An article in the New York Times called "Bad Things Happen in Small Places" criticizes the Department of Homeland Security for directing all of its spending to large, coastal cities and neglecting terrorism defense for smaller cities.
The author was the governor of Oklahoma when Timothy McVeigh's Oklahoma City bombing took place in 1995, which provides the motivation for teh op-ed and part of his argument.
The decision of how to spend Homeland Security funds is definitely a problem of allocating limited resources. What do you guys think of how this decision should be made? What do you think of Keating's criticism of current spending plans? (Make sure you read the article before responding & you frame your answer in terms of costs and benefits).
(Source: Environmental and Urban Economics Blog)