dojW000077.xml
Title
dojW000077.xml
Source
born-digital
Media Type
email
Date Entered
2001-11-06
September 11 Email: Body
Tuesday, November 06, 2001 12:26 PM
9/11 fund
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am writing in response to the Justice Dept.'s request for comments on the
distribution of funds from the 9/11 fund.
As I understand it, the law requires that awards should be reduced by any
collateral sources of compensation received. It cites collateral sources such
as life insurance or pension benefits. If the law does not rule out charity
as a collateral source through specific mention or limit, then charity should
be included as a credible collateral source.
The argument that reducing fund awards because of charitable donations
reduces the incentive for citizens to contribute to charity seems, to me, a
poor one. First, this course allows for a larger pool of money to be
distributed. Perhaps allowing for people who did not lose a loved one, but a
job or a home, to receive compensation.
Secondly, people did not give money to make victims wealthy. They gave to
allow the victims a source of practical and needed help, to "land on their
feet" as it were. If, through charity or contributions from the fund, victims
and families get what they need, then mission accomplished. The actual source
of the revenue is the same. Either a direct contribution, or from taxes which
have been collected from these same giving people.
Thirdly, if the charitable donations allow for some tax money to be saved,
all the better. This may seem to run contrary to my first argument. If the
goals of the fund and charity can be accomplished with money to spare, then
the country can use that money elsewhere. As you are well aware, tax revenues
are down, and the U.S.A. has many bills to pay, some of which are new since
the 11th.
I hope my comments on these matters are helpful to you. I do not envy you
the decisions to be made in the coming weeks. I wish you luck, prudence and
wisdom.
Individual Comment
Jackson Heights, NY
9/11 fund
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am writing in response to the Justice Dept.'s request for comments on the
distribution of funds from the 9/11 fund.
As I understand it, the law requires that awards should be reduced by any
collateral sources of compensation received. It cites collateral sources such
as life insurance or pension benefits. If the law does not rule out charity
as a collateral source through specific mention or limit, then charity should
be included as a credible collateral source.
The argument that reducing fund awards because of charitable donations
reduces the incentive for citizens to contribute to charity seems, to me, a
poor one. First, this course allows for a larger pool of money to be
distributed. Perhaps allowing for people who did not lose a loved one, but a
job or a home, to receive compensation.
Secondly, people did not give money to make victims wealthy. They gave to
allow the victims a source of practical and needed help, to "land on their
feet" as it were. If, through charity or contributions from the fund, victims
and families get what they need, then mission accomplished. The actual source
of the revenue is the same. Either a direct contribution, or from taxes which
have been collected from these same giving people.
Thirdly, if the charitable donations allow for some tax money to be saved,
all the better. This may seem to run contrary to my first argument. If the
goals of the fund and charity can be accomplished with money to spare, then
the country can use that money elsewhere. As you are well aware, tax revenues
are down, and the U.S.A. has many bills to pay, some of which are new since
the 11th.
I hope my comments on these matters are helpful to you. I do not envy you
the decisions to be made in the coming weeks. I wish you luck, prudence and
wisdom.
Individual Comment
Jackson Heights, NY
September 11 Email: Date
2001-11-06
Collection
Citation
“dojW000077.xml,” September 11 Digital Archive, accessed December 16, 2025, https://911digitalarchive.org/items/show/26665.