EDITORIAL DANGEROUS POLITICS QUIBBLING OVER ANTI-TERRORISM FUNDS PUTS LIVES AT RISK.

FEW doubt that it's only a matter of time until the next 9-11 occurs, when al-Qaida terrorists strike again on American soil, possibly claiming thousands more innocent victims.

Knowing that, shouldn't the federal government be doing all it can to ensure that our emergency-response systems are adequately prepared?

Yet for reprehensible reasons of petty politics, some $3 billion in homeland security funds isn't being doled out on the basis of need. As a result, emergency responders - the police, firefighters and medical personnel who will be called in to save lives and restore order the next time America is attacked - might not be in the right place at the right time to do their jobs.

Under the current federal funding system, every state is assured at least 0.75 percent of the total homeland security funding - regardless of population size, and regardless of the number of likely terrorist targets within its borders.

Now, there's no guessing with any degree of certainty where terrorists could strike, and all states need some measure of homeland security funding. But there's no denying that states like California and New York, with their massive populations and enormous tourist attractions, are especially at risk.

Rep. Chris Cox, R-Newport Beach, has proposed a reasonable allotment system that allows the Department of Homeland Security to make the funding decision, based on potential terrorist targets and its own intelligence findings. That way, rather than doling out funds on the basis of politics and provincialism, the nation's anti-terrorism officials would make the decision based on the best information at hand.

But representatives from small states gutted Cox's reform in congressional committee. They've opted to keep the minimum-funding requirement, as well as to use the funds to cover natural disasters, and not just terrorist attacks.

So if the legislation is approved in its current form, it will allocate anti-terrorism funds to places where they're not necessarily needed, for purposes other than anti-terrorism.

How's that for a prime example of Washington's backward thinking?

Yes, pork-barrel politics is as old as America's government itself, and no, it's nothing new for politicians to seek as much as they can get for their districts, regardless of whether their districts need it or not. That's why Californians have long received 70 cents back on every dollar they pay in taxes - other states' representatives are scrappier and more unified than our own.

But it's one thing when the subject is highway funding or farm subsidies, and quite another when it's national security. The stakes are too high - and the consequences too severe - to let anti-terrorism funding fall prey to the usual Washington spoils game.