W000019
Tuesday, November 06, 2001 8:30 AM
Reimbursement to Victims
As someone who lives in Northern New Jersey but was not directly affected by
the disaster, I felt the same horror and sympathy for the victims and
families as many Americans did. And I was moved by the plight of the
victim's families and contributed to the charitable funds that collected
money to help those left behind. However, I cannot agree with any decision
to have the government provide money to the families that does not take into
account the money that they receive from charity. My intention was to help
the victims - college funding, mortgages, day to day expenses, even
psychiatric help if needed. But if they have enough money to assist them in
continuing with life, I don't see why these victims should receive even more
money. Even families that lost a wage earner -- who is to say that in a few
years, they remarry and have another means of support?? Indeed, as some
have noted in the press, victims of other terrorist attacks were not even
the beneficiaries of charity in the order of magnitude seen for this
disaster. I am heartened to see that we can soften the blow that these
families took (although let's acknowledge that no amount of money can take
away the pain of losing a loved one), but money is a finite resource. The
money "given" to the families by the government, in the absence of real
need, could be better spent on the many other things that government needs
to provide to ALL Americans - protection against future attacks, cures for
disease, feeding the hungry, health insurance for the uninsured, better
schools, unemployment benefits ........the list is endless.
So in summary, provide for the true needs of the families, but don't just
give away tax money in a misguided and hopeless attempt to equate dollars
with empathy.
Individual Comment
Short Hills, New Jersey