It was a natural reaction after 9/11: Protect the nation at any cost. But a survey of homeland security projects by Los Angeles Times staff writer Kim Murphy reveals that the “any cost” rationale has resulted in unnecessary and eccentric responses to the possibility of a terrorist act. Congress should block such projects in the future.

For example, Murphy told of a grant for anti-terrorism equipment to a county in Nebraska, which received thousands of dollars for cattle nose leads, halters and electric prods — in case terrorists waged biological warfare against cows. Glendale, Calif., got a $205,000 grant, which it used to purchase a 9-ton BearCat armored vehicle, one of more than 300 deployed across the country.

It is hard to evaluate the efficacy of security arrangements — think of the elaborate airport screening by the Transportation Security Administration — because no terrorist act has occurred. Supporters also can always argue that the absence of incidents proves that the system works. But the deterrent argument is more plausible in some places than in others. That’s why planners should concentrate on the “where” of security precautions rather than the “what.”

The truth is that not all potential terrorist targets are equal. It’s prudent to have elaborate preparations for New York, Washington and even Los Angeles. But grants for homeland security projects in smaller cities or rural or suburban areas seem more like pork than precaution. And it’s no excuse for those communities to say that the BearCats and other high-end equipment can be used for routine police functions. If Congress wants to fund local law enforcement, it knows how to do so. But it shouldn’t characterize such largesse as a response to 9/11.

With the anniversary of those attacks approaching, homeland security is the ultimate sacred cow, which explains why the federal and state governments are spending $75 billion a year on security. But Murphy’s article makes a persuasive case that many of the grants to localities are unnecessary or poorly conceived.

Congress and the Department of Homeland Security need to review current grant procedures and target federal funds where they are most needed.

— Los Angeles TimesAmericans owe $700 billion more than their homes are worth, and if nothing is done these underwater mortgages will keep dragging the housing market and the economy down with them.So it was encouraging to hear that the Obama administration is preparing a plan to ease refinancings for underwater homeowners. The outlines of the proposal are unclear, but the administration seems likely to bypass the dysfunctional Congress and focus on the millions of homeowners whose loans are owned or backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-controlled mortgage companies.The administration also is said to be pursuing a new home rental program that could keep hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes from flooding onto the market and further depressing prices.If underwater homeowners with government-backed mortgages could refinance them at today’s low rates, around 4 percent, their mortgage payments would fall, many more could stay in their homes, the money they save would circulate through the economy and the housing market would have a better shot at stabilizing.Obama might be able to skirt Congress, but he still will have to persuade the Federal Housing and Finance Authority, which oversees the federal mortgage programs, to go along with a plan that would require taxpayers to subsidize housing debt. Banks and the investors who buy the government-backed bonds also will fight any proposal that threatens their interest income or requires them to take on large amounts of unsecured risk. A mass refinancing of underwater homes would do both.The current policy of standing and watching while families and home prices sink under waves of foreclosures is not working. It’s time to throw underwater homeowners a lifeline — the chance to refinance their homes, and stay in them.

— The (Portland) Orgegonian