P000426
Wednesday, February 06, 2002 3:25 PM
Equitable distribution
I believe the Victim Compensation Fund should be awarded on the premise
that "each life has equal value." The United States represents that
philosophy to the world and it is the basis of many domestic philosophical
and pragmatic considerations.
Instead, the Congress turned to a program with compensation based on
established legal precedents in cases of loss of life in accidents, etc.,
using income guidelines. I think it was an expedient decision that did not
address the specific subject of compensation for the families of victims of
foreign or domestic terrorism. This compensation program will be a model
that will be used if there are future terrorist events and we should be
most careful in the design. The families of the victims of the terrorist
attack in Oklahoma were not compensated in this way, nor were victims of
other terrorist attacks that affected a smaller number of individuals. Why
not? What makes 9/11 different from other terrorist attacks and loss of
life - other than the numbers involved and the painfully obvious escalated
emotional pain?
I further believe the "each life has equal value" formula is the most
equitable because the present compensation plan is likely flawed in
assumptions of future earnings, ignoring the following considerations (only
a few examples):
1. There is no quarantee a victim would have continued to earn
extraordinary income or modest income for the rest of his/her lives.
2. 50% of marriages end in divorce.
3. Lower paid victims may have been on the edge of a higher
income because of furthering their education, becoming doctors or lawyers
or other professionals, entrepreneurship, outstanding performances in the
arts or entertainment areas.
Thank you very much for consideration of these comments.
Individual Comment