https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/Texas_2017_ballot_measures<\/a><\/p>\nIf you can read the ballot with understanding, \u201c\u2026 you\u2019re a better man than I am, Gunga Din.\u201d\u00a0 We have always suspected that the wording is deliberately designed so that the average voter cannot understand it.\u00a0 So\u2026 when you don\u2019t understand something, ALWAYS vote NO!!<\/p>\n
Here are our recommendations.<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0 NO
\nAuthorizes tax exemption for property of partially disabled veterans received as donations <\/strong>
\nCreates yet another special category of tax-exempt property owner, this time the disabled vet, but only on houses received as donations from charitable organizations.\u00a0 How many houses can we possibly be talking about here?\u00a0 20?\u00a0 2,000?
\nWe have a better idea:\u00a0 \u201cRequire charitable donations to include mortgage insurance on every house they give away.\u201d<\/p>\n2.\u00a0 NO
\nMakes changes to home equity loan provision of constitution <\/strong>
\nThere are clearly two schools of thought on this \u2013 \u201cIt\u2019s your property, if you want to borrow against it, it\u2019s your right.\u201d\u00a0 On the other hand, banks are predatory.\u00a0 We really believe \u201cthe borrower is a slave to the lender,\u201d and the practice of banks lending money to elderly people, for small amounts of cash, at ridiculous interest rates, and then taking away their homes when they can\u2019t pay \u2013 that is a practice which needs to be forbidden by law.
\nBottom line here is that anything that makes it easier for the banks to do, in terms of extending their monopoly and their power to prey on people, we are opposed to it.<\/p>\n3.\u00a0 Absolutely, YES!
\nProvides for how long an appointed officer may serve after his or her term expires <\/strong>
\nAnything that helps remove bureaucrats and non-elected functionaries from office the sooner, and stops their hanging around until a replacement comes, the better.<\/p>\n4.\u00a0 NO
\nRequires a court to provide notice to the attorney general of a challenge to a statute <\/strong>
\nThey\u2019ll find out soon enough.\u00a0 Why invite the State to send an attorney, at taxpayer expense, to a lower court to fight that taxpayer?<\/p>\n5.\u00a0 NO
\nDefines\u00a0professional sports team<\/em>\u00a0in charitable raffles <\/strong>
\nExpands the gambling habit to more sports groups.\u00a0 We see no reason to assist in that.\u00a0 Again, two schools of thought, but we\u2019re opposed to government controls on gambling, and to gambling itself.\u00a0 In any event, if the monopolistic, state-sponsored professional sports teams want it, we\u2019re against it.<\/p>\n6.\u00a0 NO
\nAuthorizes property tax exemption for surviving spouses of first responders killed in line of duty <\/strong>
\nCreates yet another special category of tax-exempt property owner, this \u201cfeel-good\u201d provision that makes first responders even more an elite category of public servant.
\nAgain, here\u2019s a better idea:\u00a0 \u201cRequire all employers to include a mortgage insurance policy which pays off a mortgage when a first-responder dies in the line of duty.\u201d\u00a0 Or, in any way for that matter.\u00a0 Mortgage insurance is fairly cheap.\u00a0 No need to amend the constitution to accomplish that.\u00a0 Why do we smell a Special Interest in this one?<\/p>\n7.\u00a0 YES
\nAuthorizes credit unions to promote their services through promotions, which they are currently not allowed today, thanks to big banks keeping their hands tied.\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n