Mariah Young says she grew so used to having the water shut off because of late utility bills, she didn’t realize it could be another way.
“I would have to hurry up and figure something out because I didn’t want my kids coming home and not being able to take a shower,� Young, a mother of three, said.
But Young says she no longer has to worry about the pipes running dry. Young is one of 97 people receiving $1,000 a month for a year as part of Austin’s guaranteed income program. Young says most of that money has gone to utilities and debt that piled up during the pandemic.
Guaranteed income programs typically offer low-income people monthly cash payments with no requirements on how that money can be spent. Baltimore, New Orleans and Los Angeles all had or currently have guaranteed income programs.
But as quickly as these programs have been embraced, so, too, have they been attacked. In the past couple years, Iowa, Idaho and Arkansas have banned guaranteed income. And Texas may join them.
Senate Bill 2010, filed by Republican Sen. Paul Bettencourt, prohibits direct or indirect cash payments to individuals by a local government. The bill has been voted out of the Senate and is awaiting a hearing in the House. If it becomes law, it would go into effect on Sept. 1.
Officials, including Bettencourt, have been questioning the legality of guaranteed income for more than a year.
In 2024, Attorney General Ken Paxton sued to halt Harris County’s guaranteed income program. The county planned to use federal funds to give $500 a month for a year and a half to about 1,900 people.
In his lawsuit, Paxton argued the county that includes Houston didn’t have the authority or legal right to hand cash to residents without limits.
A ruling from the Texas Supreme Court froze the program.
“There is no such thing as free money � especially in Texas,� Paxton wrote in the lawsuit. He said a gift clause in the state constitution does not allow public funds to be sent to private citizens without a clear use.
The same arguments have been made in the Legislature. In a public hearing in April, Bettencourt said lawmakers� job was to decide whether these kinds of programs do indeed violate the state constitution and whether they should be explicitly outlawed.
Others have argued taxpayer money should not be spent to help low-income families with no guardrails.
“There shouldn’t be government entities in charge of these programs,� Rep. Ellen Troxclair, a Republican from the Austin area, said at a committee hearing in March. “If a nonprofit wants to do that they are more than welcome.� Troxclair filed a bill to outlaw guaranteed income programs, but it has since died in the House.
Supporters of these bills point out that guaranteed income programs do not require participants to work, which is common in federal aid programs. They argue this could lead to people working fewer hours and becoming dependent on government assistance.
But research on the impacts of guaranteed income on employment are mixed. One study people receiving $1,000 a month worked, on average, 1.3 hours less a week than people not receiving this cash. have found no impacts on work hours or, in one study of Alaskans, participants increased their part-time employment hours.
But opponents of outlawing guaranteed income argue that in the face of low wages and expensive housing, these kinds of programs are lifelines.
“Do you know what it feels like to work yourself to exhaustion and still not have enough? To have to choose between rent and groceries?� Ashleigh Hamilton, who participated in a guaranteed income program, asked lawmakers at a hearing in March. “Between childcare and healthcare?�
Researchers have found that those receiving cash through these programs spend the money on essentials, such as housing and food.
Researchers with the Urban Institute surveyed people who participated in an earlier iteration of Austin’s guaranteed income program. Forty percent of those who received the money responded. And a vast majority said they spent most of the $1,000 a month on rent or mortgage payments.
Support for KUT's reporting on housing news comes from the and . Sponsors do not influence KUT's editorial decisions.
