It's the disparity, Tom.

If RobVG's numbers are right, and I'll assume they are, do you think $790 million is sufficient funding for protecting the entire state of California from terrorism? You live there, and undoubtedly have a much better picture of the state's vulnerability than I do. With all of those ports of entry, miles of coastline, and the numbers of people packed into urban areas around SF and LA, does it make sense that each Californian can be protected for $9 less than we Missourians?

Not to me, it doesn't.

Since you've waved away the point of the article by focusing disdain on its presentaton, permit me to remind you again: of the $8.2 billion disbursed under the current method, only 17% of it was based on perceived threat level.

If I lived in or near a target, as you do, I'd be pissed about that. The New Yorkers sure are, and rightfully so.

And remember, this isn't Uncle Sam's gun to your head this time -- it's Al Qaeda's.