Senator Barrack Obama is concerned funding for national security is not divied out correctly. Obama wants those funds devided among states that face the biggest threat to terrorism, not evenly divided as is currently the formula where each state receives .75 percent of the $900 million budget.

That plan, while I disagree on the basis of the thesis of the path of least resistance, seems reasonable. But what states has Obama decided should get an increase in federal monies? His own state of Illinois, California, New York, Texas and Florida would all receive more federal funds, and they are also five of the most populated states and the homes of suspected terrorist plots, sans New Jersey of course.

Obama’s campaign states his reasoning is to “ensure the funding is allocated based on the threats states face, not politics.” Again, great. Politics has no basis in national security, but has Obama divided his security funding plan with politics? Not exactly, Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press reports.

But even though they have much smaller populations, the leadoff Democratic primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina would not be harmed. Iowa would get an additional $119,824; Nevada would get $86,222 more; and South Carolina would receive $175,027 extra.

Obama’s campaign counters by saying he does not set which states are most at risk, that it’s the job of the Department of Homeland Security to do so. It is, but what exactly is in either Iowa or New Hampshire that is a major security threat, moreso than, say, NORAD in Colorado who would get a cut in Obama’s plan?

I mean no knock on either Iowa or New Hampshire, but I can reason out why the previously mentioned five states would receive an increase in funding. I cannot, however, see a logical reason why states with national landmarks and strategic centers would see a decrease in funds while primary states receive an influx. It’s playing politics with national security, Senator Obama, and you’ve been caught.