W000183
Wednesday, November 07, 2001 1:25 PM
Comments re Rules for Victims Fund
I am writing concerning the government's impending distribution of funds
to Sept. 11 victims and/or their families. Specifically, I wish to
comment on possibly reducing public payments in some proportion to
distributions from private charities, like the 9/11 fund, to these same
beneficiaries. It is my understanding these funds, whether public
or private, aim to compensate 9/11 victims and/or their families,
to both: (1) provide immediate assistance with respect to near-term
living expenses, financial obligations, memorial arrangements, etc., and
(2) to some degree ensure victims' families' future financial security.
Between various public and private funds, both (1) and (2) are
attainable. But if multiple distributions from various sources pay for
the same things each time, i.e., double or triple paying, resulting in
huge financial windfalls over what is needed to achieve (1) and (2),
with taxpayers footing the bill, then something is seriously amiss.
Already, 9/11 has brought sweeping changes to our country, which are
just beginning. The financial costs will be prohibitive, between
prosecuting a war, intelligence gathering, international aid, homeland
security (securing various public and private buildings, improving
aviation security, guarding against bioterrorism, etc.), reconstruction,
business relocations, business slowdowns and failures due to a faltering
economy, etc. The hundreds of billions of dollars needed for these
efforts have to come from somewhere. To "waste" some of these dollars,
even if they are given to incredibly sympathetic recipients, is wrong.
[For the record, a member of my extended family was lost in the WTC
attack, and so besides my feelings as a citizen, I have a personal
connection to 9/11]
It is clear both the private and public sector each has a role to play
going forward, and in helping those whose lives were shattered on 9/11.
To this end, while the government must lead in assisting victims,
various private 9/11 funds must also play a role in this "partnership."
I do not suggest the government abrogate its responsibilities, but
rather, a sense of teamwork, financial sensibility, and fairness guide
"solving the equation." If hypothetically 70% government money and 30%
private dollars (which have already been gathered) will make 9/11
survivors "whole", it makes no sense and is grossly unfair for survivors
to receive 100% from the government plus 30% from the private sector.
Survivors should not be receiving financial windfalls at taxpayers'
expense, and it is wrong for the country at large to lose out on the
benefits that more sensible use of the money will yield.
Finally, as an aside, there are thousands of people each year who perish
in horrible circumstances, through no fault of their own, whose families
are left in dire straits. In a sense, their deaths and their families'
situations are little different than 9/11's victims. The only difference
with 9/11 is that its victims met their end in an appalling, high
profile situation, which, for good reason, has touched us as a nation
and individually in a way most of us have not previously experienced.
But as a close parallel, in December 1988, hundreds perished in the
terrorist bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, another event
to which I had a personal connection. While there was some financial
compensation to this tragedy's survivors, there were certainly no
financial windfalls. In essence, Pan Am 103's victims were no different
than those of 9/11, except that they were attacked outside of the U.S.
So, I fail to see why "double or triple paying" is appropriate in the
case of 9/11.
Again, the government must lead in aiding 9/11's victims, and not shunt
the burden off on private charities. But where there is private
assistance already planned for and in place, it should not be seen as
some kind of "bonus", but should be integrated into the process in a
sense of partnership, for the good of all Americans.
For all the emotional resonance of 9/11, it is imperative that fairness,
good sense, and responsibility still be the overriding forces guiding
the rudder going forward.
Respectfully,
Individual Comment
New York, NY