And yes, most do carry some type of life insurance. However, that can take a long time to come through. In my own circumstance, it was well over a year before my mom received compensation from my dad’s life insurance policy. At the time I don’t think this program was in place (or we didn’t know the right people to get access to it as the COPS organization wasn’t running in our area until the late 1990s and it’s not automatic enrollment) and we had nothing in the interim. Mom got a job, of course, but having home maker on your resume (especially at the time) wasn’t exactly considered a stellar qualification for a higher paying job.

We made it, but it would have been nice if we had something like this program to help fill in the gaps before the insurance money got there.

(And BTW, I suspect that almost all police officers do carry some life insurance; their savings depends on their personal finances – along with the amount of insurance. So it’s not an issue of rewarding irresponsiblity or anything like that.)

Perhaps my reference to obligation was not the best word to have chosen without further refinement.

What I was referring to was an “obligation” that constitutes a “debt of honor” – that is an obligation that we as a society voluntarily assume in forming a compact to provide for “common defense” we have a special duty to come along side the families of those slain in the line of duty because it’s the right and honorable thing to do.

The specifics of how we discharge this debt of course are open to discussion. But this debt of honor remains.

The distinction is that I am not subscribing to the basis that the left would characteristically argue – that the families have a right to such support. The families do not have an intrinsic claim upon us to assist them, which is what a right would entail.

Rather, again, it’s a duty or obligation that we as a society have voluntarily taken upon ourselves in our compacting together to provide for the “common defense”

The same as with our soldiers.

1. I don’t think the program should be a federal program, if it is to get federal money– and I am more than a little unclear on why the federal government should be involved in this — the money should be in the form of a grant to state governments for this purpose.

2. Try reading the post before commenting. It would save all concerned a lot of time. Whether or not the program actually works is irrelevant in regards to this post. The post is railing at cutting the budget authority for the program down to a level that is 50% higher than was obligated last year. Now I suppose you could argue that if it was funded at $100M and took 10 years to process a claim then if you cut it to $60M it will take 20 years but that really isn’t the subject here and I’m not sure I’d disagree with you.

3. My only point in regards to this post is that it reflects a total ignorance, or deliberate disregard, of how this and other entitlement programs work.

You know what the money goes to? The freaking bureaucrats who process the claim and take TEN YEARS to do it.

Try looking into how the program actuall functions before you sound off on this.

What they were referring to was that the Federal government would provide a structure for states to band resources together to defend the nation from threats to the nation that were external threats or an insurrection that was beyond the ability of an individual state to handle.

So yes, “common defense” is a duty of the nation, but police work in general is a state or local level exercise of that “common defense”. Which also makes it an appropriate use of tax dollars at what ever level it is exercised.

Nonetheless, in 2009, with all the other rearrangements to the relationships between the federal government and the state in the intervening year, it may be more expedient to have such a program at the federal level. I’m open to reasons for that – especially since I haven’t previously thought about it.

But is does seem clear that this is not a duty that the Constitution envisions as being a federal duty.

As to how to administer such programs, that’s a legitimate discussion, and it may well be that a Federal program is not the way we should be going – so long as lower levels of government or private entities pick up the slack.

But again, I would hope you don’t view such discussions as an attack on or denial of our obligations as a society to those who have paid with their lives for our protection and safety.