Editorial: Anti-terrorism funds

Friday, June 11, 2004 | 9:15 a.m.

Officials from larger metropolitan areas, such as Las Vegas, believe the federal government provides too much homeland security funding to rural areas and not enough to urban centers, which are more likely terrorist targets. In response, Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif., wants to do away with the current funding formula, replacing it with a system that would send $4.3 billion in homeland security grants to states and local governments based solely on a threat analysis. A competing bill by Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio, seeks to protect rural areas by ensuring that at least 30 percent of homeland security funds would be distributed evenly among the states. Furthermore, LaTourette's legislation would enable homeland security funding to be spent on natural disasters.

Diverting any anti-terrorism funds to pay for natural disaster assistance would be terrible, especially since the existing level of homeland security funding isn't meeting the needs of cities. In addition, LaTourette's bill is flawed because it doesn't let the money go where the greatest danger is. Cox's bill is preferable. At least it is based on which cities are the most likely targets. Even then, we have had some concerns with the Homeland Security Department's judgment. In the past the agency hasn't given Las Vegas as much money as other cities that aren't nearly as threatened.

The bottom line is that federal anti-terrorism funding shouldn't be viewed as pork-barrel spending but disbursed with care because it genuinely affects our national security.

archive