W000304
Saturday, November 10, 2001 6:44 PM
Just thought i'd throw in my thoughts-
I hope this helps in some measure.
Recently, there has been a growing debate concerning the allocation of
various charity funds to the victims of Sept. 11th. Shortly after the
terrorist events, Congress established an unlimited fund to compensate the
victims. However, since that time, over a billion dollars has been donated
to a variety of charitable organizations also established to aid those
same victims. Subsequently, the uncomfortable question that arises is:
Should a family's compensation from the government fund be raised or
lowered based on the level of other charitable donations they accept?
To me, the answer to this question is clear: The amount of other
charity accepted by each family should unequivocally be a factor in
determining their award from the government. It seems highly unfair to
grant the same amount of money to those families who have received
substantive secondary charity as to those who have not.
I believe that, ideally, each family should be granted the same
'punitive' award in recognition of their pain and suffering, and the
government's failure to protect them. In addition, the government should
evaluate each family's unique financial circumstances and appropriate the
commensurate funds to aid them. The intended result of these measures
being to compensate families for their loss so they will not need to sue
other entities (which is part of accepting the government's funds), to
ensure the financial stability of the affected families, and to avoid
unfairly enriching some families while not giving enough to others. These
actions should draw on a combination of the government's allocated funds
and the donations given to other charitable organizations. Any funds which
remain unspent after these measures are complete should be used to
compensate the victims of other or future terrorist attacks.
Individual Comment