"New York gets about $2 per person in anti-terrorism funds. North Dakota gets about $17 per person."
That is such an incredibley lame argument. The same logic is used by the liberals and others who want to abolish the electoral college (well California has this many people per electoral vote while Wyoming has this many people per electoral vote.) It's also basically the same stuff we hear to justify Al Franken's low ratings (well, who cares what his overall numbers are, he has this rating in this specific market in this age group.)
New York has what, about 30-something million people? As opposed to how many in North Dakota? Instead of the per person garbage, just tell me how much New York gets as opposed to North Dakota. I'm sure it's not comparable.
I was responding to a poster who said that funds had been doled out proportionately to the states. But you tell me how many people in North Dakota have died from terrorist attacks. How many plots have been exposed? How many underground cells are known to exist?
New Yorkers hear constantly about other states getting federal aid for tornado and hurricane damage, earthquakes, flood control and relief, and so on. No one expects that we are going to get the same level of aid when we haven't suffered those things -- although we may suffer some of these natural disasters in the future and need to be prepared.
We in New York regularly pay more in federal taxes than we get back. I guess I'm not surprised that people in small states find this eminently fair. But when I hear about towns and cities using homeland security money to buy new fire trucks, it sounds like pork to me. (What this has to do with Al Franken, I can't imagine.)