The triangle in this case would be New York City, Washington and ... Buffalo. Yes, Buffalo!
And the conundrum is such...
On the one hand, officials from major metropolitan areas are talking the talk, lambasting the Bush Administration's non-threat-based funding formulas that direct precious homeland security monies to far-flung locales in Wyoming (for example). But, on the other hand, it appears the same officials are not exactly walking the walk.
Just last week, this offline piece came out in the Albany Times Union:
Clinton condemns cut in Buffalo's anti-terror aid
Buffalo - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton invited Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff for a look at why the Buffalo region should receive more - not less - anti-terror funding.
"We need to expose the decision makers in Washington to the reality of the threats we face here," Clinton, D-N.Y., said.
This year, Buffalo's share of security money under a program to aid cities was cut by 48.6 percent, from $7.2 million to $3.7 million.
It's hard not to notice that Clinton's walk is much different than was her talk in a New York Times op-ed back in 2004:
"I know funding formulas can seem arcane and bureaucratic, but these dollars represent the choices we make in the battle against terrorism. We know where the threat lies, and yet the administration has chosen to put politics above our homeland security needs. It is time to make a different choice. Spreading the money thinly across the country may be in the political interest of many elected officials, but it is not in the best interest of protecting our country. We need to put our money where the threat is -- which means more funds for New York City."
Question is, when there's $125 million less to go around, and when presumably every dollar Buffalo receives New York City does not - and vice versa - who does this strategy benefit most?