According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 2010 would have no fiscal implication to the state. This means that the bill would not result in any direct cost or savings to state government agencies or the overall state budget. The prohibition on using state funds for guaranteed income programs reinforces this assessment, as it eliminates the possibility of future financial obligations related to such programs at the state level​.

However, the fiscal impact on local governments could be more tangible. The bill would prohibit political subdivisions from initiating or continuing guaranteed income programs unless specifically authorized by federal law and without the use of state or local funds. For localities currently operating pilot programs or planning similar initiatives—such as city-funded universal basic income pilots—this bill would require the cessation or restructuring of those programs. The fiscal consequence could include the loss of planned expenditures or the need to reallocate funds already committed.

In essence, while the bill maintains fiscal neutrality for the state, it may curtail or eliminate financial commitments by cities or counties toward guaranteed income efforts. For local governments with such programs in place, this could result in short-term administrative costs related to winding down operations or reallocating unused funds. For those considering new programs, the bill would block future spending, preserving funds but limiting policy flexibility at the local level.

SB 2010 is grounded in a constitutional rationale. As noted in the bill analysis, Article III, Section 52 of the Texas Constitution prohibits the state or its subdivisions from making gifts of public funds to private individuals or entities. SB 2010 responds to recent instances where cities and counties used federal pandemic aid to fund local guaranteed income programs, which distribute unconditional cash to individuals. The legislation seeks to align local government practices with constitutional principles by preventing further expansion of these programs unless explicitly authorized by federal law.

From a fiscal and policy standpoint, the bill has no anticipated impact on the state budget, but it may restrict or end certain programs at the local level. The restriction on using both state and local public funds—even when federal law authorizes such a program—represents a clear line drawn in favor of limiting government redistribution of income and protecting taxpayer resources. Importantly, the bill also includes exceptions for short-term, nonrenewable programs that involve job training or employment requirements, preserving space for workforce development without enabling unconditional aid​.

Overall, SB 2010 strongly advances the principles of limited government, personal responsibility, and fiscal restraint while reinforcing constitutional constraints on the use of public funds. From a liberty-first perspective, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 2010.

• Individual Liberty: The bill safeguards the broader principle of liberty by ensuring that public resources are not used to confer selective benefits funded through coercive taxation. It promotes equal treatment under the law and avoids creating classes of recipients funded by non-consenting taxpayers.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces the principle that financial support should be tied to action, such as work or training. By prohibiting unconditional payments, the bill encourages individuals to engage in productive activity rather than depend on government support with no strings attached. It preserves the ethic that assistance should be a bridge—not a long-term substitute—for personal effort.
• Free Enterprise: Guaranteed income programs risk distorting labor markets by reducing the incentive to work, especially in entry-level or lower-wage positions. By prohibiting local governments from establishing these programs, the bill supports a labor market that functions without artificial wage substitutes and protects the role of private enterprise in creating economic opportunity. It avoids the unintended consequence of local governments acting as de facto welfare providers that compete with employers for workers.
• Private Property Rights: The bill upholds the principle that taxpayers have a right to expect that their earnings, taken through taxation, will not be redistributed arbitrarily or unconstitutionally. Article III, Section 52 of the Texas Constitution is cited in the bill analysis to reinforce that public money should not be used as a gift to individuals. This ensures that local governments cannot repurpose taxpayer money in ways that infringe on the contributors’ property rights without due process or consent.
• Limited Government: At its core, this bill is a statement against the expansion of government authority at the local level. It limits the ability of municipalities and counties to establish new entitlement-style programs, maintaining a clear line between state responsibilities and federal allowances. By requiring explicit federal authorization and banning the use of state and local funds, the bill tightly constrains local governments from engaging in expansive social policy experiments. This is a direct reinforcement of limited government philosophy.

Examining Texas’ Proposed Ban on Local Guaranteed Income Programs

Texas Court Temporarily Halts Harris County Guaranteed Income Program

Paxton Sues Harris County to Block Guaranteed Income Program

Harris County’s Latest Approach to Guaranteed Income Amid Legal Scrutiny

• HB 530 (Same As)
• SB 395 (Same As)