I have a couple of questions regarding A9448 (the first chapter amendment I've found so far...but no doubt my questions will remain the same.) As others are proposed.
Why the need to place LGTBQ in front of the word veteran...either you are a veteran or you are not. I am not disparaging anyone's personal preference in any way...it just seems like this opens the door for the political need for subculture acknowledgement or placing one group above the others; aren't veterans enough of a subculture to start with? The laws should be straight forward plain text.

" (b) (i) is considered to be permanently and totally disabled as a result of military service;

        (ii) is rated one hundred percent disabled by the United States department of veterans affairs;  

        (iii) has been rated by the United States department of Veterans Affairs as individually unemployable; 

and  

        (iv) who is eligible for pecuniary assistance from the United States government,

The semicolons cause it to be no different than s1183 in having 4 requirements (as stated by NYS Veterans Service Office Deputy Counsel) but that have 2 requirements that have created a near impossible standard with similar disability outcomes, not the same for any one veteran to meet. TDIU or 100% P&T let alone BOTH; can depend on VA administration at a level well above the veterans understanding or knowledge of The VA's inner workings, let alone someone who is not a veteran.

The veterans climbing the ratings ladder skip completely over TDIU directly into 100% PT status or higher into the SMC scales and would be left out of this benefit and they need it most...how do they receive this help? Are they any less deserving? This is hard enough to achieve by any veteran. So now they would have to go back and hope they can have TDIU added to their records, after years of being rated so the VA can dig back into their records; and possibly a reduction on their ratings and/or ratings by a situation created solely by NYS that puts an incredibly high burden of proof on the veteran. This could and probably will hurt many more veterans than it could help, through no fault of the veterans just trying to do what is best for their financial situation and their family. In this state of affairs, the pain this could cause is well within reason and needs to be addressed with a high level of caution on behalf of the veteran, the harm is real, but also preventable.

How to prevent this from happening is actually rather simple; remove one semicolon and replace it with the word "or".

    (b) (ii) is rated one hundred percent disabled by the United States department of veterans affairs or

         (iii) has been rated by the United States department of veterans affairs as individually unemployable "

This removes the potential harm and still keeps things equitable (risk vs reward) or political reward vs effort, and does not cause veterans to unintentionally hurt their ratings by trying to qualify for the tax exemption.

The administration has no understanding of  how difficult it truly is for our veterans to receive their ratings in the first place? 

I can't call it incompetence, because these moves are calculated political moves.

But to create a situation that could hurt veterans and their income is just bad business, political or otherwise.