Requesting The Legislative Reference Bureau, In Consultation With The Department Of Business, Economic Development, And Tourism; Department Of Human Services; And University Of Hawaii Economic Research Organization, To Conduct A Feasibility Study On Establishing A Guaranteed Universal Basic Income Program For Working Families In Hawaii.
H.R. 174 is a House Resolution that asks the Legislative Reference Bureau, working with the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, the Department of Human Services, and the University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization, to study whether Hawaii should establish a guaranteed universal basic income program for working families. The resolution frames the issue around Hawaii’s high cost of living, wage stagnation, and the financial strain faced by working households that often hold multiple jobs yet still struggle to afford housing, food, childcare, transportation, and other necessities.
The requested study is broad and would examine possible program designs, eligibility rules, estimated costs, funding sources, likely effects on poverty and workforce participation, lessons from guaranteed income pilots elsewhere, and whether Hawaii could implement its own pilot program. The resolution also directs the bureau to report findings and any proposed legislation to the Legislature before the 2027 regular session.
Because HR 174 is a resolution rather than a bill, it does not itself change state law or create a program. Its practical effect would be to initiate a formal policy study that could inform future legislation on guaranteed income or universal basic income for working families. It would engage state agencies and UHERO in evaluating fiscal, administrative, and policy implications, and could lead to proposed legislation or a pilot program if the study supports that path.
The resolution appears generally favorable and exploratory in tone. Its findings section emphasizes economic hardship in Hawaii and cites positive outcomes from guaranteed income pilots in other jurisdictions, suggesting support for at least examining the concept seriously. No committee testimony, votes, or recorded opposition were provided, so the available context shows no documented controversy in the materials supplied.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be cost, funding, and program design. The resolution specifically asks the study to assess estimated costs, possible funding sources, eligibility criteria, and workforce participation effects, which indicates those issues are central to evaluating the proposal. Possible concerns for critics would include whether a guaranteed income program would be affordable, whether it might discourage work, and whether a pilot or statewide program would be the best use of public resources; supporters are likely to focus on poverty reduction, economic stability, and relief for working families in a high-cost state.