Greed or Stupidity?

I haven't followed Gregg Easterbrook's glorious career, but I have a vague recollection that it included stints at Washington monthly and the Atlantic, as well as the New Republic. I can't be bothered to confirm that, so I won't attack Easterbrook's whole career. I will, however, attack the following entry on his new blog at TNR.

Easterbrook's basic premise is this: the 911 victims' survivors who don't opt in to the federal compensation fund are greedy bastards --- and it's time someone called the ungrateful fuckers on it. Says Gregg:

Yesterday a federal judge said they can. Set aside the logic of the judge's decision, which in effect held that American, Boeing, United, and the landlords of the World Trade Center all could have reasonably foreseen that 19 suicidal fanatics simultaneously would seize four large airlines and use them as guided missiles. Gee, lots of people foresaw that, didn't they? What's going to happen now is that at least some fraction of the 60 percent of families who have not filed for federal payments will sue.

Which means: some 9/11 families are getting greedy. It's time this was laid on the table.

First of all, they've already sued. That's usually how you get a judge's ruling. But are those families greedy?

Families who have taken the federal compensation have, so far, received average awards of $1.6 million, tax-free. Families of the United States personnel murdered by Al Qaida in the Kenya and Tanzania terror attacks of 1998 received, on average, nothing. Families of the several hundred United States military personnel killed in Afghanistan fighting to destroy al Qaida, and killed in Iraq fighting at least in part against terrorism, received, on average, $9,000, taxable.

Let's leave aside the fact that other sources differ on the facts, such as what percentage of survivors have received federal payment. Let's also ignore that fact that the victims of 9/11 didn't volunteer for military service, like soldiers who know what their job entails. The fact the 9/11 survivors may get federal benefits doesn't make them greedy.

Now some 9/11 families are saying $1.6 million isn't enough. Set aside whether they should be receiving anything from taxpayers, given the myriad other circumstances in which Americans die in various horrible events every bit as traumatic and devastating to their families, who receive nothing at all. Assume for the sake of argument that something about 9/11 justifies offering victims' estates a very large special payment. Yet some 9/11 families are saying very large is not large enough. This is greed; it is employing the memory of lost loved ones for gold-digging.

Here's where Easterbrook starts to lose his mind. The families he speaks of are rejecting the $1.6 million (and in many cases, much more) by opting to sue third parties. Turning down $1.6 million -- how avaricious can you get? And note that Easterbrook doesn't call the families who take the $1.6M greedy, even though they are getting millions more than the victims of Al Qaida in Africa and U.S. military casualties. No, it's the only the ones who refuse federal compensation who are grasping bastards.

Easterbrook just can't help himself, though, he's on a roll.

But we need a lawsuit to find out the truth, some families say. Every single person in the world already knows the central truth of 9/11, that United States airport and airplane security was poor. There isn't any hidden secret about how knives got through shoddy security checks, or flimsy cockpit doors were kicked in. We were all going through those checkpoints and riding on those planes, all as a society sharing the risk--including the federal judge who himself was getting on those planes though he now says it could have reasonably been foreseen they would be crashed into buildings. How odd he himself didn't foresee it.

Well, which is it, Gregg -- foreseeable or not foreseeable? Everyone knows how easy it was to hijack an airplane, because the airlines' security sucks so bad, but the judge was wrong to rule that a hijacking was foreseeable. And we because we all knew it was simple to hijack a plane, we all implicitly agreed to "share[] the risk" of a hijacking -- even those who weren't on the planes and may never have flown in their lives. By that logic, those injured by drunk drivers are greedy for suing, because every single person in the world knows that its simple for drunks to get behind the wheel, and therefore we share the risk of occupying the same highways as the drunks.

But we need a lawsuit because the federal awards aren't high enough for high-income victims, some families say. Actually, the federal fund is paying more to high-income victims, itself a debatable policy--why aren't all lives worth the same? Survivors of low-income workers have gotten as little as $250,000, survivors of high white-collar managers as much as $6.1 million. No amount of money brings a loved one back. The families complaining about the high-end awards are essentially saying, "Okay, then if we can't have him or her back, we want money, money, money." One American in eight lives in poverty. For 9/11 families receiving millions in special payments, some of it drawn from the taxes of the poor, to complain that millions is not enough crosses the line into greed.

Are the individuals are suing the same ones who want more from the federal fund? Easterbrook offers no proof.

In any event, the people who are suing are giving up their rights to the federal award, and taking a considerable risk they can meet their burden of proof in a civil lawsuit. (And, again, the ones who are suing are the ones who aren't taking tax money from the poor.) The families who sue may end up with nothing -- except a significant cost bill from their opponents. For instance, if the families can't prove the hijackers broke into the cockpits -- a difficult burden since no direct physical evidence and no eyewitnesses remain -- they can't prevail against Boeing. And if they do win, they'll only get compensation -- the value of their decedent's support, companionship, aid and comfort, not a windfall.

Finally, Easter-egghead tips his hand:

But we need a lawsuit to work out our grief, some families say. I can't disagree with this because each person works through grief differently. For many it would seem that the unprecedented federal offer is very kind in this regard--receive a payment without years of litigation and legalisms taking over your life, and move on. But maybe there are those for whom years of legalism, hearings, and somber recitations would have some therapeutic value. It's a legitimate concern.

But that concern pales against this concern: The airlines must stay in business. "Assume for the sake of argument that something about 9/11 justifies offering victims' estates a very large special payment." What justifies the special payment, and was the underlying reason Congress passed the unprecedented 9/11 compensation act, is preventing lawsuits from bankrupting American, United, and perhaps Boeing. Such bankruptcies would harm far more than 3,000 families. Such bankruptcies would achieve an Al Qaida objective, damaging the American economy.

If the families for whom $6.1 million is not enough persist in their avaricious desire to sue--and if the lawyers who would get shares of court awards, but get no shares of federal fund awards, persist in their ghoulish desire to encourage such suits--the country's two largest airlines, and largest aircraft manufacturer, may fail. This will cause significant harm the United States. And it seems unlikely that the dying thoughts of the noble victims of 9/11 were, "I hope my survivors really screw the United States for money." (Emphasis added.)

So Easterbrook's not a cold-hearted bastard after all -- the plight of airline executives out in the snow, begging for alms in their ragged clothing, brings a tear to Gregg's eye. There are folks who deserve six million --people like Don Carty and Glenn Tilton -- but not a bunch of whining widows, widowers and orphans.

It's all quite simple -- people who are declining generous government payments -- ones Easterbrook doesn't think they deserve -- are greedy. In fact, says Gregg, by rejecting federal compensation, they're "screwing the United States for money." They may deserve compensation for their losses, but the shoring up unprofitable air carriers and their millionaire executives and directors is much more important.

The perfect name for Gregg's blog: Kausfiles Jr.