When the federal government decided to pay the families of 9-11 victims, many of us on the right warned that it would set a bad precedent. Never before had families of victims killed by terrorist attacks received such a federal handout. Congress authorized the payout just 10 days after the September 11th attacks; when emotions were still running very high. Even then, some conservatives were questioning the practice and those questions largely went unanswered. What about those families from Oklahoma City? The U.S.S. Cole? The Embassy bombings? What about families from future attacks? There is no doubt that the 9-11 terror attacks were horrible and had a great impact on a large number of people. But how was it that the government was authorized to spend millions of tax dollars?

The rationalization for the payout was that lawsuits could bankrupt the airline industry. By accepting federal funds, victims signed away their right to sue. But today that rationale seems to be largely forgotten, and here comes a big fat "I told ya so." Fox (search) News reports that other terror victims are lining up with their hands out.

Mariane Pearl was widowed after terrorists likely linked to Al Qaeda murdered her husband, Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl, in February 2002.

But unlike the thousands of family members of victims in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Pearl is ineligible for the funds set aside in the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. [...]

Karen Hastie Williams, a lobbyist representing the victims of the 1998 bombing in Kenya, argued that the commission investigating government actions to combat terror before Sept. 11 has indicated that the government withheld valuable information, and therefore the victims of terrorism before Sept. 11 deserve to be compensated. [...]

Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., said he believes the fund should also be open to the victims of the Oklahoma City bombings, in which 168 people were killed. Although Nickles has no legislation specifically in the works, he "believes as a matter of fairness that Oklahoma City victims should be included as well, but it looks like chances for that are pretty remote," said Nickles spokeswoman Rachel Oliphant.

In October, Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Tom Daschle, D-S.D., introduced the Anthrax Victims Fund Fairness Act to allow compensation under the terms offered by the Victim Compensation Fund for those affected by the anthrax delivered by mail to the Senate in the fall of 2001. Leahy and Daschle were the targets of those attacks, but were not infected and would not be eligible for relief. [...]

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., has crafted legislation to expand the Sept. 11 fund to include the Americans killed by Al Qaeda in the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the USS Cole in 2000.

At the risk of sounding insensitive, I'm tired of deadbeats who fail to take precautions trying to suckle from the federal teat. Quite frankly, people who neglect to get homeowners insurance, life insurance, auto insurance, or medical insurance should get exactly what they pay for. Insurance is not an entitlement, and if you die without having life insurance, those that you leave behind shouldn't get paid one red cent of taxpayer dollars.

Now I realize that many insurance policies will not cover acts of war or terrorism. But that doesn't mean you can't get insurance for it. Just about everything is able to be insured if you are willing to pay the premium. Frankly, I think the chance of terrorism is pretty remote and not worth the extra coverage, but if you really want the insurance and are willing to pay what it costs, I say go for it. If you can't afford it, then that's just too damned bad. Perhaps you should reorganize your prioritites if insurance is so important.

Federal money is collected at the point of a gun, and is not a giant charity outfit. It's amazing how slippery that slope can be. With America's victim mentality, how long before people start claiming that people have a right to life insurance and it's the job of rich taxpayers to pay for it? Even worse, how long before people start calling for nationalization?