The implications of AB 142 on state laws are significant, as it lays the groundwork for the broader budgetary framework for 2017. By expressing intent, the bill signals to stakeholders that discussions and legislative efforts regarding budget formulation are underway. This could enable state agencies and departments to prepare for potential changes in funding, reflecting anticipated needs in public services and local governance. The ability to influence fiscal policies through such bills is a critical part of legislative action and governance in California.
Summary
Assembly Bill 142, introduced by Assembly Member Ting, pertains to the Budget Act of 2017. The primary aim of the bill is to express the intent of the legislature to implement statutory changes concerning the budget for that year. While the bill serves to articulate legislative intent, it does not propose specific funding amounts or detailed financial allocations. This general approach allows for a flexible legislative process in shaping the budget during the specified fiscal year. The absence of specific appropriations highlights the bill’s role in paving the way for subsequent budgetary deliberations and adjustments.
Contention
While AB 142 does not seem to present direct points of contention, discussions around budgets often involve debates regarding the allocation of resources, potential cuts, or increases to specific programs. Stakeholders, including advocacy groups or local governments, may have diverging views on how budget provisions should be tailored to reflect the state's priorities. This legislative intent can thus be a starting point for future discussions to advocate for or against particular aspects of the fiscal plan, making it a part of the contentious budgetary process.
A resolution to direct the Clerk of the House of Representatives to only present to the Governor enrolled House bills finally passed by both houses of the One Hundred Third Legislature.