The $32 billion homeland security bill passed by Congress last week has many good points, but it remains tainted by pork barrel politics.

Big increases were granted for patrolling borders, a security issue, surely. But it is likely that part of the push for more border security relates to the desires of states such as Texas that must deal with floods of illegal economic immigrants.

Critics noted that the heightened spending for border security came at a price: Less spending to support first responders such as local police and firefighters. To the degree better border security truly keeps the "bad guys" out, this limits the need for first responders. But it is hardly a one-on-one tradeoff.

Commendably, the bill shifts spending toward a more risk-based formula, but it hardly goes far enough in this direction.

Pork politics in the demand from smaller states for their "fair share" per capita slice of homeland dollars mean that only about two-thirds of grants will be allocated according to risk.

One third will go on a per capita basis.

This falls short of recommendations made by the Sept. 11 commission that all grants should be based on risk.

Given the alarms recently experienced in Washington, D.C., and New York, this recommendation is sensible and necessary.

All states, including Hawai'i, face increased demands for security and terrorism protection. But it makes little sense to think every jurisdiction has anything close to the same level of risk.

On balance, this bill deserves to become law. But Congress should come back next year and continue to strip the politics from our efforts to keep our homeland secure.