Please read the following from Rush.

Subject: What's a Military Family Worth?


by Rush Limbaugh, www.RushLimbaugh.com, March 11, 2002
I think the vast differences in compensation between the victims of the September 11th casualty, and those who die serving the country in uniform,are profound. No one is really talking about it either because you just don't criticize anything having to do with September 11th.
Well, I just can't let the numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country.

If you lost a family member in the September 11th attack, you're going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee
of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million.

If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit,
half of which is taxable. Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs.
If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry.
And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18.
When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt.

Keep in mind that some of the people that are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough.
We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the
same deal that the September 11th families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as well. You see where this is going, don't you?

Folks, this is part and parcel of over fifty years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really sad.

Editors note:  Is it too "politically incorrect" or insensitive to pose the fundamental question WHY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OBLIGATED TO COMPENSATE THE SURVIVORS OF THE 9/11 VICTIMS AT ALL?

FACTS:
1. No amount of money will bring them back.
2. Their survivors are no better or worse off financially than had their loved one perished in a traffic accident on the way to work
that morning.
3. After all, employer death benefits, commercial life insurance, Social Security, etc. are designed for just such contingencies.
4. Other catastrophes, such as Oklahoma City, have not generated carte blanch to the Federal treasury.  Is this a precedent we're ready
to continue?  What if the next terror attack is a nuke that kills millions?
5. And of course, the basic asymmetry of payment compared to our military personnel as covered in the basic text.
6.  I'd never succeed as a politician!


I had never thought it about until I read it. I does not strike me as "right" that those who take on the monumental task of defending our country should have their survivors treated so poorly in comparison to those who had the misfortune of being killed in a terrorist attack.

What do you think?

Green

I am in favor of keeping all Federally paid death benefits commensurate with those paid to our servicemen and women killed in the line of duty.
The only question that I would have is, where is the money coming from for paying these dealth benefits to the survivors of victims of Sept. 11? IIRC, most of the benefits paid or promised to the families of victims of Sept. 11 are from donations and from corporate insurance policies. Remeber the stink when the American Red Cross reneged on paying the initial benefits?
I usually really like Rush but I get concerned when he bends the facts to fit.

Question:

Is this strictly [i]FEDERAL[/i] monies, or does it include the money donated by sundry and all after the attack?

If it's strictly Federal (yours, mine, ours) cash, then hell yes, I find it [i]more[/i] than "upsetting."

I didn't take it as fact bending.  There was no statement of where the money to the 9/11/01 victims was coming from.  I took it as a comment on the state of our society that we must compensate for this terrible tragedy that occurred 9/11/01 by paying the victims families.  But when it comes to appreciating the sacrifice of our servicemen and their families our government / we fall short.

It would be nice if some of the money that was raised after the attack could be directed to the families of the servicemen that die in our fight against terror.

It is my understanding that the benefits are all federal money.  The money collected and donated by charitable agencies is different.

I am not trying to sound callous, but didn't any of the victims prepare for a sudden death?  Of course they did!  I am quite sure that the vast majority of victims were well-insured, precisely so their families would be taken care of in the event something tragic occurred.

I think that Federal money going to these victims is total bullshit.  What has happened to being responsible for your families own well being?

I am not arguing with anyone who thinks military personnel should receive greater benefits for their families.  Government employees by definition are entitled to perks in our current government, and I think that is only right.  I too feel that benefits to service men and womens families should be higher.