Security money should be based on risk

In the name of preventing and fighting terrorism, the Bush administration has invaded two nations, conducted one of the most massive cabinet reorganizations in American history and conducted a clown and puppet show in Onalaska, Wis.

Hopefully, that last item seems odd to you, too.

But it's not odd to the Department of Homeland Security, which doles out hundreds of ludicrous and wasteful grants across the country. The $8,000 Onalaska grant to teach fire safety (must be one hell of a puppet show) wasn't even part of another $69,000 awarded to the LAFS for Life Foundation for similar shows or $22,000 for an education robot in Grants Pass, Ore.

At least those grants got used.

Officials spent $22,800 on unusable radios in Mason County, Wash., $98,000 on incident-management training courses that no one attended and $63,000 on a decontamination suit in rural Washington because no one is qualified to use it, according to the Congressional testimony of Veronique de Rugy, a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank.

But don't blame the Bush administration or DHS: The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of Congress.

When our legislature signed the Patriot Act into law, it included a small but important provision, which declared, "Each State shall be allocated ... not less than 0.75 percent of the total amount appropriated in the fiscal year for grants." This means that both Pennsylvania and Wyoming are guaranteed the same minimum funding levels, regardless of the fact that Philadelphia and Pittsburgh contain many more likely terrorists and terrorist targets than Cheyenne.

Despite its many landmarks ranging from the Liberty Bell to 30th Street Station, our city is losing out on badly needed funds. Congress is putting self-interest before national security.

Despite a House bill that revises grants determined completely by need and urging from DHS, our esteemed upper chamber -- the Senate, for those who failed PSCI130 -- has continued to block amendments to the system. As if last year's infamous $200 million bridge to nowhere for Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Ala.) wasn't enough, the Senate is dangerously viewing national security grants as a state entitlement. Many of grants aren't bad grants, but they're simply not items -- like defibrillators for gyms and fire safety puppet shows -- that should be paid for with the homeland security budget.

As Undersecretary for Homeland Security George Foresman said in a press conference, "Everybody was going to get something, no matter what."

And that's not how the nation should craft its national security policy.

Because of the base formula, Wyoming, America's least populous state, will receive $15.07 per capita in DHS grants. Pennsylvania, on the other hand, will be getting $4.02 per person.

Of course, there is some degree to which every state should have the basic equipment for first responders and intelligence gathering, but that determination should be made at the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security, not arbitrarily mandated by law. Rhode Island will be able to fill its basic needs much easier than Texas.

Don't think, however, that I believe preference should go to the coastal states or that all funds should go to urban areas. Omaha, Neb. contains a number of vulnerable targets -- such as the Strategic Air Command headquarters and two nuclear power plants -- and DHS agreed, giving the Omaha area $8.33 million this year. And our agriculture system remains vulnerable as well, and an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, caused by terrorists or not, would cripple US agriculture. But that's a decision for DHS -- because maybe the investment isn't worth the possible benefits.

Instead, much like federal transportation spending (see Ted Stevens' Way above), anti-terrorism funding has turned into another way to spread the pork. Luckily, there is some good news.

This year, DHS unveiled the Urban Area Security Initiative, which distributes $757 million to the 46 urban areas where money is most needed and most effective, because this program is free of the crippling politically-motivated funding formula. The Department fired a salvo toward the Hill, too, declaring that the new program "aligns federal resources with national priorities and targets capabilities ... to generate the highest return on investment in increasing the nation's level of preparedness."

However, as DHS Assistant Secretary Tracy Henke noted in the press conference, approximately 40 percent is still based on the Patriot Act formula -- but it's a step in the right direction.

The Senate's stubborn insistence on state minimums must come to an end. How can puppet shows go on while SEPTA sits vulnerable? It may be good for puppeteers, but it isn't good for the public.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.