The tragedy of 9/11 understandably increased feelings of vulnerability across the country.

And every state, every jurisdiction, then sought to develop and pay for every bit of protection it could muster.

That's part of the explanation for what is an otherwise mystifying decision by the U.S. Senate to pass a homeland security funding bill that shifts considerable amounts of money from high-risk areas to cities with substantially lower risk.

In effect, it was pork-barrel politics that divvied up the money focusing on political clout rather than the risk or threat of terrorism.

Is it realistic to argue that "target" states such as California and New York, with their large urban populations, hold the same risk of terrorist attacks as low-risk, more rural states such as Wyoming?

Obviously not.

Still, the Senate voted to shift to a formula that would allocate 60 percent of homeland security funds based on risk rather than the current 70 percent. That may appear to be a small distinction— but it amounts to millions of dollars.

Now it's up to the U.S. House, which has sensibly been more clearly focused on doling out these funds based more on need rather than greed, to resolve the matter at the House-Senate conference committee level.

Like other states, Hawai'i has legitimate reason to argue for its fair share in that process. We are a key tourist destination and have a strong military presence, including Pearl Harbor. And except for a slight drop-off in 2004, Honolulu has benefited from an "urban area securities initiative" that puts extra bucks in areas of particular vulnerability.

Ultimately, homeland security money must be allocated on the basis of a rational assessment of risk, not on pork-barrel sharing or political influence. Protecting our country from terrorism is much too important a goal to settle for anything less.