Inequality and insecurity

Paul Krugman writes this week about how the money that is supposed to go towards ensuring "homeland security" appears to be being distributed less on a basis of where it might be needed than one of where it might secure the most electoral votes.  He notes that a review of Department of Homeland Security's spending formula, the government will be spending seven times as much on each resident of Wyoming as it will on each resident in New York. 

How does this relate to the electoral votes?  The formula being used is set up similar to the way the distribution of electoral votes is set up.  There is a portion of the funding that provides an equal grant to every state, regardless of population, and a second portion of the funding that is divided in proportion to each state's population.  Just as the electoral college winds up giving small states a disproportionately "louder" voice than many large states have, the homeland security funding formula gives those same smaller states a larger slice of the pie when viewed on a per capita basis.

Where this becomes problematic is that states with large populations almost invariably are also states with large urban centers - the kind of densly populated areas that terrorists are most likely to target.  While it's true that terrorists can target anywhere, it is far more likely that they will pick a New York City or Los Angeles than Casper, Wyoming.  Yet, with the way the money is being divided between the states, Wyoming can afford far better protection for each one of its citizens than New York or Los Angeles will be able to. 

As Krugman notes, its probably no coincidence that the Department of Homeland Security is granting proportionally more funds to smaller, less urban-oritented states, since those same states are generally Republican strongholds, making it important to Bush, and the Republican party, to keep them very happy.

Unfortunately, keeping them happy, in this case, means leaving the largely Democrat-oriented, urban areas more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. I suppose that's one way to help make your opponants less of a threat come election time....