Did it really take this long to figure this out?

The Department of Homeland Security has finally begun to focus more on appropriating homeland security grants based on risk rather than politics. In the past the highest per capita grants have gone to states like Wyoming and Montana, states with little risk of a terrorist attack, at the expense of states like New York and California, which have much higher risk of attack; New York has already been attacked. However, the article also points out that:

The cities are vying for a smaller pot this year than in 2005, when Homeland Security distributed $829 million in urban area grants.

This is a strange item to cut. Were the urban area grants distributed in such a poor fashion in the past that less money is needed to protect the most vulnerable cities? Was there really that much money wasted on cities with little or no threat of terrorism? Clearly, the Bush Administration and Congress do not yet have their priorities straight, as we are spending billions upon billions of dollars on a war in Iraq that was purely a war of choice.