Every week, men and women die in Iraq. Almost as many have died in uniform as in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
None of them deserved to die. And none of the families who lost loved ones in the World Trade Center attack or those of the soldiers killed in Iraq deserves the loss.
Soldiers sign up for duty. They know they will put themselves in harm?s way. They know they can die. But it does not change the horror of losing a son or daughter or husband.
But the horror is compensated differently. The U.S. government paid each family of those who died in the World Trade Center attack an average of nearly $2 million.
Individual compensation ranged from $250,000 to $7 million, based on earning potential, insurance claims and other financial obligations of each person who died.
The U.S. government insures soldiers for $400,000. Families of soldiers also receive $12,420 upon death and a free burial in a national cemetery and become eligible for a number of other benefits.
Is the difference fair?
Congress created the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund at least in part to protect the airlines from crippling lawsuits. By accepting a settlement, families with the Sept. 11 fund gave up their right to a jury trial, among other conditions. Victims and families of victims received an unprecedented amount of money.
A 2004 RAND Corp. report found that “individuals killed or seriously injured and individuals and businesses impacted by the strikes ? have received at least $38.1 billion in compensation, with insurance companies and the federal government providing more than 90 percent of the payments.”
Families also received money from charity. Some money contributed to victims? families from charities helped to preserve the fortunes of wealthy families. Many financial executives earning high salaries died on Sept. 11, 2001. Was that the intended purpose of donors to those charities?
What about Hurricane Katrina survivors?
Families suffered immeasurable losses because of the hurricane, some losing loved ones, many losing everything they own and the means to make a living, at least temporarily. The government gave each family $2,000. They, like the World Trade Center victims, suffered because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Families of soldiers who die in the line of duty cannot sue the government forwrongful death. They know their loved ones knew the risk.
But the fund set a bad precedent.
The government calculated payments in the Sept. 11 fund based on income, rewarding families of emergency personnel and others less than those of financial executives killed in the attack.
Does that mean that those who fight to protect us are worth less, too?
Kenneth Feinberg, who oversaw the Sept. 11 fund for victims? families, said Congress should offer a flat rate if it creates a similar program again in his final report.
What do you think?
Should those who die in combat be compensated less than those who die in an attack at home?
Should we the people have an obligation to compensate families of non-combatants killed by terrorists or war? If so, it would not be a far logical leap to say that the government must also compensate families of murder victims because the police did not show up in time.
There will be other domestic terrorist attacks.
Our financial response might want to aim at immediate relief instead of estate planning.
Adequate life insurance for our all-volunteer force is a reasonable part of the cost of having one.
