Jewish World Review August 30, 2002 / 22 Elul, 5762

Jeff Jacoby

Jeff Jacoby
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Enriching survivors was a costly mistake | Last week, the federal Victim Compensation Fund announced its first 25 awards to families of those who were killed on Sept. 11. The amounts offered were not uniform, but after taking into account the mandatory deductions for life insurance policies and pensions, the average award came to $1.36 million. That much income would ordinarily be taxable at the highest rate -- currently, 38.6 percent. Thanks to legislation passed in January, however, the victims' families will receive their awards tax-free. The same law also exempted Sept. 11 victims retroactively from income tax liability for 2000 and 2001. Any taxes they already paid will be refunded.

Last week's awards were actually on the low side; according to Kenneth Feinberg, the special master overseeing the fund, the average net payout will ultimately be around $1.5 million. That is roughly 36 times the median US household income, and is considerably more money than the vast majority of American families will ever see. No amount of money, of course, could ever replace a murdered loved one. But as an expression of sympathy and support for those who suffered a devastating loss in the terrorist attacks, the federal victims fund was munificent in the extreme.

It was also a mistake.

The American people didn't need the government's help to demonstrate their compassion for the families of the Sept. 11 victims. Well before the law creating the federal compensation fund was passed, tens of millions of Americans had donated hundreds of millions of dollars for the benefit of those affected by the attacks. By now, the total raised by private charities is estimated at a mind-boggling $2.7 billion, more than half of which has already been distributed.

This torrent of private relief has not merely ensured that survivors can meet their mortgage payments and put food on the table. It has turned many of them into millionaires. USA Today reports that relatives of the New York police officers who died on Sept. 11 are receiving an average of $929,000 in charitable funds. The families of firefighters and ambulance crews are getting $1,037,000. All of these gifts are tax-free. (Surviving spouses of most rescue workers also receive a lifetime pension equal to the victim's salary, plus a federal death benefit of $259,000 for public safety officers killed in the line of duty.)

To be sure, not every victim's family has been enriched as lavishly as those of the emergency workers killed at Ground Zero. The charitable gifts received by other families have averaged only $146,000. But "only" $146,000 is hardly trivial, especially when it comes with no strings attached, when it is not taxed, and when it is in addition to any insurance, pension, or Social Security benefits the family is entitled to. And when more than $1 billion remains to be distributed.

Add to all this the billions of dollars' worth of goods and services that have been donated to the victims' families -- from free financial planning for life by top Wall Street firms to the hundreds of free slots at children's summer camps nationwide to the free gifts Tiffany's will distribute next week at a baby shower for the 103 widows who have given birth since last September.

Never has the extraordinary generosity of ordinary Americans been more evident than in the months since Sept. 11. It wasn't necessary for the government to get in on the act, let alone to shower the victims' families with seven-figure jackpots. Those who lost a child, parent, or spouse in the attacks last fall suffered a terrible tragedy, and the hearts of decent people everywhere went out to them. But tragedy strikes American families every day, and their grief is not eased with million-dollar fortunes from the Treasury. Why should the families of Sept. 11 have been treated differently?

The Victims Compensation Fund was created in part to protect the airlines from being bankrupted by wrongful-death litigation; survivors who accept money from the fund are barred from filing suit. But the airlines were not to blame for the horrors of Sept. 11. Their losses that day, both human and financial, were staggering. If Congress wanted to shield them from catastrophic lawsuits, the way to do it was to cap their liability at $0.00, not to bribe the victims' families with million-dollar awards.

With such huge sums of money at stake, the congressional fund has predictably led to feuds and ill will, as relatives of the dead fight over the federal largesse. It has inflamed greed, too. Many families now insist that the planned awards are not lucrative enough; others gripe that after insurance and pension proceeds are deducted, they will get nothing. ("Nothing," in this case, means a quarter of a million dollars, which Feinberg says is the minimum payment guaranteed to virtually every victim's family.)

Meanwhile, a corrosive precedent has been set for the future. The next time innocent victims die in a terrorist attack, their relatives will expect a handsome government payment. The next time any catastrophe strikes -- terrorist or otherwise -- there will be a clamor for federal compensation. But the worst consequence of all is that after the next disaster, fewer people will give willingly to private charity. Why donate to help stricken fellow Americans, they will reason, if Uncle Sam is going to make them rich anyway?

A Pandora's box has been opened. It will not easily be closed.

Like this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist. Comment by clicking here.

08/26/02: John Kerry's absent passion
08/23/02: Bonnie, get your gun
08/19/02: A screenwriter's remorse
07/29/02: The real abortion extremists
07/26/02: Another round of Kemp-Roth
07/19/02: Jews among Arabs, Arabs among Jews
07/15/02: Musings, random and otherwise
07/12/02: The new civil rights champions
07/03/02: Riding the rails
07/01/02: The prerequisite to peace
06/24/02: Frisking AlGore
06/17/02: Offense, not defense, is the key to homeland security
06/14/02: Looking at the horror
06/07/02: The cost of a death-penalty moratorium
06/03/02: Executing 'children,' and other death-penalty myths
05/29/02: A real threat?
05/24/02: The message in Arafat's headdress
05/20/02: (Mis)playing the popularity card
05/10/02: Outspoken, Muslim -- and moderate
05/10/02: The heroes in Castro's jails
05/06/02: The disappearing history term paper
05/03/02: Musings, random and otherwise
04/29/02: The canary in Europe's mine
04/15/02: Powell's crazy mission
04/12/02: The slavery reparations hustle
04/08/02: Peace at any price = war
03/26/02: Decency matters most, Caleb
03/22/02: The U.S. embargo and Cuba's future
03/19/02: The keepers of Cuba's conscience
03/15/02: A walk in Havana
02/26/02: Buchanan's lament
02/12/02: What 'peace' means to Arafat
02/05/02: Antismoking: Who pays?
02/01/02: Turn the Saudis
01/25/02: Making MLK cry
01/21/02: Ted to tax cut: Drop dead
01/18/02: Musings random and otherwise
01/14/02: An ultimatum to Saudi Arabia
01/11/02: Friendship, Saudi-style
01/07/02: Shakedown at Harvard
01/04/02: More guns, more safety
01/02/02: Smears and slanders from the Left
12/28/01: Congress gives to others -- and itself
12/24/01: The littlest peacemakers
12/20/01: How to condemn terror
12/18/01: Greenland once was
12/14/01: Parents who never said ''no''
12/11/01: Wit and (economic) wisdom
12/04/01: The war against Israel goes on
11/30/01: Tribunals, motorcycles -- and freedom
11/19/01: Friendship and the House of Saud
11/12/01: The Justice Department's unjust monopoly
11/09/01: Muslim, but not extremist
11/02/01: Too good for Oprah
10/29/01: Journalism and the 'neutrality fetish'
10/26/01: Derail these subsidies
10/22/01: Good and evil in the New York Times
10/15/01: Rush Limbaugh's ear
10/08/01: With allies like these
10/01/01: An unpardonable act
09/25/01: Speaking out against terror
09/21/01: What the terrorists saw
09/17/01: Calling evil by its name
09/13/01: Our enemies mean what they say
09/04/01: The real bigots
08/31/01: Shrugging at genocide
08/28/01: Big Brother's privacy -- or ours?
08/24/01: The mufti's message of hate
08/21/01: Remembering the 'Wall of Shame'
08/16/01: If I were the editor ...
08/14/01: If I were the Transportation Czar ...
08/10/01: Import quotas 'steel' from us all
08/07/01: Is gay "marriage" a threat?
08/03/01: A colorblind nominee
07/27/01: Eminent-domain tortures
07/24/01: On protecting the flag ... and drivers ... and immigrants
07/20/01: Dying for better mileage
07/17/01: Why Americans would rather drive
07/13/01: Do these cabbies look like bigots?
07/10/01: 'Defeated in the bedroom'
07/06/01: Who's white? Who's Hispanic? Who cares?
07/02/01: Big(oted) man on campus
06/29/01: Still appeasing China's dictators
06/21/01: Cuban liberty: A test for Bush
06/19/01: The feeble 'arguments' against capital punishment
06/12/01: What energy crisis?
06/08/01: A jewel in the crown of self-government
05/31/01: The settlement myth
05/25/01: An award JFK would have liked
05/22/01: No Internet taxes? No problem
05/18/01: Heather has five mommies (and a daddy)
05/15/01: An execution, not a lynching
05/11/01: Losing the common tongue
05/08/01: Olympics 2008: Say no to Beijing
05/04/01: Do welfare mothers a kindness: Make them work
05/01/01: Another man's child
04/24/01: Sharon should have said no
04/02/01: The Inhumane Society
03/30/01: To have a friend, Caleb, be a friend
03/27/01: Is Chief Wahoo racist?
03/22/01: Ending the Clinton appeasement
03/20/01: They're coming for you
03/16/01: Kennedy v. Kennedy
03/13/01: We should see McVeigh die
03/09/01: The Taliban's wrecking job
03/07/01: The No. 1 reason to cut taxes
03/02/01: A Harvard candidate's silence on free speech
02/27/01: A lesson from Birmingham jail
02/20/01: How Jimmy Carter got his good name back
02/15/01: Cashing in on the presidency
02/09/01: The debt for slavery -- and for freedom
02/06/01: The reparations calculation
02/01/01: The freedom not to say 'amen'
01/29/01: Chavez's 'hypocrisy': Take a closer look
01/26/01: Good-bye, good riddance
01/23/01: When everything changed (mostly for the better)
01/19/01: The real zealots
01/16/01: Pardon Clinton?
01/11/01: The fanaticism of Linda Chavez
01/09/01: When Jerusalem was divided
12/29/00 Liberal hate speech, 2000
12/15/00Does the Constitution expect poor children be condemned to lousy government schools?
12/08/00 Powell is wrong man to run State Department
12/05/00 The 'MCAS' teens give each other
12/01/00 Turning his back on the Vietnamese -- again
11/23/00 Why were the Pilgrims thankful?
11/21/00 The fruit of this 'peace process' is war
11/13/00 Unleashing the lawyers
11/17/00 Gore's mark on history
40 reasons to say NO to Gore

© 2002, Boston Globe