If anything illustrates the complexities of state tax policy, it’s the difference in ideology voiced by two of Waco’s state lawmakers. Neither is overtly wrong in his viewpoint. It’s just that one is a lot closer to being right, especially considering these hard times.

State Rep. Charles “Doc” Anderson, R-Waco, staunch conservative and senior member of our legislative delegation, obligingly and successfully shepherded through a bill this session that takes the full property tax exemption available to 100 percent disabled veterans and extends it to their spouses upon their deaths. This extension takes place if voters agree through a referendum.

But while he has been a champion of low taxes and small government, Anderson acknowledges such exemptions should ideally benefit disabled veterans whom fortune and our republic’s freedoms have not blessed in terms of expensive homes and comfortable incomes. In fact, he supports “means-testing” the original exemption that took effect back in 2009.

Sen. Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury, a retired Army officer seriously injured in the 2001 terrorist attack on the Pentagon, owns a home of nearly $890,000 and benefits nicely from this exemption. He disagrees with any means-testing, arguing that “when you look at honoring the sacrifice of both the veteran and the spouse, it’s not conditional and not based on the kind of home someone lives in, nor should it be.”

The senator’s argument is no doubt sincere. Yet, given the sorry state of affairs in Texas — one of budget shortfalls, teacher layoffs, dwindling aid to the poor and cutbacks that may close nursing homes — one is justified in asking if there should be a limit to certain benefits — even for, yes, cherished veterans.

In short, shouldn’t there be some restraint given to myriad tax exemptions and loopholes that fill our state and federal tax codes? It’s an admittedly tough question to ask of our veterans, considering how much this nation owes them and how so many Americans today balk at stepping forward to serve their country. Yet, in specifically suggesting means-testing, Anderson acknowledges there is only so much money to pay for all the public services that we expect and demand.

Means-testing shouldn’t be viewed as any insult, whether applied to certain exemptions for veterans or, for that matter, Social Security benefits. Those whom this way of life and unique system of government have blessed should not begrudge the possible loss of benefits but count themselves fortunate.

A full property tax exemption for veterans and their spouses is, indeed, quite generous in a state that prides itself on private ownership of property. Yet some of the most conservative states in the American West acknowledge the need for some limits, even for veterans, ranging from Utah, with a $206,000 exemption limit; to Idaho, with a $75,000 limit; to very conservative Wyoming, with its $3,000 limit.

Putting a cap on an exemption at, say, $100,000 would be more than generous in Texas, where property is comparatively cheap. True, some critics will wrap themselves in the flag and ignore pressures the current exemption puts on public safety, viable schools, community colleges and health care for the poor. But at some point we must all step forward to pay for certain services.

Community-oriented veterans will agree. If they became disabled in service to their country, we presume they did so defending our way of life. And if this state and nation continue to carve out unlimited tax exemptions, no matter how deserving the beneficiaries might be, we may well snuff out the qualities of American life so worth defending in the first place.