And followed it up with another, vouching for Trump's character. Twitter: @JDVance Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon had a much more dramatic response, immediately calling for Elon Musk's deportation. "They should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately," Bannon said in a phone interview with the New York Times. Related: "We Don't Import Food": 31 Americans Who Are Just So, So Confused About Tariffs And US Trade Well, conservative voters (many who claim to have supported Trump) are not holding back their reactions to the Trump vs. Elon feud, and many, surprisingly, are team Elon. Here's what they're saying over on the r/LeopardsAteMyFace and r/Conservative subreddits: This person told Elon to "Burn it down." This MAGA voter took Elon's side, accusing Trump of being immature. Related: AOC's Viral Response About A Potential Presidential Run Has Everyone Watching, And I'm Honestly Living For It "I'm with Elon." "We all know Trump isn't that mature, unfortunately." This user said Trump and Elon need to check their "crazy big egos." This person compared Trump and Elon to "petty immature teenagers." This user claimed the feud won't be a big deal in the long run, and called it "business as usual." This user questioned if the fued was a performance. And finally, "This is how a Democrat gets elected in 2028." What are your thoughts on the Trump vs. Elon feud? Let us know in the comments below. Also in In the News: People Can't Believe This "Disgusting" Donald Trump Jr. Post About Joe Biden's Cancer Diagnosis Is Real Also in In the News: Republicans Are Calling Tim Walz "Tampon Tim," And The Backlash From Women Is Too Good Not To Share Also in In the News: JD Vance Shared The Most Bizarre Tweet Of Him Serving "Food" As Donald Trump's Housewife
