The Politics of Homeland Security



A lot of people seem to be up in arms that New York and Washington will see their Homeland security grants cut by 40%, so that the money can go to other metropolitan areas around the country.
"When you stop a terrorist, they have a map of New York City in their pocket," Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said. "They don't have a map of any of the other 46 or 45 places."
...
Representative Peter King, Republican of New York, who is chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said the allocation formula is obviously flawed. "This is indefensible," he said. "It's a knife in the back to New York and I'm going to do everything I can to make them very sorry they made this decision."

That is a bit self-centered of those two, but I guess they have a point. I mean, the Columbine tragedy would not have had quite the impact on the American psyche if it hadn't happened in New York City. Oooops, that's right, it didn't.

Granted, NYC and DC are much larger cities, but I doubt that in this day of 24/7 cable news frenzies an attack in Kansas City would have any less impact on the country.

Lastly, those two cities have had enjoyed first class access to the tough of federal largesse for 4 years, and now perhaps it is time for others to be allowed to share.
Some observations from Jonah Goldberg and his friends:
In response to your e-mailer who suggested that NYC is the most logical target as it is the largest metropolitan area, I would make this counter argument.  Most Americans, in fact, do not live in NYC, or even in large metropolitan areas.  The easiest way to strike fear into the hearts of MOST Americans, would be to blow up a mall in St. Louis or a high school basketball game in Wyoming. 

Posted: Thu - June 1, 2006 at 10:29 PM          

©