HCR 118 is a nonbinding resolution that does not authorize spending, mandate new programs, or create a regulatory framework. As such, it carries no direct fiscal impact on the state budget. It does not appropriate funds or require implementation by any state agency. The resolution serves as a formal statement of support rather than an actionable policy directive, and thus does not generate immediate costs to the state.

However, should the intent of the resolution translate into future legislative or executive actions—such as incentives for warship manufacturers, expansion of port infrastructure, or workforce training programs—those developments could carry significant fiscal implications. For example, port modernization projects and facility construction could require public investment or partnerships with private sector entities. Similarly, workforce development initiatives might call for expanded funding to higher education institutions or technical training programs to prepare a skilled labor force in maritime and defense manufacturing.

Additionally, if the resolution contributes to attracting federal defense contracts or private shipbuilding investment, it could result in increased state and local revenues over time through job creation, industrial expansion, and associated economic activity. Any such benefits or costs would depend on subsequent policy choices and private sector engagement, not on the resolution itself. In summary, while HCR 118 has no direct fiscal effect, its aspirational goals could lead to future budgetary considerations if the state moves to act on its recommendations.

Texas Policy Research remains NEUTRAL on HCR 118. While the resolution expresses support for expanding the warship manufacturing industry in Texas—potentially providing economic benefits such as job creation and infrastructure development—it also implicitly supports the continued growth of the military-industrial complex at a time when the United States is not in an active state of war. This raises valid concerns about the fiscal and ethical implications of further entrenching the state economy in defense manufacturing.

From a liberty-oriented standpoint, the resolution avoids mandates or expenditures and does not violate individual or property rights. However, its focus on encouraging warship production presumes an ongoing need for military expansion, which may contradict principles of limited government and responsible public spending. Supporting this resolution could be interpreted as endorsing the redirection of state or federal resources toward military build-up, rather than toward pressing domestic needs or debt reduction.

While the economic development aspects of the resolution may appeal to proponents of free enterprise, it is important to recognize that defense industries are uniquely reliant on government contracts and subsidies—often shielded from market discipline. Texas Policy Research remains NEUTRAL on HCR 118.

• Individual Liberty: The resolution has no direct effect—positive or negative—on individual liberty. It does not propose restrictions, surveillance, or mandates on personal behavior, nor does it expand rights. As a nonbinding expression of support, it merely conveys a policy position on industrial development without affecting individual autonomy.
• Personal Responsibility: HCR 118 neither promotes nor undermines personal responsibility directly. However, by encouraging state involvement in expanding a specific industry—especially one traditionally dependent on government contracts—it could be seen as de-emphasizing the role of individual initiative and market accountability in favor of state-aligned economic direction. On the other hand, if interpreted as a call to develop a skilled workforce and invest in port infrastructure, it could promote self-reliance and economic opportunity.
• Free Enterprise: The resolution offers a mixed message. On the surface, it promotes industrial growth, which aligns with free enterprise. But warship manufacturing is not a free market activity in the traditional sense—it is heavily dependent on federal defense spending, long-term procurement contracts, and regulatory protections. Supporting this sector risks bolstering a government-dependent industry, potentially distorting market competition and drawing resources away from less subsidized sectors of the economy.
• Private Property Rights: No property rights are impacted directly by this resolution. However, if future implementation of the resolution’s goals involved eminent domain or government acquisition of land for shipyard expansion or port development, concerns could arise. At present, HCR 118 does not authorize or imply such actions, but vigilance would be warranted in future related proposals.
• Limited Government: This is where the resolution's impact is most debatable. While it does not expand government power or impose new laws, it does signal support for a government-facilitated industrial policy in the defense sector. Such signaling could lead to increased public investment, subsidies, or regulatory incentives aimed at boosting military manufacturing. These would conflict with the principle that government should be limited in scope and not direct or prioritize sectors of the economy, especially when no imminent national security threat exists.