A Gross Misallocation of Funds

Americans worried about terrorism ought to consider moving to Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming or the Dakotas.

Why are these places so safe? No, not only because they are lacking in sites particularly attractive to terrorists. These five states also have the highest per capita spending allocation for domestic security funds from the Department of Homeland Security. And according to a recent report in the New York Times, some of these places have so much money they don’t know what to do with it.

The root of the problem is the counterintuitive and extremely contentious dispersion formula used in the division of domestic security funds. That formula guarantees each state at least .75 percent of the total budget—locking up about 60 percent of the available money off the bat—and apportions the remaining funds by state population. As a result of this formula a state like Alaska, which has less than a twelfth of the population of New York City, has pulled in $92 a head over the past two years—compared to New York state’s $32.

The aggregate effects of such a flawed policy is that it comes at the expense of a safer general population. With all the talk of the imminent threat of another terrorist attack on American soil, with all the talk of the federal government’s record deficit, there has been surprisingly little discussion of how efficiently the U.S. government is spending its Homeland Security funds.

Of course, such a discussion remains unlikely so long as the majority of congressmen remain content bringing home pork-barrel projects to their constituents. These leaders have no real incentive to plead for less money for their state’s defense. While the Department of Homeland Security maintains some veto power over how the money is spent, fixing this problem requires strong leadership from the executive branch. No action is likely unless the white house transforms this matter from a funding allocation issue into a significant political issue. And in this tight election season, such action is all but definitely impossible.

It would be heartening to see some spine in America’s leaders when it comes to overhauling the way domestic security funds are allocated. No one denies that small states and rural states have a right to federal funds for defense—certainly if they were left without Homeland Security funding they could become prime targets—but it is important to put these matters in perspective. Money should be allocated intelligently—not politically—using an assessment of potential risk by an apolitical agent. While admittedly no city or state would like the designation of “riskiest place in America,” the costs of continuing with the current system—and leaving important high-risk areas without the resources they need—could be too high a cost to bear, literally and figuratively.

An agency with a mission as important as that of the Department of Homeland Security should be above the base politics of pork-barrel spending. While states like California and Florida stretch about $20 a head to secure their ports, tourist attractions, major cities and so on, the safety of the whole nation is put in jeopardy. Alaska should not be the only place in America where it is possible to feel that the government is doing its best to keep citizens safe.

In the business of safeguarding America from future attacks, federal leaders should be ashamed at how they have let politics stand in the way of effective policy. On Sept. 11 three years ago, this nation stood as one—not small states versus big states or Republicans versus Democrats. Funding for Homeland Security ought to reflect that.