Texas House Bill HJR5

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Filed: 11/19/10
• Introduced: 11/19/10
• Refer: 2/21/11

Caption

Proposing a constitutional amendment regarding an increase in the maximum amount to be retained in the constitutional economic stabilization fund and dedicating for deposit in that fund certain sales and use tax revenues.

Impact

This proposed amendment could significantly alter how Texas manages its revenue collection and allocation, particularly concerning sales and use tax revenues. By dedicating specific sales and use tax revenues for deposit into the economic stabilization fund, the bill is positioned as a tool for fiscal stability. If adopted, state officials may have increased flexibility in fund management, allowing for more strategic budgeting that aligns with historical revenue trends. This change could also reinforce the fund's capacity to provide financial security against economic fluctuations.

Summary

HJR5 is a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment aimed at increasing the maximum retention amount within Texas's economic stabilization fund, commonly referred to as the 'rainy day fund.' The resolution seeks to adjust subsection parameters concerning the fund, particularly raising the maximum amount to be retained from 10% to 15% of the total amount deposited. By doing so, it aims to better allocate state funds during economic downturns or exigencies, ensuring that the state has sufficient reserves to address budgetary complexities or revenue shortfalls.

Sentiment

Discussions surrounding HJR5 express a generally positive sentiment from proponents who view the amendment as a crucial step towards fiscal prudence and sustainability. The sentiment reflects a desire for proactive measures to ensure that the state is better prepared for financial challenges. However, there are concerns raised by some stakeholders about the implications of increasing the funds retained in the stabilization fund, primarily regarding the potential negative impact on immediate funding available for state services and programs.

Contention

Despite the supportive stance from many legislators, notable points of contention arise around the prioritization of funds. Some critics assert that increasing the stabilization fund limits available revenue that could otherwise be used for critical public services, such as education and infrastructure. Additionally, debates center on the implications of dedicating a larger portion of sales tax revenues to the stabilization fund when immediate needs may require those funds elsewhere, highlighting a fundamental tension in state resource management between safeguarding future fiscal stability and addressing current public service demands.