Texas Senate Bill SB156

Texas 2013 - 83rd Regular

Caption

Relating to achievement benchmarks in fiscal notes and to legislative review of those benchmarks.

Impact

The implementation of this bill applies to legislation filed on or after September 1, 2013. By requiring detailed evaluation processes before the first day of the third regular legislative session, SB156 seeks to ensure that lawmakers can make informed decisions regarding the continuation or amendment of enacted laws. It creates a structured approach to determining whether programs funded by state expenditures or tax preferences are performing as intended, thus influencing future budgeting and legislative priorities based on historical performance.

Summary

SB156, introduced by Senator West, focuses on establishing achievement benchmarks within fiscal notes associated with proposed legislation. The bill mandates that any fiscal note attached to bills involving state funds or tax preferences must include a statement outlining the purposes of the bill and a set of reasonable benchmarks. These benchmarks aim to provide a framework for assessing the effectiveness of such bills in achieving their stated goals. This initiative is seen as a means to enhance government accountability and ensure that legislative measures are properly evaluated based on their intended outcomes.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding SB156 reflects a positive outlook on enhancing accountability in government financial decisions. Proponents view the bill as a crucial step towards improving oversight of fiscal policy and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are utilized effectively. However, concerns may arise regarding the operational feasibility of implementing these benchmarks and the potential bureaucratic burden it might place on legislative processes.

Contention

Florida's distinctive approach towards legislative accountability is underscored by the expectation of rigorous scrutiny of tax preferences and expenditures. While supporters laud the increased transparency, critics may argue about the complexity and resources it would require to set and monitor these benchmarks. The key contention revolves around striking a balance between creating meaningful performance indicators and ensuring that legislative work is not overly hampered by additional requirements.