House Status:
Senate Status:
Senate Status:
Minutes for HB2101 - Committee on Welfare Reform
Short Title
Prohibiting municipalities from adopting and implementing a guaranteed income program.
Minutes Content for Thu, Feb 6, 2025
Chairman Awerkamp called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. and opened the hearing on HB2101.
Assistant Revisor Jenna Moyer briefed members on the bill (Attachment 1). She said the bill prohibits municipalities from implementing a guaranteed income program. Responding to a question, she replied that the bill does not differentiate regarding the size of a city or county. She said she would provide further information regarding similar restrictions on cities or counties.
Liesel Crocker, Visiting Fellow, Opportunity Solutions Project (via Web-ex), testified as a proponent for the bill (Attachment 2). She reported that guaranteed income programs are gaining in popularity across the country with 150 such programs being implemented with both private and taxpayer dollars. They are often initiated under the authority of local or city governments with no-strings-attached cash payments. She noted that proponents of such programs say the intent is to build a case for a federal-level taxpayer-funded universal basic income program. She cited a study showing that guaranteed income did not improve recipients' health outcomes, food security, or economic well-being. According to surveys of 30 pilot programs, only nine percent of funds were spent on housing and two perent on health care; most of the funds were spent on retail purchases. She called guaranteed income programs bad public policy that foster government dependency.
Ms. Crocker responded to members' questions:
- Often private entities initiate guaranteed income programs. Recent such programs were created in Des Moines, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. Sometimes the programs are offered with restrictions; they are usually pilot programs, and they are created in conjunction with other programs.
- Where guaranteed income programs were initiated, purchase of cigarettes and alcohol increased. Many guaranteed-income programs originate in California.
- The most common monthly income amount is $1000.
- There is no work requirement associated with this bill.
Ms. Crocker stated that she will provide the Committee with a list of guaranteed-income programs.
Neutral written-only testimony was provided by Jonathan Smith, Executive Director, Lawrence-Douglas County Public Health (Attachment 3)
Spencer Duncan, Government Affairs Director, Kansas League of Municipalities, offered opponent testimony on the bill (Attachment 4). He called the bill a reactionary response to a non-existent problem and a violation of the Kansas Constitution's Home Rule for cities. He explained that there are no cities considering a guaranteed income program and the bill could be interpreted to prohibit other current programs. He also noted that the federal HUD (Housing and Urban Development) definition of cash assistance programs could, under this proposed bill, be construed to jeopardize shelter and child support. He warned about unintended consequences of the bill. To a question. Mr. Duncan replied that Oklahoma's income program is tied to disaster relief and is not applicable to this bill.
A member commented that federal assistance always comes with restrictions; this bill applies only to no-restrictions guaranteed income. Ms. Moyer commented that Kansas currently has many statutes restricting cities.
The following written-only opponent testimony was submitted:
- Jay Hall, Deputy Director and General Counsel, Kansas Association of Counties (Attachment 5);
- Dustin Hare, Economic Security Policy Advisor, Kansas Action for Children (Attachment 6); and
- Richard Pund, Citizen from Overland Park (Attachment 7).
The Chair closed the hearing on HB2101.
