Texas House Bill HJR144

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 3/11/11
• Refer: 3/23/11

Caption

Proposing a constitutional amendment regarding the dedication by general law of revenue of or money received by this state and money held in or deposited to an account or fund inside or outside the state treasury and the authorized expenditure or appropriation of revenue or money dedicated by general law.

Impact

If enacted, HJR144 would significantly affect the manner in which state revenue is allocated and spent. By enabling designated spending, the amendment seeks to ensure that funds are used for their intended purposes, thereby enhancing fiscal responsibility and transparency. However, it may limit flexibility in financial management, as any change to the designated use of these revenues would require substantial legislative action. This could lead to challenges in responding quickly to changing financial needs within the state.

Summary

HJR144 proposes a constitutional amendment concerning the dedication of state revenue and the authorized spending of funds. The amendment allows the legislature to dedicate funds received by the state from specific sources or those held in identified accounts. However, it restricts the use of these funds to the dedicated purposes unless a subsequent law passed by a two-thirds majority deems otherwise. This establishes a formal approach to financial management within the state constitution, enhancing the legislative authority over financial allocations.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HJR144 appears to be mixed, with supporters advocating for stricter controls on how state funds are appropriated and spent, arguing that it promotes accountability and sound financial governance. Conversely, opponents express concerns about the potential rigidity it imposes on the legislature's ability to adapt to unforeseen circumstances, warning that such restrictions could hinder essential funding for emergent needs or programs prioritized by the community.

Contention

One notable point of contention is the degree of legislative control and flexibility that the amendment would enforce on future appropriations. Critics argue that while the intent is to promote dedicated fund usage, it could inadvertently confine legislative options, leading to potential conflicts when urgent funding is necessary for non-dedicated purposes. This tension underscores the broader debate about the balance between maintaining fiscal discipline and allowing for legislative responsiveness.