In Texas, guaranteed income programs, which provide cash payments to low-income individuals without strings attached, may continue following the failure of state lawmakers to pass legislation aimed at prohibiting such initiatives.
A series of four bills were introduced by Republican lawmakers during this session with the intent to stop these programs, arguing that public funds should not be allocated to individuals without specific objectives.
While there was initial momentum for one bill, Senate Bill 2010 led by state Senator Paul Bettencourt, ultimately, all proposed legislation fell short of becoming law.
Senate Bill 2010 gained traction in the Senate where it was passed but faced roadblocks in the House and eventually failed to progress further.
Neither Bettencourt nor state Representative Ellen Troxclair, a co-author of the bills, responded to inquiries about the outcome.
Guaranteed income programs are increasingly embraced across various cities in the U.S., including New York, Los Angeles, and New Orleans, where the need for such financial safety nets has been recognized, especially amid escalating costs of living.
Ashleigh Hamilton, who participated in a Texas guaranteed income initiative during the pandemic, expressed her views on the importance of such programs, stating they bridge the gap between mere survival and the ability to thrive.
Since 2022, Austin has implemented its own guaranteed income program, which committed to providing 97 residents with $1,000 monthly for a full year.
The final payments for this program were distributed in May of the previous year.
Despite the acknowledgment of the benefits of these initiatives, they have faced considerable criticism.
States governed by Republican majorities, including Iowa, Arkansas, and Idaho, have enacted policies to ban guaranteed income programs altogether.
Before the session even began, the intent to target guaranteed income was evident, as Bettencourt had previously requested an investigation from Attorney General Ken Paxton regarding the constitutionality of these programs.
Later, Paxton raised questions about the legality of Harris County’s initiative and subsequently filed a lawsuit to block its execution, with the Texas Supreme Court ruling to freeze the program.
In the lawsuit, Paxton emphasized that the concept of ‘free money’ contradicts Texas’s fiscal principles, referencing a constitutional clause that restricts the provision of public funds to individuals without a defined purpose.
Lawmakers echoed this sentiment during hearings, expressing concerns that government-funded cash programs might discourage work among participants.
Research regarding the impact of such guaranteed income on employment yields mixed results.
One study indicated that recipients of a $1,000 monthly payment worked an average of 1.3 hours less each week compared to non-recipients, while other studies reported no significant effect on work hours.
In discussions, lawmakers did not extensively evaluate how participants utilized the income they received, despite it being a common point of contention.
Research from Austin’s program revealed that a majority of participants allocated the funds towards essential expenditures, particularly housing costs, whether for rent or mortgage.
As for Austin’s future with its guaranteed income program, discussions remain ongoing.
Mayor Pro Tem Vanessa Fuentes, previously a proponent of guaranteed income, indicated her intention to advocate for its continuation during the city’s upcoming budget finalization in August.
image source from：https://www.kut.org/politics/2025-06-03/austin-texas-guaranteed-income-bills-fail-legislature
