Saturday, October 08, 2005

[politics] So...

If the information about the attack in NYC was so bloody credible, could someone remind me why we're spending so much more per capita to protect, oh, Wyoming? Let's see - let's quantify the terror threat (loosely) as some value (x + y), where x is the number of completed attacks, and y is the number of foiled attacks. For NYC, the value of x >= 2, and you can't tell me that y = 0. I'm not buying that. Any guesses as to what the values of x and y are for Wyoming? If anyone out there truly believes that either could be larger than zero, I have some riverfront real estate in Louisiana I'd like to sell you. Note: in terms of per-capita DHS spending, I'm talking about grants to individual states, not outright Federal expenditures. In terms of all Federal expenditures from all agencies for homeland security, New York does come out much better than Wyoming - but I'm guessing that a ton of that cash is accounted for by an increased Coast Guard and/or other Federal agency presence as well as cash required for such things as the RNC. When it's the Feds paying for Federal expenses, New York comes out ahead, but behind DC, Virginia, and that hotbed of national security, Alaska.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home