With the six-month anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks recently commemorated, this is not going to be a popular column.
But someone has to write it.
The news has been filled with reports of the federal government’s negotiations over compensation for the families of Sept. 11 victims. What will they get from the taxpayers? How will it be paid? What strings are attached?
Certainly this was a national tragedy unparalleled in American history. Yet, I can’t help asking myself these basic questions:
- What constitutional rationale is there for direct payments to victims’ families?
- If, indeed, there is a constitutional basis for such payments, why not for others? Why not for the families of troops lost in Afghanistan? Why not for previous victims of al-Qaida terrorism at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and Khobar Towers and the USS Cole? Why not for victims of the previous World Trade Center bombing? Why not for the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, TWA Flight 800 – and on and on we go?
Yes, my heart goes out to the victims and their families. My prayers go out to them. WorldNetDaily rallied to raise charitable contributions for the families immediately after the disaster. But taxpayer money? Why?
This is not compassion. This is coercion. And it points out a fundamental problem with the way Americans see their government.
Government is not Santa Claus. Government is government. It has clearly delineated powers and responsibilities – and clearly delineated areas of non-responsibility.
Government is not supposed to make decisions from the heart. It is supposed to make decisions based on the will of the people – but only under the authority and scope of the Constitution.
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that would remotely authorize such a wealth transfer. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
Neither is there, of course, anything in the Constitution that would authorize Congress to give $15 billion to the U.S. airlines industry as a bailout after Sept. 11 – and this may be the inexcusable political motivation for the payments to the families.
So often we see one bad government program lead to another. And that’s what is happening here.
Yes, everyone feels awful about the losses these families experienced Sept. 11. So, few will raise their voices in protest. But it reminds me of the old Davy Crockett story, “Not Yours To Give,” recounted in detail in the June 2001 edition of WorldNet Magazine – the precursor to Whistleblower.
Crockett eloquently explained to his fellow congressmen, intent on transferring federal funds to a widow, why it was not within their scope of responsibility and authority to do so. He offered, instead, real compassion – his own money.
That’s the way it is supposed to work.
When government takes over the responsibility of charity, it undermines charity. It undermines our willingness – and ability – as a people to help our neighbors, our families, our friends.
Will future victims of terrorism also be treated this way? Government has now raised expectations.
Of course, there is precedent for giving money to victims of natural disasters. The misguided Federal Emergency Management Agency has carved out a special role for itself in giving away disaster aid for victims of severe floods, hurricanes and storms. But this, too, is wrong. It’s not only unconstitutional, it’s unfair.
Why should those victims of large national disasters be compensated, but those anonymous victims of smaller, everyday tragedies go uncompensated?
Of course, some in our society might suggest everyone be eligible for such compensation. There are always elements in our society who want to move America further down the road of socialism – a system where government alone decides who gets what. Ultimately, it means none of us own anything. Our property is not our own. Government controls it all and decides how much, if any, you are allowed to keep, while redistributing the rest as it sees fit.
This victims’ program, while certainly understandable in the wake of such a national tragedy, is hopelessly wrong.
Is there anything we can do about it? Probably not. But for those of us who understand just how misguided it is, we must speak out. We must not continue to make the same mistakes over and over. We must stop government from throwing around our money this way – without a thought as to the legality.