9/11 vs Katrina

Following the 9/11 attacks there was a call for government to give a significant amount of money to the families of those that died. Government actuaries came up with a formula that put a value on a life, and paid out over a million dollars in many cases. This was despite the fact that various insurance policies/pension funds paid out. However, you look at 9/11 (conspiracy theories or not), it was not directly government's responsibility.

Fast forward to Katrina where 1836 people died and countless thousands suffered and were made homeless, the majority as a direct result of government negligence. I've heard no talk of compensating the families of the dead (I note here that given actuarial tables this value would come out as significantly less than a 9/11 life). Furthermore, there is no talk of government compensating people for the loss of their homes caused by government negligence, just a pittance that is designed to cap out any payout at $150,000 including insurance payouts.

The media in New York the past few days has devoted a lot of space to whether or not the government should compensate the 40,000 workers who helped clear Ground Zero. The feeling here is that they should be. If these people are compensated for voluntarily doing the government's bidding shouldn't people in New Orleans be compensated for losing their homes and lives caused by the incompetence of the Army Corps of Engineers.

The contrast is profound. After 9/11, we paid out millions regardless of insurance. After Katrina the government ran from its responsibilities. At the time I felt we were setting a dangerous precedent in making such payouts. Where do we draw the line on compensating victims of such disasters. Victims of the first World Trade Center bombing cried foul instantly and got included. So now we know where the line is drawn. It's where it's convenient to government and certainly bares no relationship to its responsibility.