Texas Lieut. Gov. Dan Patrick's Legislature

That is primarily of interest to Texas residents.

Open Email to Lieut. Gov. Dan Patrick:

Dear Lt. Gov.
Your latest newsletter concentrated on the recently passed budget by the Texas Legislature, which in your judgment has made wonderful progress.
I completely disagree for the following reasons:
While the legislature substantially reduced business and property taxes, the gain was essentially blown away by subsequent increases for social engineering, which ultimately led to a 5% budget increase.
Here's the way the legislature now plans to fritter away state revenues through social engineering:
it fully funds public education plus an additional $1.5B to increase the basic allotment formula from $5,040 to $5,134 in 2016 and $5,140 in 2017, improves equity and provides funding for more school facilities. Reforms education by providing $60M for math and reading training for K-3 teachers. Adds $25M for career counseling for middle school students.
That's all wrong. It is not the responsibility of the state government to educate its people nor use state funds for developing systems and grants which accomplish the same thing. The responsibility for education lies with the populace. It achieves its education through its own expenditure of personal funds, in cooperation with private educational institutions, and the support of various private trusts. The state should be out of the education business. Each municipality continues its educational programs through a school board, which hires qualified teachers usually funded by local property taxes. The responsibility for qualifying for a job lies within the individuals, not within the state to grant funds to make individuals qualified.
Similarly, the budge adds $60M for Graduate Medical Education to provide sufficient funding for every Texas medical school graduate to have a residency in Texas. It is the responsibility of hospitals to provide for facilities and funding for residency of qualifying medical school graduates. Hospitals do so through their normal budgetary process, wherein they obtain work from the medical school graduate residents.
Increasing mental health funding by $258.8 million is too nebulous. Are we short of psychiatric retention facilities to incur individuals dangerous to our society? If so, let's say so. Otherwise, I will consider it an expense down another rathole.
With respect to women's health, there is no need for any state funding. If women have health problems, they go to the doctor, the same as men, and children. If they are unable to afford it, they are declared indigent and receive the benefits of welfare, which should have nothing to do with a $50 million allocation for "women's health".
Conversely, I agree with an $811 million increase for border security. It is the federal government's responsibility to do that job, but the record shows that they have not and will not act to preserve the rule of law. This still leaves the problem wide open and we will have to do our best to fill the gap.
I also agree with the expenditure for highway construction and improvement. I generally avoid or the socialistic aspect of a highway system, but it is one of the fewer aspects of socialism that we need to accept for the benefit of the greater good. The previous record of the socialistic highway system has shown that it is not detrimental to the welfare and development of the people.