While news of the Iraqi election has drawn the bulk of media attention over the past few days, it was one tiny, 60-word wire story in yesterday’s New York Times that caught my eye. “Military Death Benefits to Rise,” the headline extolled.

Take a wild guess at what the family of a soldier killed in combat gets. Nope, lower.

Currently, the Department of Defense places the value of an American killed in combat at $12,420.

This is approximately the cost of a burial. A quick survey of Palo Alto funeral homes and cemeteries put the cost of a gravesite at just over $6,450; the cost of the headstone at about $1,250; and a decent casket (one made out of real wood) starts at $1,400. The total cost of $9,100, including the cost of a memorial service or a procession.

True, the prices in Palo Alto probably represent the higher end of those one could find in this country. But odds are that the people from around here who enlist in the army are not the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who have made millions and are just itching to prove something to themselves. But I’ve been wrong before.

The $12,420 is not even as much as one year’s basic pay for the lowest ranking private in the army. That amount is $14,321, plus the signing bonus, plus benefits, plus allowances.

True, George Bush I doubled the amount from $6,000 on account of the Gulf war and Bill Clinton did not raise it beyond $12,000 during his tenure. But, the last time I checked, Clinton did not start any large-scale wars that put hundreds of thousands of troops in harms way.

The $12,420 is a pittance of the more than $1 million that the families — civilian families — of police officers and fire fighters received from the September 11 Victim’s Compensation Fund.

This fund was set up to shield the airline industry from large-scale lawsuits, and thus inflated the compensation to discourage grieving families from suing. Are military families allowed to sue the government if their son or daughter gets killed in combat? Does that make these deaths worth a million dollars less?

The average enlisted soldier doesn’t get a say in policy. He or she signs up and pledges to defend our country in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, until death — or the end of one’s contract — do they part.

And the thanks the government bestows the families of these brave men and women is $12,420.

Economists will tell you that this is an issue of supply and demand, and that the supply of troops has, well, greatly diminished since this war began. Surprise, surprise.

We must have been busy using our money on something worthwhile, right?

It seems we were more concerned with giving the rich tax cuts on unearned income. Perhaps we needed to spend more on that missile-defense system, which is in its 20-somethingth incarnation and still hasn’t worked. No, we probably needed the money for the coronation. Sorry, inauguration.

So I applaud George Bush II for seeking to raise the death benefit to $100,000, whatever his reasons for doing so are.

At the same time, we invaded Iraq almost two years ago. Did we think we wouldn’t lose any soldiers?

Nick Fram, Esq., is a junior majoring in public policy and an RA in Donner, the premier all-freshman dorm on campus. E-mail him at ndfram@Stanford.edu.