Reforming Our Nations Generosity

I am of the opinion, that when it comes to circumstances involving such an extraordinary influx of fiscal generosity that private funding for victims should be up to the discretion of the privately owned charity, while the federal compensation programs that provide victims with money should use solid percentages of aid, based on a generalized set of conditions that each individuals circumstances fall into. 

Many sides of this argument revolve around the fairness involved with who gets money and who deserves more for what reasons.  I would argue that nothing is fair when it comes to an attack of this nature and no one person is entitled to more charitable fiscal assistance than another.  It should be up to the individual philanthropy groups, charity programs, and privet donors to determine who deserves or is in need of the most aid.   If a foundation for NYC firefighters raises more money than another foundation for NYC police officers; that is just the way it is and the NYC firefighters are privately distributed more fiscal assistance.  No one person, group, or government should be in control of who gets what.  The person who is the one donating money towards a cause should be the one deciding where it goes and what it is used for.   

The fact of the matter is that as a society we need to rethink the ways in which we are charitable by re-engineering the systems by which we are charitable.  To many times have individual groups taken advantage of this nation’s generosity by forming fake assist programs under the illusion that our donations are being given/used for a just cause.  Charity for disasters on the scale of the devastation witnessed on 9/11 should be regulated by a publicly funded program that not only accepts donations but also regulates charitable groups, organizations, and foundations for instances of fraud.   This publicly funded program or federal burial could allow those choosing to donate for victims of tragedies like the 9/11 attacks to have trust in that what they donated is going to a just cause.   This program could also allow for donators the ability to decide who/what they would like to see their money put towards illuminating the (who deserves, what percentage, for what reason) problem that the current system of charities has encountered.  This program can also be set up to take donations for general use, implying that people/things that are less remembered by donors get the funding and support that they need.    

The government on the other hand (outside of the money guaranteed to its federal workers) should not be bias in its assistance involved with disaster relief.  The federal funding of disasters should be an act that we as tax payers accept and even embrace.  However, it should not be up to the government to determine the what sum of use tax payers money should is deserved for individual circumstances such as a family’s earnings, an individual’s role on that day, or any other outside biases.     This being said I feel that a system involving brackets (regarding the extent that they were affected) should be set up in determining who gets what.   For example those who lost loved ones should all get the same amount and those who lost apartments should be given the same amount ( …etcetera), without bias towards for the income of the family member or the price of the apartment etc.   Federal money should be split among each of these ‘generalized’ (not specific) brackets with respect to the brackets average need of assistance.  Each individual circumstance once generalized into a bracket should be paid out the same amount of money that all others in similar generalized circumstances are given.  This allows for an evenly distributed victim relief that in general (not case by case) gives more aid to those who are most in need and less to those who are less in need of it.       

 
            All three of these papers were eyebrow raising for me.  Previously I never really thought much about the fiscal nature or the economic structure that relief programs can encounter during large scale disasters such as the attacks on 9/11.  It was very interesting and enlightening to read about the problems that generosity has the potential to create.   Who do you think is most entitled to compensation from tragedies such as the attacks on September 11? Should the government do a better job at regulating victim relief programs?  If so what can be done?  Given the 582 million that the American Red Cross accumulated from donations, how would you go about giving out relief?