No, Military Widows Did Not Cost Bexar County $1.3 Billion
No, Military Widows Did Not Cost Bexar County $1.3 Billion
There is a very big difference between $1.3 billion in property value and $1.3 billion in government revenue.
There is also a very big difference between a budget problem and a surviving-spouse problem.
Those distinctions matter.
Recently, the San Antonio Report examined claims surrounding Bexar County's proposed budget and approximately $1.3 billion in taxable property value associated with veteran-related property-tax exemptions.
Obviously, as a military surviving spouse and advocate, that caught my attention.
Then something unexpected happened.
I found myself quoted in the article.
Apparently, the reporter found one of my Facebook posts, followed it back to my blog, and quoted me.
That was a fun little "Wait... that's ME!" moment.
But once I got past that surprise, something much more important stood out:
Why are we talking about military widows as though they are the reason government is having trouble balancing its budget?
Let's Start With the $1.3 Billion
That's a scary number.
Say that Bexar County "lost $1.3 billion" while discussing property-tax exemptions and most people are going to picture $1.3 billion disappearing from county coffers.
That's not what happened.
We're talking about taxable property value, not $1.3 billion in tax revenue.
Those are very different things.
If $1.3 billion in property becomes exempt from a particular property tax, the government does not suddenly have a $1.3 billion hole in its checking account.
The actual revenue effect depends on the applicable tax rate and other factors.
That distinction should be made crystal clear anytime these numbers are discussed publicly.
Now Let's Talk About the Widows
According to data obtained by the San Antonio Report from the Bexar Appraisal District, the newly expanded surviving-spouse exemption covered:
73 properties.
The total exempted property value was approximately:
$24.8 million.
Not $1.3 billion.
Not $500 million.
Not even $100 million.
Approximately $24.8 million in property value.
Again, that does not mean Bexar County wrote military widows a $24.8 million check.
It means that property value became exempt from taxation.
That's how property-tax exemptions work.
But I Don't Want to Play the Blame Game
Here's where I want to be very clear.
My response isn't:
"Military widows didn't cause the problem. Disabled veterans did."
Absolutely not.
I'm not interested in moving the target from one military population to another.
Veterans shouldn't be blamed.
Disabled veterans shouldn't be blamed.
Military surviving spouses shouldn't be blamed.
And advocates shouldn't allow government budget debates to turn into veterans and survivors fighting over which group costs taxpayers more.
That's exactly the kind of divide-and-conquer nonsense we should refuse to participate in.
If Bexar County has a budget problem, then let's talk about the budget.
What Are We Spending?
Government budgets have two sides.
Revenue matters.
So does spending.
If officials say the county cannot afford something because taxable property value has changed, taxpayers should be asking what happened on the other side of the ledger.
How much has county spending increased over the last five years?
Which departments have grown?
Which programs have expanded?
How much has payroll increased?
How much has been added in new positions?
What contracts have increased?
What capital projects have been approved?
What new programs have been created?
Which expenses are mandatory?
Which expenses are discretionary?
Which programs are producing measurable results?
And perhaps most importantly:
What has Bexar County done to control spending before pointing toward taxpayers who legally qualify for exemptions?
Those aren't anti-government questions.
They're basic budget questions.
An Exemption Is Not an Accounting Error
Texas didn't accidentally create these exemptions.
They are public policy.
Lawmakers debated them.
Legislation was passed.
And in the case of Proposition 7, Texas voters approved the constitutional amendment.
The people of Texas decided that certain surviving spouses whose veterans died because of service-connected diseases deserved this property-tax protection.
That's not a loophole.
That's not somebody gaming the system.
That's the law.
Likewise, disabled-veteran exemptions exist because Texas made a deliberate policy decision about how severely disabled veterans should be treated under the property-tax system.
You can debate whether any tax exemption is good policy.
That's fair.
But once the policy exists, government should build its budget around the law rather than acting surprised that eligible people actually use the benefit.
Government Doesn't Get to Budget as Though Exemptions Don't Exist
This is something that bothers me about the broader conversation.
Property-tax exemptions aren't exactly a new concept.
Homestead exemptions exist.
Senior exemptions exist.
Disabled-person exemptions exist.
Veteran exemptions exist.
Survivor exemptions exist.
Governments know this.
Appraisal districts know this.
Budget offices know this.
So budgets should be constructed using realistic assumptions about the taxable property base.
If more eligible people begin using an exemption, government may need to adjust its projections.
That's budgeting.
But an increase in the use or value of lawful exemptions doesn't automatically mean the people receiving them caused a budget crisis.
Sometimes revenue projections change.
Sometimes property values change.
Sometimes costs increase.
And sometimes government simply spends more money.
All of those things deserve examination.
Follow the Money in Both Directions
I've written before about following the money when analyzing legislation.
The same rule applies to government budgets.
Don't only ask:
"How much revenue did government lose?"
Ask:
"How much did government spend?"
Then ask:
"How much more is it spending than last year?"
Then:
"Why?"
Those questions belong together.
A government entity can experience revenue growth and still claim it has a budget problem if spending grows faster.
Likewise, revenue can decline while spending remains unchanged.
You cannot understand the financial condition of a government by looking at only one side of the ledger.
Yet politically, pointing to a tax exemption is much easier than explaining every line of a multimillion-dollar budget.
"$1.3 billion in exempt property value" makes a great talking point.
"Here are the dozens of spending decisions we've made over several budget cycles" doesn't fit nearly as nicely on a PowerPoint slide.
This Is Why Proposition 7 Exists
And somewhere underneath all these spreadsheets are actual people.
Proposition 7 addressed a very real inequity.
Military service doesn't always kill someone on the battlefield.
Sometimes the battlefield follows them home.
Toxic exposure can take years to become cancer.
Service-connected diseases don't care whether someone is still wearing a uniform when they finally become fatal.
Families can spend years dealing with illness, caregiving, medical appointments, lost income, and eventually death.
The surviving spouse may then spend years navigating government agencies and proving that the death was connected to military service.
Texas voters decided those surviving spouses deserved property-tax relief.
That's what Proposition 7 did.
Yes, Tax Exemptions Have a Cost
I'm not going to pretend exemptions have no fiscal impact.
Of course they do.
Removing property from the taxable base changes revenue calculations.
That's a legitimate issue for local governments.
And taxpayers have every right to debate how many exemptions should exist and how broad they should be.
But government spending has a fiscal impact too.
Every new program has a cost.
Every new employee has a cost.
Every contract has a cost.
Every capital project has a cost.
Every budget increase has a cost.
If we're going to scrutinize the fiscal impact of 73 surviving spouses receiving a voter-approved exemption, then we should be willing to scrutinize government spending with at least the same enthusiasm.
Stop Looking for Someone to Blame
This shouldn't become:
Taxpayers versus veterans.
Veterans versus survivors.
Disabled veterans versus military widows.
Homeowners with exemptions versus homeowners without them.
Those divisions make it incredibly easy to avoid the bigger conversation.
What does government collect, what does government spend, and are taxpayers getting value for that money?
If Bexar County has a structural budget problem, identify it.
If spending is growing faster than sustainable revenue, show us.
If there are programs that need to be cut, say so.
If taxes need to increase, make the argument publicly and defend it.
If state law has created genuine fiscal problems for counties, take that argument to the Texas Legislature.
But don't turn military families into convenient budget-line villains.
Read the Damn Budget
This is the same lesson I keep coming back to in advocacy.
Don't stop at the headline.
Don't stop at the press release.
Don't stop at the PowerPoint presentation.
And definitely don't stop when somebody throws a giant number onto the screen.
Ask what the number actually represents.
Ask what it doesn't represent.
Ask what changed.
Ask what was spent.
Ask what was collected.
Ask what assumptions were used.
Ask what happened in previous years.
And ask why one particular number was selected for public attention.
Because $1.3 billion in exempt property value is not $1.3 billion in lost tax revenue.
And 73 military surviving spouses did not break Bexar County's budget.
If Bexar County has a spending problem, then let's have that conversation.
Open the books.
Show us the budget.
Show us what changed.
Show us where the money went.
Veterans and surviving spouses shouldn't have to surrender benefits Texas deliberately gave them simply because government would rather discuss exemptions than expenses.
Don't blame the widow.
Don't blame the veteran.
Follow the money.
And this time:
READ THE DAMN BUDGET.
Read the damn data.
