P000003
Wednesday, January 23, 2002 12:03 AM
Sept. 11 Federal Victims' Compensation Fund
I don't agree with the granting of federal tax dollars in this case. All of the money that has been collected by various organizations for the victims of the Sept 11 terrorist attacks and their families has not been distributed. The DOJ might be able to help fix the problems with the distribution of what's already been collected, rather than creating another quasi-agency. I'm sorry that, collectively, we so often turn to litigation that Congress saw the need, or was persuaded by interested parties, to pass legislation for the sole purpose of preventing future litigation in the aftermath of such tragic events. Yet, realistically, I can understand the desire to limit future, costly litigation. Maybe the legislators saw this course of action as better management of tax dollars than just waiting for the lawsuits to be filed and paying more later. They and the interests lobbying them are apparently very concerned about future litigation, although I thought this type of event (act of terrorism) would be considered a "force majeure" event. My initial reaction to the news of the federal fund was one of disagreement because all of the money collected for the purpose of helping the victims had not been distributed. Will the tax dollars used as fund distributions be reimbursed by those parties that benefit from fewer future lawsuits stemming from the Sept 11 terrorists attacks? Were federal funds distributed to victims of other previous terrorist attacks on US embassies, US military installations, etc.?
Although I would prefer no federal government intervention, except to get the charities to fairly distribute the money they supposedly collected for these victims and families, I think a low-interest federal loan would have been preferrable to an outright grant. Yet, a loan program may not have served the purpose of the federal fund, which was to provide a disincentive for filing future lawsuits.
Individual Comment
Humble, Texas