According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 322 would have no significant fiscal implications for the State. The bill proposes an expansion of permissible uses for grants under the Jobs and Education for Texans (JET) Grant Program to include acquisition, implementation, and maintenance of technology solutions supporting career and technical education programs.

According to the fiscal note, it is assumed that any costs associated with implementing the bill could be absorbed within existing state resources. This indicates that the Texas Workforce Commission and other involved agencies would not require additional appropriations to manage the expanded grant flexibility.

Similarly, no significant fiscal impact on local governments is anticipated. School districts, charter schools, and public institutions of higher education eligible for JET grants would continue to apply for funding as usual, now with additional allowable expenses for technology infrastructure, but without generating new financial burdens for local budgets.

Although HB 322 is a modest and well-intentioned expansion of the Jobs and Education for Texans (JET) Grant Program, it continues and expands a model of government that is philosophically concerning.

First, the bill relies on the continued use of taxpayer-funded grants to support workforce programs. While education and workforce development are important, they should primarily be market-driven and privately funded, not subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Expanding allowable uses of JET grants — even for technology solutions — deepens government involvement where private partnerships and local initiatives could and should be leading.

Second, although HB 322 does not immediately increase appropriations, expanding grant eligibility for ongoing technology maintenance costs invites future fiscal pressure. Over time, this could lead to calls for larger budgets and expanded funding requests. The bill thus contributes to a pattern of fiscal creep — small expansions today that result in larger taxpayer burdens tomorrow.

Third, relying on the state to fund education technology needs discourages innovation and private-sector solutions. Private businesses, nonprofits, and local communities are better suited to meet evolving technology demands without taxpayer dependency. Expanding grant uses reinforces the idea that the government must fill gaps, rather than empowering local or market-driven initiatives to rise to the challenge.

For these reasons — opposition to taxpayer-funded grants, concerns over long-term fiscal creep, and preference for private-sector leadership — Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 322.

• Individual Liberty: By allowing grants to be used for technology needed in career and technical education (CTE) programs, the bill could marginally expand students' access to educational opportunities that lead to better employment outcomes. This could enhance individual freedom by improving personal economic prospects. However, because the grants are taxpayer-funded rather than privately funded, the bill still involves some coercive redistribution of resources, which can be seen as a subtle infringement on the liberty of taxpayers.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill supports personal responsibility in the sense that it aims to prepare individuals for high-demand careers, encouraging them to take charge of their economic futures. On the other hand, subsidizing technology for CTE programs removes some of the responsibility from local institutions to fund and maintain their own educational resources through private or local means, potentially fostering some dependency on state funding.
• Free Enterprise: The use of taxpayer-funded grants to subsidize educational infrastructure distorts free market incentives. In a true free enterprise system, businesses, individuals, or nonprofits would directly invest in the workforce they need without relying on government grants. By making the government the funder of technology improvements, the bill intervenes in what could otherwise be a purely private-sector response to workforce needs.
• Private Property Rights: Funding grant programs through general tax revenues means property (in the form of taxpayers' income) is being coercively redirected to fund specific government-approved purposes. Although indirect, this infringes on the principle that individuals have the right to control the fruits of their own labor and property.
• Limited Government: While the bill does not expand the government structure itself, it broadens the scope of an existing program by adding new eligible expenses (technology acquisition and maintenance). This moves slightly further away from limited government by increasing what taxpayer funds are allowed to subsidize, even without raising the overall appropriation immediately.

• SB 59 (Same As)