As I mentioned yesterday, there is a letter making the rounds asking for the Texas House to pick a "conservative" speaker, presumably because current Speaker Joe Straus isn't conservative enough. I'm assured by some of the signers of that letter that they didn't sign it to support Rep. Warren Chisum's bid to replace Straus, even though he is the only announced candidate. They signed it blindly, I'm told, and in no way should they be connected with the other signers. There is no code language in the letter, they claim, it is just a letter. Fine. Let's just accept that people go around signing their names and their organization's names blindly without thought of the ramifications. And let's agree with Felicia Cravens that it isn't fair for me to group together all of the people that grouped themselves together on that letter. Fine, I'm an unfair guy, no doubt about that. But there is still a race on for Speaker, and if no one else has entered that race, then, as unfair as I am, I still have to say, what would Texas look like if Chisum is elected speaker? So I search around and see that in his very first press conference, the day after the election, he thinks that maybe Texas should "seriously consider opting out of Medicaid" but "can't just walk away".

Interesting because it is both a "fiscal" issue and a "social" one. According to the Legislative Budget Board, for the 2010-11 budget, Texas lawmakers budgeted $16.3 billion in General Revenue funds and $45.0 billion when combined with Federal funds. Obviously a fiscal issue. What happens if we "opt-out" but don't "walk away"?

Hmm. First off, we forget about those federal funds, so we have to start at $16.3 billion and work down from there to save money. We are already what, 49th in spending on subsidized healthcare? Sure, ditching the Federal contribution (your money, btw) will get us the top spot of 50th but what does "can't just walk away" mean?

How low are we willing to go? Like I said, it is both fiscal and social. Chopping that much off and providing a state funded only program will get us what? I'm curious because I can't see how it will save us money. I get that we'll cut the social services spending and that is fine because as Cravens says I'm an unfair person to begin with, but how does it save us money? Seein' as how I'm unfair and all, why not "just walk away"? I don't want some kid in poverty visiting the doctor on my dime, no-sir-eee.

Will one of Chisum's supporters please answer that? Thank you in advance.

Big Unfair Jolly