Vote Recommendation | Economic Freedom | Property Rights | Personal Responsibility | Limited Government | Individual Liberty |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
No | Neutral | Neutral | Negative | Negative | Neutral |
Relating to the waiver of
state park, museum, and other state-operated facility entrance fees for persons
with certain disabilities.
No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.
HB 659 would require the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
(TPWD) and the Texas Historical Commission (THC) to waive any entrance fees to any
parks or museums for people with a physical, mental, intellectual, or
developmental disability. This legislation would also waive the fee for that
disabled person’s caretaker.
This bill would require TPWD and THC to consult with the
Health and Human Services Commission (HHS) on developing eligibility requirements
and procedures to implement this new legislation.
While this legislation raises our sympathies, it is important to remember
that if one group receives preferential treatment then it is at the expense of all others.
The author’s statement
of intent argues the purpose of this legislation is “to encourage educational
and recreational outings for Texans with disabilities while lessening the
financial burden on personal care attendants accompanying clients.” The
author’s statement of intent alleges that some caretakers are forced to cover
entry fees to events and venues out of their own pockets. However, we do not
agree that this justifies creating a special exemption from fees that everyone
else is required to pay.
A basic tenant of our
liberty principles is that everyone is treated equally. Allowing a fee waiver
for one group will inevitably raise calls to incorporate other “disadvantaged”
groups. Economically, this means that patrons to a park or museum would have to
pay higher entrance fees since TPWD and THC would have to find ways to recoup
the lost revenue due to these waivers.
Moreover, if
“interested parties” contend that retaining quality personal care attendants is
vital then the employers of these caretakers should not require them to cover
these expenses. In this case, the employers of these caretakers is the state.
This legislation would
absolve the responsibility of the employers or the state to provide or
reimburse their caretakers for taking disabled clients out to a state park or
museum. Ultimately, the caretakers do not have to work for that employer or the
state if they believe they are not being fair by not covering such expenses. In
other words, caretakers are not being forced to pay these fees.
We oppose HB 659
because it undermines our principles for personal responsibility and limited
government. There are better ways of assisting certain disabled people,
such as donating money to cover their entrance fee or requiring the state to
cover such expenses, but creating a law that exempts this group will inevitably
open the door for more people seeking similar exemptions. Liberty has no
prejudices towards certain groups, it requires everyone to be treated the same,
no matter the hardships or circumstances.