Tippler Tax a Long-Shot Try for County Aid : Budget: Employees hail Assemblyman Villaraigosa’s effort for a higher levy on drinks. Critics say it’s grandstanding and the powerful liquor lobby vows to oppose it.

In politics, as in sports, there are strategies aplenty. Some opt for short yardage. Some like the big play.

But it’s a rare politician who will go the route of Assemblyman Antonio Villaraigosa, who has seized this week’s limelight by going for the impossible long shot.

Undaunted by his recent high-profile defeat over a woman’s ability to breast-feed in public, the freshman Democrat from East Los Angeles has stepped forward as the champion of an even more controversial proposal--a so-called tippler tax on alcoholic drinks at bars and restaurants.

The measure would give counties the authority to impose such taxes as a way of gaining back some of the billions of dollars in revenues the state has taken away from them in recent years. As much as $200 million in annual revenues would flow into Los Angeles County coffers from a 10% tax on all alcoholic drinks poured and drunk on the premises.

County employees hailed Villaraigosa as a savior after he announced his intentions at a Friday news conference, saying such a sin tax is the most humane way of helping close a $1.2-billion county budget gap without horrific layoffs and cuts. It may even save the threatened County-USC Medical Center, which lies squarely in his district.

But as word of Villaraigosa’s bill spread through Los Angeles and the state capital Friday, others were less enthusiastic.

“As usual, Antonio is grandstanding--pandering to his constituency,” said Howard Kaloogian (R-Carlsbad), who said he considers Villaraigosa a friend. “This idea is ridiculous. . . . The odds of this passing are zilch.”

Indeed, Villaraigosa has voluntarily taken on an issue that last year was sidestepped by every other lawmaker in Southern California despite desperate arm-twisting by the County Board of Supervisors. His efforts, however, have placed him at odds with the state’s powerful liquor lobby, which has crushed every state alcohol tax proposal it has set its sights on since Prohibition.

Some hint that Villaraigosa is driven by political opportunism, championing a symbolically important effort he knows is doomed.

But the outspoken lawmaker said Friday that he has a more pragmatic reason for backing this clunker of an issue: “No one else was brave enough to do it.”

Actually, county lobbyists say, others are interested. Sen. Hilda Solis (D-El Monte) plans to introduce a 15% tax proposal next week. And the county’s chief legislative representative in Sacramento, Steve Juarez, said a quiet and concerted effort had been under way to gain the support of as many of the 39 lawmakers from Southern California as possible, along with the five supervisors who must approve such a tax.

But, Juarez and others said, Villaraigosa’s news conference preempted that strategy.

“We had hoped to take a little more time, and meet with a whole host of folks and create a coalition of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle,” said board Chairwoman Gloria Molina’s spokesman Michael Bustamante, who traveled to Sacramento this week to find sponsors. “This means we’ll have to work that much harder and that much quicker.”

Villaraigosa said he didn’t wait for the others because of the issue’s immediate importance. He also believes that such a measure now has a chance, because fiscal crises in Orange and Los Angeles counties have forced lawmakers and taxpayers to accept a harsh new political reality.

“Increasingly, people are starting to realize they can’t keep getting things for free, that the money does not come from the air,” he said.

Villaraigosa is seeking to get the bill passed as an urgency measure, which would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, and four of five supervisors’ votes.

As in the past, the many associations that comprise the vaunted liquor lobby are preparing for war. Saying it would impose an unfair burden on bars and restaurants, California Restaurant Assn. spokesman Stan Kyker said: “We think it’s a terrible idea.”

Villaraigosa, who grew up in a tough City Terrace neighborhood in the shadow of County-USC, says he has never been one to shy away from a good brawl.

His large bundle of bills this session included one that would require safe storage of firearms and another that would allow the release of prisoners who are too ill to pose a threat.

Surprisingly, his most controversial piece of legislation--which captured headlines throughout the state--dealt with the usually tame issue of breast-feeding. In a bill that he expected would pass easily, Villaraigosa sought to expressly permit women to nurse their babies in public.

Although breast-feeding in public is not illegal, Villaraigosa said a new law specifically allowing it would protect women who may otherwise suffer from the pressure of those offended by the practice. But it drew the anger of conservative Republicans, who rallied and killed it in committee.

Villaraigosa represents the 45th Assembly District, which is in the heart of Los Angeles and includes Hollywood, Silver Lake, Echo Park, Highland Park and Mt. Washington, where he lives. He received 65% of the vote in November after soundly beating four opponents in the June primary.

For a freshman, he has captured a considerable number of perks; he is vice chairman of the Public Safety Committee, Democratic floor whip, and a member not only of the powerful Appropriations Committee but also of the Revenue and Taxation Committee that will consider any tippler tax proposal.

Colleagues describe Villaraigosa as a determined, liberal lawmaker who will fight to the end for a cause. Some fault him as an overly ambitious grandstander who likes to hear himself talk, but few doubt his commitment.

Prior to his election, the UCLA graduate served as a union representative for United Teachers-Los Angeles, and on the board of directors of the Southern California Rapid Transit District and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. He is also immediate past president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.

Villaraigosa says he will draw on all his job experiences to gain passage of the tax legislation.

“There is no doubt that this liquor lobby is going to come at us with a vengeance; these people never saw a tax break they didn’t like,” he said.

Jim Lites, chief consultant to the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee, said Villaraigosa may be the right person to champion the issue, and not only because County-USC is in his district.

“He’s very articulate and bright, and able to present his case quite effectively,” Lites said. “It’s just a matter of whether members agree with him politically.”

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky is one of several local officials who criticize state lawmakers for not giving counties the ability to levy such taxes.

“They don’t want us to raise a 10% tax on a vodka tonic because the vodka tonic lobbyists have a hammerlock on them,” he said. “That’s got to come to an end.”

But only once since the 1930s has such a measure passed, in 1991.

“Frankly, with the political environment the way it is, I would not think the prospects are all that great,” Lites said. “It will be a very tough sell.”