I wonder if the cut in the feds' antiterrorism funding for New York had anything to do with this New Yorker article on the city, which ran last July. An excerpt:

...[New York police commissioner Raymond] Kelly has been sharply critical of the Bush Administration’s failure since September 11th to help New York protect itself. When I saw him at his office, where he sits at the desk that Theodore Roosevelt used when he was Commissioner, I asked him if the Administration had begun to do more. "We've seen some improvement," he said. "But it's not nearly what it should be, in my judgment. We're still defending the city pretty much on our dime." He glanced out the window at downtown Manhattan. "We’re defending the nation here," he said. "These are national assets." ...

Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, in 2002, there has been one large, inert, misshapen bureaucracy that, for New York, at least, symbolizes the extent of the Bush Administration’s neglect. When Kelly says that New York is having to defend itself "pretty much on our dime," he is referring, primarily, to the budgeting formula under which homeland-security funds are disbursed. In fiscal year 2004, Wyoming received $37.74 per capita, and North Dakota $30.82, while New York got $5.41. Among the fifty states, New York’s per-capita allotment was forty-eighth. This bizarre formula is, from New York’s point of view, only slowly improving.

Also quoted is David Cohen, the city's deputy commissioner for intelligence:

Cohen went on, "Manila ferryboat explosion, hundred dead. Reported as industrial accident. Then they picked up a guy who said it was an Abu Sayyaf job." Abu Sayyaf is an Islamist guerrilla army in the Philippines, and an Al Qaeda ally. "We dispatched someone within the day. Any ferryboat incident anywhere, we want to know about it. It's not the F.B.I. or the C.I.A. or the Homeland Security Department down in the subway tunnels. It's the N.Y.P.D....."

Suggesting to a reporter that you're more on the ball than the Bush administration, while grumbling to that same reporter about the Bushies' spending priorities? That could have consequences -- it was nearly a year ago, but the Bushies have long memories. Would they reapportion dollars based not on the most likely way to prevent the possible wholesale slaughter of innocents, but on who did and didn't kiss the ring? I wouldn't be surprised.