N002289
Tuesday, January 22, 2002 3:11 PM
Compensation
US Government Compensation Fund Representatives:
In the immediate aftermath of the tragic attack of The United States, on
September 11, Congress enacted the Victims" Compensation Fund of 2001 P.L.
107-42, to compensate relatives and the families of the victims of that
attack. This Fund was enacted as part of a comprehensive package to
protect the airline industry and imposed restrictions of the rights of the
victims' relatives to recover damages from court.
Overall, I think the published Interim Regulations for the September 11th
Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 establish a fair and efficient process for
expediting reasonable compensation to most of the individuals and families
harmed by this tragedy. I do see one potential defect in the regulations,
which may serve to undermine one of the statutory purposes: litigation
avoidance. I offer the following comments:
Each family should be treated equally and receive the same amount of
government compensation for non-economic loss. Payments from privately
purchased life insurance policies or collateral payments from private,
non-government sources should not be a consideration in the calculation of
government compensation.
It appears from the interim regulations, and the accompanying loss tables,
that compensation awards for "economic loss" are being capped at the level
of the 98th percentile of income earners ($231,000). Placing a cap on the
potential fund awards for this type of loss may seem unfair of this
regulatory system. Stated plainly, the gap is wholly adequate compensation
for the families of the highest wage earners: Why should fund compensation
for the economic loss experienced by someone who earns well into the 6
digit range and is more than capable of carrying adequate life insurance to
meet their financial obligations not be capped through reference to a
$231,000 salary. Higher wage-earning victims, of course, may lead to
higher damages claims - and, ultimately, higher potential awards - against
the airlines as well. Which is precisely the reason to be consistent with
the cap on economic loss recoveries from the fund for the highest earning
victims. The formulas used need to calculate appropriate economic loss in
these upper end circumstances, and allow the same formulas to use each
victim's actual earnings to calculate true - not deemed - economic loss.
It is imperative that the government establishes awards and compensation
consistent all the way up the chart.
The American people do not want to see our government, once again, award
people who are not responsible. It is misleading of the government to
continue to state that the average family will receive $1.6 million dollars
when some of the families may receive nothing.
The government has made it a practice to take care of those, who on the
surface, can not take care of themselves, but in reality did not attempt,
plan or manage their assets for the future. Individuals who lived well
beyond their means, carried no life insurance, and lived extravagant
carefree lifestyles will be given the most compensation based on need. The
responsible individuals will be penalized as usual. This is representative
of the families who save for their children's college tuition and then are
penalized when qualifying for grants or financial aid. Families that lead
extravagant lifestyles, have multiple cars, elaborate houses and saved
nothing for education magically qualify for assistance!
I realize that the government is trying to keep the costs of the September
11 payouts down while maintaining fairness as they compensate each victim's
family for pain, suffering and lost wages. However, the law must be
unemotional to be fair and must not penalize taxpayers, whether through
reduction of Social Security funds or special taxation, for the purpose of
compensating a select misfortune.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. It is absolutely
imperative that we as a nation uphold our obligation to the people who died
by fully protecting the families that have been left behind; but it is also
imperative that we do not inflict undue burden on the rest of the nations
masses for the compensation of the few.
Individual Comment
Middle America