by James Jay Carafano, Ph.D.
The Heritage Foundation

The global war on terrorism will be a protracted conflict. And it will be a real war, a competition of action and counteraction against a living, breathing, thinking enemy. Wining long wars requires a sound strategy—a nation cannot simply spend its way to victory. Federal grants for homeland security programs are a case in point. Some would address the shortfalls in state and local capacity by throwing money at the problem. That is exactly the wrong approach. Spending a little bit of money on a lot of things does not achieve much of anything. The United States needs a strategic spending strategy that focuses on two goals that will make all Americans safer: creating a truly national preparedness and response system and expanding national capacity to respond to catastrophic terrorist attacks.

The formulas that drive the grant process are turning homeland security initiatives into state entitlement programs. Current funding formulas guarantee each state .75 percent of the funds available. As a result, 40 percent of funds are immediately tied up, leaving only 60 percent for discretionary allocations. In this manner, California, clearly a “target-rich environment” received only 7.95 percent of general grant monies, even though the state accounts for 12 percent of the nation’s population. Wyoming, receiving .85 percent, accounts for only .17 percent of the population. This translates to $5.03 per capita in California and $37.94 per capita in Wyoming. Spending on U.S. territories is equally incongruous. In the last round of grants, the U.S. Virgin Islands received $104.87 per capita, the North Mariana Islands $53.68, and American Samoa $37.32.

Read More...