Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Risk-based funding makes sense

When the Bush administration announced it would deny guaranteed homeland security funding to some metropolitan areas, including Tampa Bay, local officials predictably complained. The same reaction played out in cities that previously received tax dollars with no questions asked. Maybe Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff didn't provide a clear explanation for how the new funding formula works, but he has the right idea.

It makes little sense to spread limited resources to the nation's four corners and everywhere in between. In the past, the state receiving the most money per capita to prepare for terrorism had the smallest population - Wyoming. Even Joe Moore, head of that state's homeland security office, had to admit terrorists weren't likely to be lurking in Wyoming. "By the end of the day," he said, "everyone will know you're here."

Tampa Bay area officials have a better argument against being left off the list. MacDill Air Force Base and a major port call Tampa home, and we will be hosting the Super Bowl in 2009. But other major metropolitan areas - such as New York, Washington and Los Angeles - clearly are at greater risk.

Looking at homeland security funding as so much political pork is wrong-headed. It's one thing to lard the highway bill with Alaskan bridges to nowhere, but Wyoming didn't really need tax dollars to buy a bomb-sniffing robot named Miss Daisy. If the nation is to adequately defend itself against the next terrorist strike, sound judgment needs to prevail.

Chertoff said his risk-based funding has identified 35 metropolitan areas, but even those will have to show that the money will go for legitimate security enhancements. Factors in the "risk formula" were sensible: population density, critical infrastructure and threat analysis. Areas such as Tampa Bay that have received money in the past would be able to apply for smaller amounts to complete projects already started.

Matching security dollars to the greatest need is even more important now that Congress has cut funding by $90-million. While Chertoff might have explained his decision better, he is showing leadership where it is needed. Now we'll see if he and his boss, President Bush, can stand up to the siren song of special interests.

[Last modified January 10, 2006, 01:51:15]