Texas Senate Bill SB962

Texas 2019 - 86th Regular

Caption

Relating to the determination of the sufficient balance of the economic stabilization fund for the purpose of allocating general revenue to that fund and the state highway fund.

Impact

The impacts of SB962 involve adjusting allocations that are required to keep a sustainable balance in the economic stabilization fund, crucial for handling future state budgetary needs. By defining mechanisms for transfers and setting expiration dates on certain provisions, the bill aims to enhance budgetary predictability. This is a significant amendment related to state financial management as it aims to ensure that resources are adequately available for emergencies or economic downturns, thereby promoting financial stability within Texas state government operations.

Summary

Senate Bill 962 addresses the allocation of general revenue to the economic stabilization fund and the state highway fund in Texas. It amends certain sections of the Government Code to ensure that financial transfers to these funds are appropriately adjusted according to the current state fiscal policy. The bill aims to streamline the process of determining the sufficient balance of the economic stabilization fund, which is critical for managing the state's budget, particularly during periods of fiscal uncertainty. The emphasis on fiscal prudence underlies this legislation, as it sets to maintain a robust financial baseline for the state’s economic planning.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB962 appears to be largely positive among legislators, as evidenced by the significant bipartisan support it received during voting, passing the Senate with 31 votes in favor and the House with 140 votes, with very few dissenters. The general consensus that emerged indicates that legislators recognize the importance of fiscal responsibility and are committed to supporting measures that safeguard the economic interests of the state.

Contention

Although SB962 enjoys broad support, notable points of contention could arise around the mechanisms established for the adjustment of allocations, particularly concerning the limits placed on fund transfers. Critics may argue that such controls and adjustments may not account for unexpected financial needs that arise during economic fluctuations. Furthermore, the expiration dates tied to certain provisions could be seen as problematic in maintaining continuous support for these funds beyond their stipulated limits.