According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 2545 is projected to result in a net negative impact of approximately $467,784 to General Revenue-related funds over the 2026–2027 biennium. This estimate accounts solely for administrative costs incurred by the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) in establishing and managing the new Rural Workforce Training Grant Program. Notably, the bill itself does not appropriate funds but provides the legal framework for future appropriations, including potential grant funding, which the Legislature would need to determine.

The Texas Workforce Commission estimates that it will need two additional full-time employees (Grant Specialist III positions) to manage and administer the program. These positions would cost roughly $70,662 annually per employee, plus $20,082 in benefits each, along with an additional $52,404 annually for agency payroll contributions, rent, utilities, office supplies, and indirect costs. These ongoing administrative expenses amount to $233,892 per fiscal year, extending through 2030 based on current projections.

Importantly, the analysis assumes the Rural Workforce Training Grant Program would be administered in a manner similar to existing programs such as the Skills Development Fund, the Jobs and Education for Texans (JET) program, and the Self-Sufficiency Fund. The actual size and fiscal impact of the grant awards under the new program remain undetermined at this stage, and any funding for grants themselves would depend on future legislative appropriations. No significant fiscal impact is expected for local governments, and TWC anticipates no technology-related costs for implementation.

HB 2545 proposes the creation of the Rural Workforce Training Grant Program under the administration of the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). While its stated objective is to address rural economic decline by supporting job-specific training, apprenticeships, and workforce education in counties with fewer than 200,000 residents, the mechanisms it employs raise significant structural and philosophical concerns that warrant a “No” vote recommendation.

First and foremost, HB 2545 expands the scope of state government by establishing a new grant program and a permanent administrative function within TWC. Although the bill does not include a direct appropriation for grant funding, it authorizes the commission to operate a new bureaucratic function and hire additional staff. According to the fiscal note, this would cost the state approximately $467,784 over the 2026–27 biennium for salaries, benefits, and overhead for two new employees. Even modest administrative expansions signal a broader shift away from limited government principles.

Second, the program invites ongoing government interference in a domain better suited for private initiative and local leadership. Workforce training is a function that markets and communities are well-positioned to handle without state intervention. When the government provides grants to specific entities—whether public, private, or nonprofit—it risks distorting natural market forces and creating reliance on public funds where private investment or community-driven partnerships might otherwise emerge organically. This undermines both free enterprise and personal responsibility, as businesses and local institutions should take ownership of workforce development tailored to their specific economic contexts.

Third, the grant framework opens the door to future appropriations and expanded government spending. While the bill leaves grant funding to the discretion of future legislatures, the legal framework created by HB 2545 will likely generate pressure for appropriations in subsequent budget cycles. Grant programs, once created, often become politically entrenched and difficult to repeal or scale down. They may also become vulnerable to mission drift or politicization, particularly if the criteria for awarding funds lack tight statutory constraints.

Fourth, local solutions to rural workforce challenges already exist and should be prioritized over new state-level initiatives. Many rural communities in Texas have existing partnerships between school districts, community colleges, and businesses aimed at workforce readiness. Rather than layering a new state program on top of these efforts, legislators could better support these communities by reducing regulatory barriers, expanding local control over education and training priorities, or refining existing state programs like the Skills Development Fund or the Jobs and Education for Texans (JET) program.

Finally, although the bill permits TWC to accept private donations, this does not offset the fundamental issue: creating a new program that channels public funds and staff resources toward a function that should remain local and voluntary. Lawmakers committed to limited government, fiscal responsibility, and a clear separation between state functions and market mechanisms should oppose HB 2545.

In conclusion, despite the good intentions behind HB 2545, the bill’s structure conflicts with foundational principles of governance rooted in local autonomy, free markets, and minimal state intervention. It establishes a new government program that will likely grow in size and scope, while inserting the state further into economic activities that private actors are better equipped to lead. For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 2545.

• Individual Liberty: The bill does not restrict or infringe upon individual rights. In fact, it provides voluntary access to workforce training opportunities for individuals in rural communities. Because participation in the program is neither compulsory for providers nor individuals, it technically respects individual choice and freedom of association. However, since the program is government-initiated and funded, it may be viewed with skepticism by those who prefer civil society and private markets to address these needs independently.
• Personal Responsibility: While the bill’s intent is to promote self-sufficiency by increasing access to job training, it achieves this by subsidizing individuals and institutions with taxpayer funds. This weakens the principle of personal responsibility by shifting the cost burden from the participant or business to the state. Rather than encouraging individuals or private employers to invest in skill-building on their own initiative, the bill fosters dependency on government incentives and grants, however well-intentioned.
• Free Enterprise: The bill introduces public funding into a space typically occupied by the private sector—job training and talent development. This has the potential to distort market dynamics by giving a competitive advantage to grant-funded entities over unsubsidized ones. While some may argue it enhances economic participation, it blurs the boundary between private sector innovation and public sector support, potentially discouraging private investment or allowing political factors to influence which training programs succeed.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not directly impact property rights. It does not authorize new regulations, land use mandates, or any government taking. Its focus is on program administration and funding allocation. However, if expanded in the future, any attached strings (e.g., facility usage conditions or performance mandates for grant recipients) could indirectly affect private entities receiving funds.
• Limited Government: This is the principle most clearly impacted. The bill creates a new grant program, new administrative duties, and anticipates future funding allocations, all of which enlarge the role of state government. It sets a precedent for further workforce-related intervention at the state level. Though the fiscal cost is modest at first, it lays the groundwork for sustained or expanded government involvement in local economic development—a function that traditionally belongs to local communities or market actors.