To borrow the “Sesame Street” sponsorship saying, the 2013 Mississippi Legislative Session will be brought to you by the letter “M.”

     Predominantly, that will stand for Medicaid and Money. An “E” for Education – primarily as it pertains to charter schools – will also be part of the alphabet soup, but in the end that will likely relate back to money as well.

     Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the health care reform act – but ruled that states could not be punished for not going along with expanding Medicaid services – the issue of whether to increase Medicaid services has been Topic No. 1 when the legislative session is discussed.

     The debate will soon commence in earnest when state lawmakers convene Tuesday. The session is scheduled to last three months.

     The Medicaid expansion issue pits Republican state leadership versus Democrats and the state’s hospital association. How the issue is resolved will play a large role in shaping other state plans both in 2013 and into the future.

     Republicans contend that expanding Medicaid will be a “budget-buster,” despite the fact that the federal government will be picking up the full tab for the first few years. Democrats and hospital officials maintain the poorest state in the nation cannot afford to turn down money that will help expand health care access for thousands, as well as offer some potential economic development benefits.

     While not directly related to Medicaid expansion, but still a part of the health care reform law, a brewing intra-Republican turf feud between Gov. Phil Bryant and Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney could add a little grist for the political mill. Chaney has moved forward with a required setup of a health insurance exchange program, but Bryant – a staunch Obamacare opponent – has been lobbying federal officials to reject Mississippi’s plan.

     In money matters, Bryant and state lawmakers are several million dollars apart on budget proposals. Bryant has presented a $5.8 billion plan while lawmakers are eyeing around $5.5 billion in spending.

     On the positive side, both budget proposals seek to reduce state reliance on “one-time money,” which refers to money only available one time a year, such as funds from lawsuit settlements. At any level, funding recurring expenses with “one-time money” creates a recipe for trouble down the road.

     In another difference from Bryant, state lawmakers seem to be a little more concerned about economic conditions down the road. They want to put away some funds as a financial cushion for future challenges.

     “We have to stay within our means,” said Philip Gunn, speaker of the House.

     Money will likely be a big motivator in the discussion of charter schools, set to be a “hot button” topic of the upcoming session.

     Efforts to enact charter schools, which supporters say will boost educational opportunities for students in struggling districts, failed during the 2012 session.

     The issue has again received much talk in advance of this year’s session, and some political observers expect passage of some kind of bill in 2013. Public education supporters, however, will be doing their homework to ensure any charter school legislation doesn’t negatively impact local school districts.

     In the grand scheme of things, three months is not a long period of time. However, the three-month legislative period that starts Tuesday will loom large in determining the state’s future condition.