According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of SB 20233 are currently indeterminate due to uncertainty around the level of funding that would be required to operate the deceased paupers grant program. As introduced, the bill authorizes the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) to administer a grant program for counties to help pay for the disposition of unclaimed or indigent decedents' bodies. However, HHSC does not currently operate a similar program and lacks sufficient data or precedent to estimate the total cost of statewide implementation.

While the bill establishes a dedicated account within the General Revenue Fund to receive appropriations, gifts, donations, and interest earnings, the initial size and expected inflow to this fund remain undefined. HHSC anticipates that appropriations would be necessary to launch the program and that those costs could be significant depending on the number of counties that apply and the per-case expense of pauper disposition services.

Administratively, HHSC estimates it would require 1.5 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) to manage the grant program. However, those staffing-related expenses are expected to be minimal and would not constitute a major fiscal burden. The bill’s creation of a new dedicated account also makes it subject to legislative review under Texas's fund consolidation policies, which could affect how the account is treated in the broader state budget.

On the local government side, the bill could provide financial relief to counties currently bearing these costs alone. Still, the magnitude of benefit to individual counties cannot be determined until program parameters, funding levels, and local demand are more clearly defined.

SB 2023 proposes the creation of a discretionary grant program administered by the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) to assist counties in covering the costs associated with the burial or cremation of deceased paupers. While the bill responds to a genuine need—particularly in counties like El Paso that have seen a rise in indigent deaths post-pandemic—it does so by expanding the role of state government. The program would be funded through a new dedicated account in the general revenue fund, which could receive appropriations, donations, or interest income. Although the program is optional for counties and the HHSC is not mandated to implement it, the bill still authorizes a new state-level mechanism with ongoing administrative oversight.

From a limited government perspective, this raises several concerns. First, the bill authorizes the creation of a new grant infrastructure and the hiring of additional staff at HHSC, signaling growth in the size and function of state bureaucracy. Second, while no specific funding is allocated in the bill itself, the framework it establishes will likely result in future legislative appropriations, thereby placing a potential and recurring burden on Texas taxpayers. The long-term fiscal implications remain uncertain, and there is no built-in cap or sunset provision to prevent future expansion or cost escalation.

For lawmakers committed to reducing government involvement in local responsibilities and avoiding the creation of new programs reliant on public funds, SB 2023 sets a precedent that could be difficult to contain. Counties already have a statutory duty to manage pauper burials, and state intervention, while well-intentioned, risks eroding local accountability and creating dependency on state subsidies. For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 2023 to maintain a consistent stance in favor of restrained, fiscally conservative governance.

• Individual Liberty: The bill respects the dignity of individuals who die without family or means by supporting a respectful and lawful disposition of their remains. While it doesn’t expand personal freedoms in the classic sense, it ensures that even the most vulnerable—those who die indigent and alone—are treated with basic human decency, a value tied to a society that honors individual worth. However, because the bill does not address personal choice, bodily autonomy, or civil rights, its direct impact on individual liberty is limited.

• Personal Responsibility: The bill could subtly undermine the principle of personal responsibility by shifting what is traditionally a county-level and community-based obligation to the state. By offering financial relief to counties, it may reduce the incentive for local officials or communities to plan, budget, or seek charitable partnerships for these services. This kind of fiscal outsourcing can dilute the expectation that local governments should manage their own responsibilities independently and efficiently.

• Free Enterprise: The bill does not interfere with private business activity or impose new regulations on the funeral industry. In fact, if counties use grant funds to contract with private service providers (as they typically do), those businesses may see indirect financial benefit. However, the bill does not promote free enterprise either—it operates within a government-to-government funding model and does not increase market competition or innovation.

• Private Property Rights: There is no clear connection between the bill and the protection or infringement of private property rights. The bill deals with government obligations for unclaimed bodies, not the taking or use of private property. Thus, it is neutral on this liberty principle.

• Limited Government: This is where the bill most clearly conflicts with liberty principles. By creating a new grant program, a dedicated account, and expanding the administrative scope of HHSC, the bill increases the size and role of state government. Even though implementation is optional and funding is not mandated, the infrastructure for future spending and regulation is established. This opens the door to mission creep and potentially recurring taxpayer obligations. For those who adhere strictly to limited government principles, this represents a concerning expansion, even if well-intentioned.