NP: Granian, Hang Around

If I'm going to be mean to the GOP, it's only fair I point out inconsistencies on the other side.

One of the most consistent criticisms from both the left and New York in general is Homeland Security spending. The line that always gets trumpeted is that Wyoming gets more dollars of protection per capita than New York, where all the people -- and all the Democrats -- are. The New York Times trots this out again in its love letter to Congress on the editorial page today.

Here's the thing, though. Per capita spending is not a good way to look at the data. In fact, I'd go so far to say that the population density of big cities is exactly what should make it cheaper, per person, to protect them.

Let's say that DHS is actually on the ball and creates an airborne anti-viral agent to combat a biological attack. If they've developed this hypothetical vaccine in such a way that it completely supports my argument -- which is to say you don't need to rev up the concentration in the air based on the population -- you get much, much more bang for your buck in a very dense population like Manhattan, which would drive down the cost per person considerably.

The point being that there are economies of scale involved in protecting the population. Naturally, these are offset by other factors, like points of entry from foreign countries, but what I'm trying to get at is that critics of the spending have chosen to view the situation through a lens that does not reflect the situation very well. It's a bit of a lies, damn lies and statistics thing, so if anyone from the New York Times editorial board is reading, cut it out.