Estimated Time to Read: 6 minutes
Last week, the Texas Senate unanimously passed Senate Bill 1, sending its budget proposal over to the House. This week, the Texas House Appropriations Committee advanced its own version: the Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1 (CSSB 1). And just like the Senate version, this budget reflects runaway government growth, missed opportunities for reform, and a disappointing comfort with the status quo.
Before advancing CSSB 1, the House Appropriations Committee opted to forgo public testimony entirely, allowing only invited testimony during its hearing on the bill. For a piece of legislation that determines how more than $337 billion in taxpayer money will be spent, this closed-door approach speaks volumes about how little input everyday Texans had in the process.
The full House is expected to take up CSSB 1 soon, and barring any major amendments, the state is poised to adopt the largest and most expensive budget in Texas history—with almost no structural reforms and virtually no relief for Texas families.
A Closer Look at the Spending Breakdown
The proposed Texas House budget for the 2026–27 biennium totals a staggering $337.4 billion in All Funds appropriations. That figure includes:
- $237.4 billion in State Funds (which combines General Revenue, General Revenue–Dedicated, and Other Funds),
- $153.6 billion from General Revenue,
- $7.06 billion from General Revenue–Dedicated funds,
- $76.7 billion from Other Funds, and
- $99.98 billion in Federal Funds.
While the increase from the previous biennium in All Funds is a modest-sounding 1.3%, that number masks a much larger trend: unchecked spending growth over time and a failure to use this historic budget cycle to deliver real reforms.
The biggest share of spending remains in Article III—Education, which receives $134.6 billion, accounting for 39.9% of the entire state budget. Public education alone takes up $101.3 billion of that—a 13.6% increase from the prior biennium. Higher education receives $33.3 billion. Despite this historic investment, the Legislature continues to fund an outdated, top-down system without delivering the reforms Texans want—like universal school choice, merit-based teacher pay, or performance accountability for districts.
Article II—Health and Human Services receives $105.2 billion, or 31.2% of the budget. Medicaid and related programs drive most of this cost. Yet, despite the program’s scale and inefficiency, the committee substitute includes no meaningful attempts to audit waste, reduce costs, or reward innovation. Texans are footing the bill for a system that grows without improving.
Transportation and workforce programs under Article VII (Business and Economic Development) make up $48.9 billion. Despite years of calls to improve transparency and accountability in infrastructure and economic incentives, this funding remains largely unchecked.
Articles like Article I (General Government at $15.3 billion) and Article IV (Judiciary at $1.2 billion) may appear smaller, but they still reflect a governing philosophy rooted in continuity over creativity. In fact, the seeming decrease in Article I spending is more the result of falling off one-time expenditures, not actual belt-tightening.
Where the Budget Falls Short
The Committee Substitute for SB 1 fails to deliver even the most basic conservative priorities. Most notably, it includes no meaningful property tax relief—despite a record surplus and persistent voter demands to reduce the tax burden on homeowners.
There’s also no effort to roll back underperforming or duplicative programs, no push toward outcomes-based budgeting, and no investment in systemic reforms like teacher pay-for-performance or health care price transparency. School choice and parental empowerment are completely left out.
Worse, this entire budget process has been conducted in a way that seems designed to exclude the public. By only allowing invited testimony, the House Appropriations Committee ensured that ordinary Texans—those footing the bill—were kept on the sidelines during deliberations over one of the largest budgets in the state’s history.
And what of the House’s own DOGE (Delivery of Government Efficiency) Committee? This select committee was created to find ways to modernize state operations, reduce waste, and improve efficiency. Yet there’s no indication it was consulted at all during the development of CSSB 1. It’s a clear example of performative governance: talking about reform while ignoring the very mechanisms designed to pursue it.
House Budget vs. Senate Budget: A Race to the Bottom
If you thought the Texas Senate’s budget was bloated, the Texas House said, “Hold my beer.” The Committee Substitute for SB 1 is $1.3 billion larger than the Senate’s version.
According to this analysis by Vance Ginn, a Ph.D. economist and Texas Policy Research board member, at first glance, the increases don’t appear egregious when looking at the Legislative Budget Board’s (LBB) report (see first chart on the left below). But it’s important to note that those comparisons are between 2024–25 spending and 2026–27 appropriations, which isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison. It naturally deflates the appearance of growth.
Source: Vance Ginn, Ph.D., X Post, 3.31.2025
The second chart (center column) presents a more accurate, consistent view by comparing appropriations to appropriations across biennia. Even then, the growth seems somewhat tame—until you look at the real story in the third chart.
That final comparison (right column) contrasts 2026–27 appropriations to those from 2022–23. That’s where things come into full view. Both the House and Senate budgets have increased more than 27% since 2022–23, far outpacing the roughly 20% combined growth of population and inflation over the same period.
So what does this mean? In short:
- The House budget is worse than the Senate’s—not just in size, but in the lack of meaningful conservative reforms.
- Both budgets are excessive, driven by expanding bureaucracies, unsustainable program growth, and failure to prioritize taxpayer relief.
- This isn’t just fiscal negligence—it’s a progressive approach to budgeting wrapped in Republican branding.
This analysis underscores what many fiscal conservatives have warned about: the Texas Legislature is spending like the federal government—expanding faster than the people it serves and delivering diminishing returns for taxpayers.
A Vote for CSSB 1 Is a Vote for a Bigger Government
When lawmakers cast their votes in favor of the Committee Substitute for SB 1, they aren’t just authorizing the expenditure of over $337 billion—they’re endorsing the continued expansion of state government. This budget grows nearly every corner of state bureaucracy without requiring any significant reforms, concessions, or trade-offs in return.
A vote for CSSB 1 is a vote to continue funding an education system that resists innovation, a health care system that eats away at state finances, and economic programs that lack basic oversight. It’s a vote to grow government at the expense of taxpayers still waiting for promised relief.
Supporters of this budget will likely point to record investments in education or infrastructure. But investments without accountability are just expensive distractions. Texans don’t want a bigger government—they want a better one. By passing this budget without changes, lawmakers are signaling they’re fine with the status quo.
For grassroots conservatives, limited government advocates, and working families across Texas, this vote should not be overlooked. It’s more than just budget math—it’s a defining statement about the kind of government we have and the kind Texans deserve.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
