Priorities (or “f*** ’em, they don’t vote for me anyway)

One is hard-pressed to see the logic in the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to slash homeland security spending to… wait for it… New York and Washington (and to a lesser extent because it got so much to start with, New Orleans) so that more funds are available to “smaller cities” (to wit, places more likely to vote G.O.P.) Oh wait… the mid-terms are in November, D.C. doesn’t yet have a House seat (and when it does, its going Democratic) and New York, while it has some Republican House members (including that kvetch Peter King), none are likely to be ousted…
In short… the Bush Administration’s priority remains to use Homeland Security spending the way it uses all spending: as bribes for votes in toss-up districts and rewards for loyal members, who are, of course in “smaller cities”, damn the odds of a terrorist strike in such places being non-existent compared to New York and Washington.
Another cynical play. Look for the Democrats to fail to pounce on this effectively (btw, if you see or hear the words “Chuck Schumer” btw, you know we’ve already lost it.) The issue is not the funding itself; the fact is, while it would be nice to have a fully funded homeland security apparatus, the reality is one of two possibilities: (1) we actually aren’t going to be attacked again, and/or (2) if we are going to be attacked again, terrorists will somehow find a weak-spot in the system regardless of how much money is spent, as no system can ever be 100% effective against everything. But some level of reasonable precautions are appropriate, as New York remains a perennial possible terrorist target (while Peoria or Omaha simply do not, although they will get the money.)
No– the issue is much, much broader: Republican recklessness with taxpayer money. The fact is, if money is to be taken away from New York and D.C.’s terrorist preparedness, then it should only because we are not spending the money at all, and not simply to shore up marginal Congressional districts.
Don’t look for Chuck Schumer or Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid to frame the issue, though… just don’t.