N001347
Friday, January 04, 2002 5:01 PM
My Comments
1. Why does the U.S. Government make one person's life more valuable
than another's, based on present earnings. Shouldn't the one person/one
vote reasoning apply to government compensation?
2. Why should I, a taxpayer, compensate German, Japanese, etc.
expatriates that happened to be killed in the terrorist act? Why not
their governments?
3. Why should a well-paid dead-beat who didn't buy insurance and lived
high-on-the-hog get more government compensation than well-paid
disciplined individuals that used some of their earnings to buy
insurance to provide for their families.
4. What constitutes the victim's families? Mother and father - I hope
not. Wife and kids - I hope so.
5. The program seem a little rich with the average family receiving $1
million from tax exempt charities and another $1.6 million from you
folks.
6. Why is the compensation tax exempt? Maybe to compete with court
awards? Why not just limit the 'tort' awards to something like the
compensatory award - and make our lawyers cry?
7. What makes our airlines liable at all? Their passenger screening just
followed government rules, didn't it?
8. You didn't compensate at Oklahoma City. Maybe you say that was
because most of the people involved were government workers and already
insured. Surely that applies to the Pentagon, and many of the people
involved in 911 as well! You are setting, no perpetuating a lottery
payoff precedent, and that is troubling to me.
9. I guess you are doing this whacky thing to indirectly bail out the
insurance, airline, travel, etc. industries while allowing the legal
industry to retain its unlimited 'tort' damage feeding trough. Seem
overly selective and political to me!
Individual Comment