Replies

It is amazing how some of you "small government" conservatives believe that the United States should be an insurer of last resort for the people who died in these attacks. Come the end of the day, I doubt any jury will find that the Port Authority or the Airlines have any liability and further if it is true, then the true beneficiary will be the Worker's Comp insurance carrier as they have already paid out billions to the victims' families and are entitled to seek re-imbursement from any third parties.

I am not a fan of the tort suit. But I am less a fan of the victims' compensation fund.

Interesting point, however, I believe that too many of we "small governement conservatives," like yourself, have stopped seeing the trees for the forest when it comes to government expenditures. We spend federal dollars on so many things we shouldn't that when something legitimate comes along, it is often bashed.

James Madison wrote the following in Federalist 45. The emphasis is mine: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce.

Did these people die in a war action against the United States?
Yes. That alone is enough to justify federal compensation.
Is it the United States government's fault that these attacks happened?
Most likely, yes. We will never know for sure because we would need a crystal ball to see if a non-Clintonized intelligence apparatus could have prevented it, but it is my firm belief that 9/11 is the result of the negligence of the previous administration. Due to security concerns, the chances this would be proven in court are slim.

I suppose there is some room for debate on whether the victims of this war action need to be compensated (and certainly, the amount is extreme in most cases) but there is no doubt that it is within the federal purview. Also, characterizing it as insurance only counts if it is insurance; insurance doesn't pay for war damages, so only the government could make good.

Let's not quibble about federal war expenditures. Save your ammo for pork and income redistibution schemes.

Arguably, the US is responsible for not taking reasonable precautions against terrorism (i.e., minimal response to the first WTC attack, USS Cole, embassy bombings, etc.). After all, national defense is pretty much what small-government conservatives think IS the proper function of the federal gov't. Sort of like, you could sue your local police department if they were basically ignoring a string of home-invasion robberies, and then you became a victim.

What galls me about the compensation fund is this.

Most of the people killed were execs, financial workers etc.
I'll bet most had large ins. policies or at least should have.
How is being killed in the WTC different for the family than an auto accident or heart attack ? Financially speaking.

While I have sympathy for the victims and families, where does it stop? What about OKC families?
I've seen some of the family members on TV complaining that their 2.8 million dollar compensation wasn't enough. GREED