Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on March 25, 2009

Click here to view bill details.

I am a senior citizen.  I expect to pay my property taxes.  Why should someone else be stuck with the burden, ESPECIALLY with the financial status of our state?  I was raised to be independent.  I do NOT WANT the government taking care of me.  If there is a special hardship case the people involved could work out a payment plan with the governing unit involved.  People need to take responsibility back into their own hands and out of the hands of the second highest paid legislature in the country.

So, what is your alternative proposition? What should be done with these elderly and disabled people who can't pay their delinquent property taxes? Should they be made homeless, or do you have another solution?

Just because you are elderly or disabled does not mean you can't afford to pay your taxes.  Most elderly or disabled do not live in mansions.  Unfortunately we do have people who would take advantage of a law like this and just refuse to pay because it would be legal not to.  Local communities don't like having unpaid tax properties on their rolls for auction.  Most local communities would work out a payment plan like consumers energy does.  There also is such a thing as a reverse mortgage that could help people with their taxes and living expenses.  Michigan has way too many laws on their books.  It really goes back to taking responsibility for ourselves.

 There is no reason for the elderly to lose their homes because of delinquent property taxes. My wife and I are fortunate to be in fair health and have resources to be able to pay our taxes, but all it takes is a serious illness to wipe everything out we saved for. In addition, some seniors are outliving their savings as inflation and increasing millages or property taxes (that are indexed for inflation) eat up their pensions, most of which are not indexed for inflation. What also needs to be looked at are tthe exorbitant penalities that are tacked onto delinquent taxes. They are dammed near at credit card interest rates (plus the additional penalties that are tacked on). It's time the local governments learn to tighten their belts and the politicians to quit adding new millages, such as the proposed recreational facilities millage.

The penalties should be no more than the interst rate it would take to replace the delinquent revenue.

 Take responsibility????

What about the recepients who take most of the property taxes collected? Public School Employees, who are 'public servants'.

Our schools are failing, regardless of how much money we pump into them.

Too many laws? Michigan has too many taxes, and the property tax is the most unfair of all. No one should lose their home because they can't afford to pay the taxes. The right to own property is one of the main reasons this country was founded.

Abolish the property tax.

My husband and I are senior citizens and I like this bill.  Paying taxes is such a pain in the neck.  It's definitely good to know we no longer have to pay our property taxes, we won't be kicked out.

What a good idea!

 Being a bit facetious Minnie, or are you one of those who flips foreclosed homes?

This proposed bill doesn't forgive the elderly or disable their tax obligation, it allows them to stay in their home if they can't pay the property tax. I would venture to say it would be more expensive to foreclose on them, and then the state have to house them, than postpone their property tax bill.

That's true, it only delays the time to foreclosure, however the exorbitant interest rates and penalties only add to the difficulty in repaying should they be able.to do so. Why are the interest rates and penalties so high?

Well, yes, I may be being a bit facetious.  

But isn't it nice, for once, to have one governmental unit force another governmental unit to forego collection of money justly due?  What we're mostly seeing from our current president and his legislators are various plans to force lenders to agree to accept less repayment than their contract with the borrower had provided for.  The new motto, top to bottom, is "business bad, profit bad; government good, taxes good."  The new rule?  "Contract?  What contract?"

By the way, does this provision apply to those who are flipping homes?  Now that doesn't seem quite fair, does it?

Unfortunately, Jercommm, since Michigan politicians just lovvvvvve to spend money, they just havvvvvvve to collect taxes.

This bill that benefits the elderly (and disabled) would seem to show that AARP has an unusually successful lobby in Michigan.  I don't know who lobbies for the disabled, but they probably helped AARP.  The politicians don't usually show any mercy when it comes to taxes.

And banks usually honor only contracts that make them money.

Uhh, I'm pretty sure that if a bank decides to break a contract because it's not as profitable as they wish it were, then the other party to the contract can sue the pants off the bank.  

Naturally, if the government changes the contract (which it CAN do in a bankruptcy proceeding, but not just on an Obama-whim 'cause the story's so very sad), then the bank can't really sue anyone.  After a while, it WILL become more difficult to get a bank to enter a contract, e.g., a mortgage loan, if the contract can be modified by a third party without the bank's consent.  Bankruptcy is a special case; if the debtor has spent more than he can pay for, that's his answer.

I know we all hate banks and insurance companies and oil companies because, while they do provide a service, they won't do it for free.  Still, I'd hate for all of them to go out of business and have to go to my neighbors for a loan, eat the loss if I'm in an accident, and try to run my car on water.

I don't actually mind paying property taxes.  I just wish we got more for our money.

Guess you haven't heard of banks changing interest rates and penalties at will on credit cards.

A bank is a business. Property taxes are levied by government entities. Banks are ruled by the government and the government makes it's own rules. The taxing authority will eventually get the property and should then recoup thier money. As a matter of fact, if the house is worth all they claim it is, they should make out OK. Maybe when they claim title to the house, they should pay the heirs the difference between what is owed on back taxes and what they assessed the house at.

Also, the homes should be sold on the open market with a realtor, not a Sheriff's sale. Not everyone can take a day off work in the middle of the week to compete with the vultures who bid on tax delinqent properties.

I've heard of banks changing interest rates on credit cards, but I've never experienced it because I never charge more than I can pay for at the end of the month.  I have paid penalties (plus whatever interest for that month and the next) a couple of times, when I accidentally missed paying the bill by its due date; this caused me to be more conscientious about paying on or before my due date.

Luckily YOU are in complete control of whether you pay exorbitant interest charges and/or penalties.  

The only ways you can control your property taxes are to move to a lower-tax district, buy a lower-priced home, or work to elect representatives who will tax and spend less, and hopefully more wisely.  If you vote wrong, you can correct your mistake at the polls at the next election.  The elderly are less likely to utilize the first two options, more likely to utilize the third.  This may explain why this legislation was ever considered.

 True, but if an elderly person buys a "lower priced home", that does not mean they will be taxed on the sales price. They will be taxed on the "pop-up" value which is an arbitrary figure calculated by using cost of living items that have absol;utely nothing to do with the value house. One would think that the sales price would be the determining value-but not when it comes to determining taxes. Also, the elderly would be out the realtors commission and all the other fees tacked onto the transaction.

I believe I already said that the elderly are less likely to "move downward"--or move at all, for that matter--which only leaves the political option.  But unless government gets its spending in check, it has to get its spending money from SOMEWHERE, and property taxes aren't really that much more unreasonable than any other tax.  The availability of the "reverse mortgage" has taken much of the sting out of the fact that the elderly have to pay property taxes.  The homeowner's heirs may inherit less, but at least the homeowner is carrying his own weight (some will be proud of that, others will resent it).

I'd also like to point out that Government is working hard to blur the difference between private businesses and government.  As to banks, they not only regulate them but, under the "authority" of The Community Reinvestment Act, they even insisted that lenders give mortgages to people who could never hope to repay them. They're in the business of telling private businesses who they must fire, who they must hire, and how much each must or can be paid.  Dividing Chrysler's ownership between the union and the government is an unusual (and unconstitutional) move; coercing bondholders, whose bonds put them first in line in bankruptcy, to instead take pennies on the dollar, even where there is enough value to pay 100% to the bondholders, is very disruptive to the investment environment.  They give taxpayers' money ["bailouts"] to some, not to others;  they decide who will sink and who will swim.

I wish property taxes were the most offensive thing government did. 

The government has never insisted lenders make bad loans.The subprime mortgage mess was caused by greed. Greed by banks, realtors, builders, and even borrowers. They all wanted a piece of the housing bubble. Banks were encouraged to loan to minorities and first time home buyers, but a bank or mortgage company was and still is responsible for their own lending practices. They made sub prime loans because they were able to sell them, and not hold the bad debt, and turn a good profit by doing so. Bank deregulation must take the lions share of the blame for the housing crisis.

There is nothing unconstitutional about the union or the government having ownership in a corporation. There is a very big risk for the union, and a very great need by the government, to keep our auto industry alive. The union workers have a stake in their company, and the government has a stake in domestic manufacturing. The bondholders were not "coerced". They were asked to sacrifice, as the union and other investers were, and they refused. Bankruptcy is, and always was, the final option.

To return to the subject matter, it is my understanding of this bill that the property taxes of the homeowner determined to be elderly or disabled will be paid after their death or end of deferment, for other reasons, from the proceeds of the sale of the house. The taxes are not lost to the locality, they are deferred. This may place a burden on the locality, but less of a burden than evicting the elderly or disabled. There is also a moral issue here. I favor the passage of this bill.

I'm neutral on passage of this bill.  Many elderly people take pride in being responsible and WILL pay their taxes.  But the government will most likely get their money, with interest and probably penalties, later, so it's kind of a forced savings plan for local governmental units, not entirely a bad thing.  But they could probably use it NOW, in these hard times, so their forced savings is a mixed blessing.

You have obviously not been paying attention.  Lenders were coerced.  Government withheld what they could from non-performing banks ("Want to expand?  Start lending!") and ACORN, with the help of Community Organizer Obama's training, harassed banks and their officers by invading the banks and by "visiting" the officers at their homes.  Banks were sued because the weren't issuing enough loans to the poor (don't forget the Community Reinvestment Act); Obama is listed on at least one lawsuit against Citibank as one of the plaintiffs' attorneys (the plaintiffs were the poor who were unfairly denied "loans").  Lenders were able to sell their loans--to FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC, which Government Sponsored Entities led the mortgage crisis.  The Democrats resisted any reining in of Fannie's and Freddie's loan-purchasing ability because it might hurt the ability of the poor to own their own homes.  Bush tried to rein them in early in his administration (he was so very MEAN), even McCain (not my favorite politician) tried, but Barney Frank (and many other Dems) would have no part of it, implying that the Republicans were racists.  Barney has changed his tune now; "Some of the poor would be better off renting," he now says, self-righteously, but that's not what he was saying back when the crisis might have been averted.

Under the Constitution, citizens have "property rights."  When the government seizes the property of Chrysler's or GM's stockholders/owners, and transfers ownership to the unions, that's NOT protecting property rights.  That's why bankruptcy was invented, so that the property rights of some could be eliminated to give others a "fresh start," but it's made difficult for a reason:  it shouldn't be done willy-nilly.  This administration chooses to avoid the bankruptcy courts and set up their own favored owners.  The unions donated lots and lots of money to the Obama campaign and, as he says, "I won." To the victor goes the spoils and he can reward those who helped; too bad he can't do it honestly and too, too bad he's doing it with OUR tax dollars and others' property.  

Those who bought bonds, accepting a lower interest rates in exchange for a (practically) guaranteed return of their investment dollars, are now being coerced and shamed into giving up what they purchased.  Some have actually given in, after threatening phone calls from the White House.  I'm praying for those who are resisting the coercion.  Government-run-amuck can squash those who resist.  Scary.

Investing is going to be extra-risky as long as Government feels free to re-arrange contracts and/or ownership whenever it feels like it!  Especially when its purpose is to reward its friends, like the unions.

Your right, I haven't been paying attention, to Fox News. Your post has so many Republican talking points and down right incorrect information I don't know where to begin. Since this thread is not about these subjects, I'll make it as short as I can.

Lenders were not coerced, nor could they be, by ACORN or the government. That's ridiculous. Banks and hedge funds were some of the most powerful players in Washington during the Bush years, certainly not ACORN.

Obama's name may very well be on a lawsuit, he's a lawyer.

The Democrats were not the majority party in Congress for Clinton's second term, or Bush's first and half of his second. Republicans were. How could the Democrats be blamed for the poor management at Fannie and Freddie?

The government did not sieze the property of Chrysler, or GM. Both of these corporations came to the government with their hands out, asking for help. I think even Fox News got that right.

The unions did donate to Obama, and the corporations and hedge funds donated to McCain. Obama won. Elections have consequenses.

You don't seem to concerned about the UAW having to "re-arrange" it's contract. Is it just the wealthy and the hedge funds that have sacred contracts?

Bush spent eight years rewarding his friends, quite handsomely. The UAW is hardly being rewarded. It has renegotiated and given back much of their hard fought gains to try and save the auto industry. If Chrysler does emerge from this bankruptcy a leaner and more successful auto company, the UAW will be able to keep providing healthcare for their retirees with the Chrysler stock they accepted in lieu of the money they were due according to their contract.

Oh my, do I have to find a video of Barney Frank insisting that the fundamentals of Fannie & Freddie are strong and they don't need more regulation?  Do I have to look for the video of a regulator insisting that chaos was ahead if the "toxic" loans weren't stopped, then Democrat after Democrat deriding him for being an alarmist--and possibly a racist?  I can do it--but who are you going to believe, the Democrat talking points or your lying eyes?  I'm guessing, the Dems would win.

If you're implying that the economy was growing under Bush and the Republican congressional majority, perhaps at a rate of about 3% a year for the first six years, despite 9/11, you're right.  That  did reward both Bush's friends--and his enemies and even those he didn't know.  It wasn't until the Democrats took control in the last 2 years of Bush's administration that things began to fall apart (remember their promise to bring down those awful $2/gal. gas prices, after which gas went to $4/gal.?  Maybe they meant "Our recession will eventually bring down gas prices.  The law of supply and demand, you know.").  And gosh, Obama and the Dems don't seem to be turning things around very well yet, do they?  But they're sure spending on every pork project a Democrat ever dreamed of, while Obama breaks all of his campaign promises (except to the unions and to ACORN).  Remember "NO MORE PORK"?  Remember "NO LOBBYISTS IN MY ADMINISTRATION"?  Remember "We all know you can't change Washington with the same old people," followed by Obama's appointing just about every political hack Pres. Clinton had in his administration?  But as Rahm Emanuel said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste.  You can get big things done."  This is obviously "Change YOU can believe in"! 

What about the bonds that are owned by retired people who thought they were safe, or by cautious teachers' retirement funds, or in UAW retirement funds?  Should all those greedy people suffer because Obama owes the UAW a favor?  Yeah, I guess.

I advise you NOT to watch Fox News.  They tell both sides of the story, and I don't think you could handle the truth.

No, you don't need to bother with producing evidence for your accusations. I know it's not the normal procedure for those who make these claims, and I wouldn't want to send you on an impossible mission. You could look, though, for the video of Bush reassuring us the economy was sound just before the crash, or assuring us we don't torture, or saying we had irrefutable proof Iraq had WMD's, or telling us our combat mission was over in Iraq six years ago, or claiming Iraq had a hand in 9/11, or promising to get Osama Bin Laden dead or alive, etc., etc.. I know those are available.

I didn't implying anything. I agree the economy was growing. The rich were getting richer, and the poor and middle class were working longer, harder, and for less money. Middleclass wages have stagnated for over the last 20years, while wealth, thanks to tax breaks and trade agreements, has been concentrated in the top 1%.

The price of gas went up because of speculation in the market. I know Fox news would never report that, it would be over the heads of their viewers. When the hedge funds went broke with the popping of the housing bubble, down went the price of oil.

And gosh, the Democrats in just two years, with a majority in the House, and a filibuster from the Republicans and veto from Bush, brought our economy to it's knees. Yea, right. And Hoover and Bush were just coincidental, innocent bystanders, who just happen to be in the White House, during the two greatest economic calamities our nation has seen.

None of the bondholders are suffering because Obama "owes " the UAW. Everyone involved, including the UAW, is suffering because the auto companies are broke. They are broke because they made bad business decisions, geared more for the next quarter's profits than the long term health of the corporation.

I'll take your advice about not watching Fox, although certainly not because I can't handle the truth, but because I know the truth.

And I still am in favor of this bill.

 

I'll be darned if you didn't just repeat every lie the Democrats have repeated for 8 years.  You don't have proof, you know, because such proof doesn't exist.  I'll bet I pay closer attention to both sides than you do.

But I wouldn't want to rock your world with truth.  

I'm still neutral on this bill.  But I understand why you'd want the elderly and the disabled to avoid shouldering any responsibility for financing any part of government.  After they're dead, sure, the government should take it all, but they should avoid any conduct that might lead to honest self-respect or self-esteem, for the rest of their lives, if possible.

 

Where in the Bill does it absolve the elderly from shouldering any responsibility for financing government?    They have done it all their lives. As a matter of fact, they are the ones who made it possible for you to be here, dissing them. I believe the intent is to let them live out their lives in their homes should they be UNABLE to pay-not unwilling to pay. The people you should be going after are those that are unwilling to work and are a burden on our criminal justice system, schools (because they produce children but do not pay for their education etc). We have to feed, clothe, provide housing and medical care for them and their dependents. Go after them, not those that have worked and paid all their lives, served in the service of this country etc.

Municipalities can always borrow money to make up the difference. They will pay far less interest rate than the penalty rate they tack onto delinquent taxes. Maybe to some people, a megastadium or some other facility is more important. They taxing authouriy will get their money, and you can bet they will find a way to squander it.

 I suggest you look up the Community Reinvestment Act. Banks were required to show that they were not discriminating against low income people etc if they wanted to expand or open additional branches. If that isn't coercion, I don't know what is. That's like the state laws prohibiting redlining or charging people in high car theft areas more for theft insurance, if they want to do business in the state.

 Here's a brief summary of the CRA. There are plenty of references, but I doubt if you will pursue them. Liberals never let facts influence their thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

I would qualify on at least one, and possibly both counts for the special consideration and treatment afforded by this proposal.  But I oppose this bill. 

 

If there is something amiss with our delinquent property tax system, then fix the system. 

 

Selecting special groups within the population to receive preferred treatment in matters like the timing of property tax payment requirements is not fixing the system.  It is making the system worse.

Sometimes it's better to let the facts speak for themselves. What follows is from your suggested reference.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 seeks to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-income neighborhoods.^[7] The Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive FDIC insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound operations) in all communities in which the bank takes deposits.^[3] The law does not list specific criteria for evaluating the performance of financial institutions. Rather, it directs that the evaluation process should accommodate the situation and context of each individual institution. Federal regulations dictate agency conduct in evaluating a bank's compliance in five performance areas, comprising twelve assessment factors. This examination culminates in a rating and a written report that becomes part of the supervisory record for that bank.^[8]

The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution.^[3][4] An institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. The law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA.^[6][9]

Doesn't sound like coercion to me. Must be another "fact" influencing the thinking of those on the right. Maybe the one they made up.

Back to the proposed legislation. I believe the measure of a society is how they treat their elderly and weaker members. This bill may put some minimal strain on the locality involved, but their taxes would be eventually realized, and damage to the lives of the elderly and disabled could be avoided.

 

 

So would I, but you are missing the point. This is an attempt to fix a system that makes taxing authorities the real homeowner. Selecting special groups for special treatment? How about discussing non-profit and religious organizations that receive special treatment, or companies that receive 50% tax breaks for 12 years etc. for doing what the would have done anyhow? Senior citizens can't threaten to or afford to move to someplace that offers them the biggest bribe. One of my biggest gripes is that when these properties are foreclosed, the properties are not sold at anywhere near the value they had been taxed on (appraised value). They are taxed on arbitrary values set by  CPI index inflation rates, which for this year included last years July (4+$/gal) gas prices. Just what does that have to do with the value of a property?

In addition, those homes sold for taxes are not sold on the open market, but at a sheriffs sale. Who but those vultures that prey on others misfortunes or have political jobs have the time to go to the courthouse steps and bid on a property on a Wed. afternoon etc?

It would be interesting to know just how many tax exempt religious or charitable properties or companies etc there are that are not paying their full share and what they could bring to the tax till. Oh sure, the companies would say they contribute jobs etc. but they often move on even after they have had the exemption and leave an environmental mess or dilapidated properties for communities to clean up.

 This is not an exemption but a deferment-with interest-as the taxes are paid upon death, or sale of the property. Even if all seniors were eligible, wouldn't the income from the sale of the properties offset the new deferments. Don't overlook the fact that the bill calls for .75% per month interest. Consider it a good investment. Show me where any community is receiveing that interest rate on thier deposits. They'd be ahead!

For those of us who are in good health or have good insurance-lucky us, but all it would take is one serious illness and you, or your survivor could thrown out of your home. Bet they wouldn't even let you camp on the new astroturf they bought with the proceeds of your house.

albaby2:

 This is not an exemption but a deferment-with interest-as the taxes are paid upon death, or sale of the property.  ...

Let us not play word games here.  

The fact is, by terms of this proposal qualified senior citizens and disabled persons would be exempted from the usual rules governing forfeiture of real property for failure to pay property taxes in a timely manner.  In a nutshell, that is what this bill proposes.

That means a select set of the population is granted special treatment in the payment of property taxes.

I would immediately qualify for this special privilege as a senior citizen, and might qualify in the near future due to having contracted a potentially disabling disease.  Nonetheless, I oppose this kind of legislation.

As I stated above, if the property tax system needs fixing in respect to forfeiture provisions, then correct the system so all people are treated equally by and under it.    

 

The special treatment you mention is only treatment of the time a select set of the population has to pay their property tax bill, and for the special treatment, a penalty is imposed. This seems to me fair, and an indication the government is aware of the moral issues involved in removing the elderly and disabled from their homes.

This proposed legislation is an attempt to "fix" a problem in the property tax system.

I'm sure no one will mind if a few schools have to close or a few roads don't get plowed right now due to lack of funds; in the future the funds will be available to re-open schools and plow roads--maybe twice.  As I have said, I'm neutral on this bill.

You are correct in your reading of the CRA.  With all those words about "safety," how could anything go wrong??  And mostly, nothing did go wrong, as Presidents Reagan and Bush didn't push the Act and redefine "safety."  When that generous and empathetic President Clinton came to power, however, he foresaw buying the votes of the poor by giving them housing, whether or not they could afford it, and demanded expansion of Freddie and Fannie and the CRA.

I'm amazed that you actually read any part of the CRA.  Congratulations!  But will you watch the videos in the following links?  Caution:  do not read the text, it does not fawn over any Democrat.  Just watch the videos:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/29/video-democrats-insist-nothing-wrong-at-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-in-2004/

Good intentions justify almost anything, don't they.  Section 8 housing, free school lunches (and/or breakfasts) and food stamps are only for "the poor," too.  You'd be amazed at how easy it is to appear to be poor when you're proving it to bureaucrats whose job it is to find and subsidize poor people (with other people's money).  Have you seen ads on t.v. advising people that they may be eligible for this or that welfare program?  They literally hunt for poor people.  Recall how the Republicans were demonized when they introduced welfare reform?  How uncaring they were!  President Clinton signed their bill into law, but he promised to change it later, make welfare "fair" again.  Yet many people got themselves off the welfare rolls, earned their own way, and gained a self-respect they'd never had before.  

Easy to say that government can borrow money to finance their current needs.  That's not always possible.  And too much borrowin' is kinda got us into the trouble we're in now, isn't it?

If you hate for government to squander your tax money, e.g. on stadiums or tax breaks that attract job-creating businesses, the answer is to search for political candidates who might be more prudent with other people's money--and they're not easy to find.  It is obviously true that power corrupts, as is seen in politicians who have held their offices for decades.  Even the Republicans who were elected in 1994 and started out with sensible taxing and spending proclivities eventually succumbed to the lure of spending unimaginable amounts of other people's money; the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republican voters fire their greedy representatives, Democrats re-elect theirs.

All that said, I'm still neutral on this bill.  Undoubtedly life will be made easier for some elderly and disabled, even if life is made more difficult for local governmental bodies.  At least for once they're not trying to stick it to "The Rich"--although the relatively-rich will be called upon to make up the deficits. 

Or maybe they'll institute a local option cigarette tax.  No one has any sympathy for smokers.  Uh oh, I hope no legislator is reading this!

gypsy:

The special treatment you mention is only treatment of the time a select set of the population has to pay their property tax bill, and for the special treatment, a penalty is imposed. This seems to me fair, and an indication the government is aware of the moral issues involved in removing the elderly and disabled from their homes.

This proposed legislation is an attempt to "fix" a problem in the property tax system.

It is "fair" if everyone has the same relief available to them.  Instead of just allowing this special privilege to be "bought" by elderly and disabled citizens, why not make it available to everyone?

This bill proposes to repair nothing in the property tax system.  However, it does propose to complicate the property tax system by providing for special (preferred) treatment of certain classes of citizens.

Excellent points, especially given the generous definition of "disabled" nowadays.  How about the gambling-addicted hubby who blew everything then left wifey, to live with a new honey, then filed for divorce?  Sounds to me like he was "disabled"--though in this case wifey was also unable to pay the mortgages--1st, 2nd & 3rd--either.  And once he left her, I guess the "disability" would no longer apply (since she lived in the house).  But hey, maybe honey's house is paid for, but property taxes, not so easy for the happy twosome. 

Life is so unfair.  Too bad Government really can't change that, at least not without making life unfair for someone else.

 "Usual rules"? Where does that term come from? Who makes the "usual rules"? Wasn't "separate but equal" or "blacks to the back of the bus"the usual rule at one time? That's why we have legislators and a legislature-to correct or revise usual rules. The liberal method is not to use the legislature but by judicial edict.

But don't worry, the bill has been referred to two committees, which means it will never see the light of day again. That's what happens to legislation that is too hot for position protecting politicians to handle, and the elderly are not a force to be feared at the polls.