A Hollow Critique

One thing I've often heard from critics of Homeland Security spending is that charge that homeland security spending is being held captive by the interests of pork barrel politics. The most often cited grounds for this critique is that per capita national security spending in Wyoming is $42.80 while in states like New York and California it's a mere $17.23 and $8.52 per head. An example of such a critique can be found in Salon's War Room blog:

If jihad should happen to explode onto the vast plains of Wyoming, folks in that sparse prairie state will be seven times better equipped to defend themselves than the denizens of New York City would be facing another attack. That is, if federal anti-terrorism spending under the Bush administration is any indication.

At first blush, the charge seems rather convincing. Are the citizens of Wyoming really in need of 7 times as much spending per person as those of California? But a closer look at the numbers reveals that this charge is actually highly misleading. A breakdown of states and the spending on domestic security can be found at this link.

The first, and perhaps most striking feature of this list, if one rearranges it by order of per capita spending, is that the lowest ranked states have some of the most "target-rich" environments in the nation. The five states with the lowest per capita spending are, in order from lowest to highest, Georgia, Florida, California, Michigan and Texas, ranging from $7.85 per capita to $8.93.

By contrast, the five states with the highest per capita spending are, in order from highest to lowest, Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, North Dakota, and Montana, ranging from $42.80 per capita to $31.22.

Thus, critics proclaim, homeland security is a pork-barrel project. But the list contains some anomalous data which belies that assumption.

First, there are several places which have a HIGHER per capita spending than even Wyoming. The Virgin Islands receives $61.00 per person, the Northern Marianas $78.57 a head, and American Samoa a whopping $98.67 per person. The assumption that this can be explained as "pork barrel" politics requires assuming that someone in Congress has a vested interest in lavishing tax dollars on Samoa.

But, if we take these data into account, it becomes even more apparent that we're not looking at a list of comparative security investments. We're simply looking at a list of population estimates. The highest per capita recipients of Homeland Security spending are far and away the smallest geographical entities by population in the United States. Meanwhile, the lowest rates are found in the highest population states. Is it possible that the per capita rate of spending is distorted by the presence of economies of scale? Which is to say, does a dollar of security-spending stretch further per person when those people are tightly clustered in large cities than when they are spread hither and anon in small rural states? Is there a minimum needed security investment which, if applied fairly, causes these small states to appear to be getting an undue share of security spending?

Well, let's look at the totals.

Sure enough, rearranged by absolute totals, our previous high-rollers find their way to the bottom of the list. Smaller in raw totals than any of the states, we find the Northern Marianas, American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, each receiving between $5.5 million and $6.1 million in homeland security spending. Next comes D.C. which receives $18.2 million but has a healthy per capita total of $30.33. After that, the smallest five states are Delaware, Wyoming, Rhode Island, North Dakota and Vermont with totals ranging from $20.3 million to $23.7 million.

Meanwhile, the five largest recipients of national security dollars in absolute terms are - get ready for this - New York, California, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. New York gets the largest haul with $330.9 million (which is 15 times as much as Wyoming) and it ranges down from there to $144.5 million for Illinois.

Now, I think a case could be made that we're not spending enough on homeland security or, if we are, that we're not spending it well. But to use the per capita figure in this way is really kind of outrageous. Though they may not be receiving enough, the big states are certainly receiving more than anyone else. If we make the assumption that security spending should be directed towards specific and identifiable risks rather than allocated on a strictly per capita basis, then there's no basis for taking offense at this disparity.