Editorial | Don't gamble with America's safety

Terrorism analysts rate a two-mile zone containing the Newark airport, the New Jersey Turnpike, ramps to the Manhattan tunnels, dozens of industrial sites, rail lines, and the Ports of Newark and Elizabeth as among the most vulnerable areas in the United States.

Yet sparsely populated Wyoming received four times as much homeland security money per capita than New Jersey in 2003-04. "First-responder" grants to New Jersey's largest cities were slashed drastically last year. That's risky.

Nearly 12 million people reside within a 14-mile radius of the area described above. Repercussions of an attack there would go far beyond the region in terms of finance, trade and transportation. Congested North Jersey clearly needs more protection than the wilds of Wyoming.

That's not to say rural areas don't need security. Food supply, military installations and infrastructure could become targets anywhere.

But antiterrorism funding shouldn't be a small state/large state debate. Nor should homeland security become another pork-barrel pot for politicians to divvy up. The 9/11 commission recommended that Congress allocate security funding solely on threat assessment. That's the right approach.

The House took a key step in that direction last week by passing a bill sponsored by Rep. Christopher Cox (R., Calif.). It would reduce the percentage of money that each state now receives in the wrongheaded "something for everyone" approach.