HOW MUCH IS ONE LIFE WORTH?
The Finances of Death After 9-11
by Ted Rall
uexpress.com
NEW YORK-This is America, land of the free, the home of the
not-always-so-brave. Theoretically, the First Amendment
permits us to talk about anything we want, but God help you
if you actually try to use the thing.
Since September 11th, the list of "permissible topics and
opinions" has been shrinking faster than a typical 401(k).
Last week an editorial cartoon I drew about "terror widows"
became the subject of intense national controversy when an
advocacy group for the relatives of 9-11 victims launched an
e-mail campaign to get the piece removed from the New York
Times and Washington Post websites. Both newspapers caved
in to the pressure, adding victims compensation to the list of
things we're no longer supposed to question.
The federal government is poised to cut roughly $6 billion
worth of checks to the spouses and children of 9-11 victims.
That's a lot of money-our money. Are we no longer allowed to
talk about how the government spends our taxes?
My cartoon reflected a growing sense that groups have gone
from asking for much needed help to taking excessive
advantage of Americans' generosity in the wake of
overwhelming tragedy. When Families of September 11, Inc.
treasurer Stephen Push went on TV to demand an increase in
the $1.6 million allotted for each victim, he was deluged with
angry e-mails. "If $1.6 million isn't enough you should rot in
hell," he quoted one. "You're disgusting trying to profit from
your loved one's death," said another. But Push's efforts
worked. According to fund administrator Kenneth Feinberg,
the average award has been increased to $1.85 million.
"The government fund is not `aid,' says Push. "It is
compensation to which the families are entitled."
How the Fund Works
Congress approved the fund as a supplement to the $15
billion bailout of the airline industry. Only survivors who agree
not to sue the airlines are eligible. Each victim is worth an
average of $1.85 million, tax-free. Amounts vary enormously,
based on such actuarial factors as how much the dead person
earned and how long they were expected to continue
working. The minimum payment is $250,000, which means
that some will receive significantly more than $1.85 million.
Remember, the $1.85 million figure is per victim, not per
relative, which means it will be divvied up among
relatives-spouses and children, mainly. In addition, victims
groups hasten to point out, life insurance payouts will be
subtracted from the total. For example, Beverly Eckert
received $1.4 million from her husband's life insurer. Because
this exceeds the figure alloted her by the fund, she will
receive no fund payment.
Eckert argues that she's being penalized because her husband
responsibly provided for her in the event of his death.
Nonetheless, she ends up with $1.4 million, equal to nearly 15
years of her husband's $96,000-a-year salary. And, in
addition to the government payout, all the widows and
widowers remain eligible to collect workman's comp, the Social
Security death benefit and employer pensions.
Is It Too Much?
In the weeks after September 11th, millions of dollars poured
into the coffers of 9-11-related charities. The reaction of
Americans to the first major terrorist attack on U.S. soil was
very emotional-since the 9-11 victims were killed in an attack
on the nation, the feeling seemed to be, their fellow citizens
should make sure their families are well taken care of. It didn't
take long for relatives of those killed in previous terror
attacks, including those in Oklahoma City and the 1993 World
Trade Center bombing, to complain that they had received
little or no compensation for their suffering. One immediately
wonders what the families of the U.S. servicemen killed
fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan will receive. It's unlikely
their relatives won't get anything close to $1.85 million; nor
will those whose loved ones succumbed to anthrax.
Attaching a dollar value to the life of a parent or spouse
makes many Americans uncomfortable. Why, some ask, should
9-11 survivors be compensated differently from those whose
spouses die from cancer, car accidents or even suicide?
Death is death. Why does the fact that terrorism was
involved make the loss different for survivors?
Even if you approve of the theory of victim compensation, the
9-11 fund seems both excessive and skewed to most benefit
those who need help least.
The average 9-11 victim was 40 years old, which means he or
she had an expectation of 25 years of further wage-earning
before a typical retirement at age 65. The $1.85 million
compensation represents $74,000 for each of those 25
un-lived years-which is at least double the income of the
average American, even in the high-cost New York City metro
area.
Problems with the Fund
The list of victims of 9-11 offers an economic microcosm of
our society. Some were wealthy investment bankers; others
were bike messengers and illegal immigrants scraping by in the
kitchen at the Windows on the World restaurant. Is it right
that the awards be based on each victim's individual earning
potential? What about the person in a modest-paying job who
had big as-yet-unrealized potential? Should the requirements
of "maintaining a lifestyle" be a factor? If so, then the
survivors of rich people need more money than the survivors
of the poor, in order to keep up with their high mortgage
payments and other expenses.
Thousands of Americans wrote me to express their disgust
with efforts of the 9-11 organizations to get more money.
Many expressed the opinion that poorer families should get
more, not less, than richer ones. The fund provides the
opposite. For most citizens, the death of a spouse would
result in little more than a standard $10,000 employer-funded
life insurance payout. Most people believe that 9-11 victims'
families should receive enough to get back on their feet-not a
penny more. "I donated to the victims," wrote one, "but now I
wish I hadn't. Nobody told us that these people would
become millionaires."
The crux of the trouble is the fund's raison d'être:
discouraging lawsuits against the airlines. Although there's no
evidence that the particular airlines involved in 9-11 were
more negligent than their competitors, there were plenty of
warnings before 2001 that the industry as a whole was
woefully inadequate from a security standpoint. And it's
entirely possible that jurors would issue multi-million-dollar
awards to plaintiffs in hundreds of cases if they came to trial.
In order to provide an adequate incentive not to sue, the
fund had to offer multi-million-dollar payouts.
Nevertheless, the fund won't completely prevent airline
lawsuits. People who receive big life insurance payments, for
example, won't qualify for the fund, and will receive enough
money to pay for years of litigation. Others may qualify, yet
choose to sue instead in the hope of a bigger payment from
an airline than that offered by the fund. Perhaps that's best:
if, after all, the airlines really screwed up on security, they
deserve to take a beating in court.
A New Social Contract?
At the root of the hubbub over victim compensation is the
fact that America falls woefully short when it comes to
helping people when they're down and out. When someone
you love dies in a train derailment, apartment fire or a violent
crime, you need both emotional and financial assistance. The
vast majority of people, unfortunately, find themselves alone
with their grief and money problems. Perhaps that's why they
can't help but feel somewhat jealous of the World Trade
Center victims. It's not that those who lost someone on 9-11
don't need help-they obviously do-it's that they're the only
people getting any.
(Ted Rall's new book, a graphic travelogue about his recent
coverage of the Afghan war titled "To Afghanistan and Back,"
will be published in April.) |
