BILL ANALYSIS �
AJR 42
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AJR 42 (Nestande)
As Introduced June 20, 2012
Majority vote
VETERANS AFFAIRS 8-0
--------------------------------
|Ayes:|Cook, Pan, Atkins, Block, |
| |Gorell, V. Manuel |
| |P�rez, Williams, Yamada |
| | |
--------------------------------
SUMMARY : Opposes the budget presented by the United States Air
Force to the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States. Specifically, this bill :
1)Resolves that the Legislature joins the Riverside County Board
of Supervisors, the California National Guard Association, and
the National Guard Association of the United States in
opposition to the disproportional budget cuts as presented by
the United States Air Force as they adversely impact the
California Military Department and the Air National Guard and
jeopardize national security and homeland defense.
2)Directs that the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies
of this resolution to each Senator and Representative from
California in the Congress of the United States and the author
for appropriate distribution.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS : It is likely that on January 2, 2013, the U.S.
defense budget will be drastically reduced. The Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 set deficit targets.
That law stipulated that if spending exceeded the specified
targets, a process known as sequester would go into effect.
Last August, as part of a negotiated deal, Congress agreed on
$900 billion in spending cuts and the creation of the Joint
Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the "supercommittee").
The supercommittee was directed to come up with $1.2 trillion
more in deficit cuts over a decade. If the supercommittee
failed, or if Congress rejected the panel's recommendation, the
AJR 42
Page 2
automatic spending cuts would start January 2, 2013.
Because of the failure of the congressional supercommittee to
agree on a deficit reduction plan, the 2011 Budget Control Act
automatically cuts about $500 billion from the defense budget.
These cuts fall on top of $487 billion in reductions.
Whether or not a strategy will emerge to avoid sequestration and
if not, what the effects of sequestration will be are
speculative at this point. However, sending a strong message
and taking a position of vigilance and concern about the
Department of Defense budget is wise in the face of so much
uncertainty.
Analysis Prepared by : John Spangler / V.A. / (916) 319-3550
FN:
0004888