N001489
Wednesday, January 09, 2002 3:22 PM
Interim Final Rule
I have spent a few minutes gathering some information about the number of people usually at the WTC and Pentagon sites during normal working hours (workers, visitors, etc.) and the 'crude' death rates in the US, taking into account variations for "working age" vs. general public. If you do some math you come up with the following "worst case scenario": the odds of a particular deceased victim of working age being alive and one-or-more of the survivors-of-victim also being alive is effectively 0 after 3.133 years. I assumed 3.5 survivors-of-victim per victim (spouse plus 2.5 kids). So, providing 3.133 years extra income covers the "worst case scenario". But a lifetime of this income is certainly uncalled for. No one has any way of knowing how long any of these victims might have lived - or how long any of the survivors-of-victims might live. Giving the survivors-of-victims the benefit of the "best possible case scenario" is not justifiable. (Note: I did not include the numbers for the people on the planes or the response personnel, since these 2 populations are definitely not representative of norm.) Although the median household income in the US is $42187, the contribution of the highest earner (assuming 0-n earners per household) is $31948. So unless there are cases where multiple earners per household were victims, the median value of $31948 should apply. So, 3.133 years at $39148/year comes to $100093. Seems to me like this should be the economic compensation per deceased victim. This treats EVERYONE alike - the recipients of the compensation as well as the providers of the compensation (the average American)!
I would also like to see something figured in pertaining to the divorce rate! No matter what these surviving-spouses say (whether it be from grief or greed), none of their lives were the "story book/romance novel, blissful, utopian existences" that they are trying to convince everyone they lost. Get real! In the "normal" situation, alimony is a thing of the past. There is a significant probability that many of these marriages would have ended anyway. Again, the "best possible case scenario" (that they were going to live happily ever after) is not justifiable.
Also, a lot of comments have been made (here and in the media/press) about how these victims were 'only going to work'. However, it should not be forgotten that these people voluntarily worked at known target facilities. Every literate person in this country KNOWS the WTC was targeted before and that government facilities have been repeatedly targeted. Special considerations (compensation levels and extra benefits and added security) are part of the employment package at such locations. All of these victims knowingly weighed the benefits vs. the risks and decided this was the job for them. Every surviving spouse/child/relative had the chance to talk the deceased out of working there BEFORE THIS HAPPENED, but I bet they didn't! They sat back and 'enjoyed the benefits of the risk'. It is kind of like the people I hear about that signed contracts for heating oil at a fixed priced and now want to be let out of their contracts - they were perfectly happy when they were getting cheaper heating oil than everyone else, but now that the price is lower than what they have to pay IT ISN'T FAIR ANYMORE! Sorry Charlie!
Also, numerous comments have been made (here and in the media/press) of how much more horrific/traumatizing/exceptional/agonizing/unbelievable/blah...blah...blah this situation is compared TO ANY OTHER THAT HAS OR WILL EVER OCCUR. Baloney! The fact that 4 planes were simultaneously overtaken and crashed into buildings was unprecedented. Any particular death was not. Dead is dead - no matter what. If the "pain and suffering" is supposed to be for what the deceased experienced: well, frankly, a lot of them never new what hit them and none of them suffered very long. Nothing "exceptional" about it. If the "pain and suffering" is supposed to be for what the survivors-of-victims experienced: any unexpected death is experienced the same way by the survivors-of-deceased. Do they actually think they would feel "better" if the deceased had been shot by a stranger on the street? Nothing "exceptional" about this situation. The only justification for ANY compensation to the survivors-of-victims is LIABILITY - and that falls on the shoulders of the perpetrators, not the airlines/government/etc.
Since it seems inevitable that this program is going through one way or another, I want to make one suggestion: HOW ABOUT LETTING THE TAXPAYER WHO IS FOOTING THE BILL GET SOMETHING OUT OF THIS! WHAT A CONCEPT! (This is only for the survivors-of-victims situation. The case of those facing lifelong disability is too serious a matter to joke about). Here is my idea for the survivors-of-victims compensation: After you figure out the compensation amount for their situation, they have to win it on 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire'. Same set-up (Regis, TV, everything). They have to reuse previously used questions at each level (randomly drawn) so there won't be any 'bleeding heart easier than usual questions'. The only difference would be that the 'amount' at each level would be relative to their total compensation amount(which might be more or less than the regular $1M). Each player has to be from the set-of-survivors-per-victim - they choose who will play. They can stop at any point if they get nervous. Some of these people think they are such hot spit and 'above the average', LET THEM PROVE IT! I WANT TO WATCH! RATINGS WOULD BE ASTRONOMICAL! ADVERTISERS WILL COME RUNNING! THE SHOW IS FILMED IN NEW YORK CITY - HOW CONVENIENT! THIS IS CAPITALISM AT ITS BEST! ITS THE AMERICAN THING TO DO!
Individual Comment,
Denver, CO