Should it be the federal government's responsibility to provide $27,265 in federal emergency management and homeland security funding so that a volunteer fire department in Ashford, population 4,098, can buy fire equipment? How about $274,000 to help the Lebanon Volunteer Fire Department protect that town of 6,907, or $108,506 so the Mystic Fire Department could purchase a mobile fire-training trailer that simulates a structure fire?

And is it prudent federal policy for the U.S. Department of Justice to be shipping $729,189 to New London to hire three new police officers for three years, or $550,256 to add two more officers for the Willimantic Police Department?

These are just a few of the grants that came southeastern Connecticut's way the past year to provide services that historically had been the responsibility of state and local governments. Things began to change with President Bill Clinton's famous pledge to put 100,000 more cops in city streets in 1994.

That plan was pure political gold from one of the great politicians of all time. In one stroke Clinton grabbed the law-and-order issue from the Republicans, while appeasing liberals with his push for friendlier "community policing." And what senator or congressman would vote against putting more cops on the beat back home? Only a few fiscal conservative stalwarts questioned the constitutional appropriateness of using federal funds to pay for the cop on Main Street.

Soon firefighters were asking for their share and the spending grew.

After the attacks of 9/11 and the flood of funding for homeland security that followed, the grants increased dramatically, particularly for fire services. From 2001 to 2009 Congress appropriated $5.7 billion in funding for fire grants.

In recently announcing fire grants for West Haven, $235,925; Winsted, $246,639; and $64,000 for Greenwich (median income about $170,000), Sen. Joe Lieberman boasted that over the last decade the funding programs he fought for have distributed 640 grants worth $71 million in Connecticut "to help fire departments strengthen their response capabilities."

Greenwich can't afford to pay for its own response capabilities?

While grants for fire services grew significantly during George W. Bush's presidency, he did push Congress to cut back some on Clinton's COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) program. Congress revived that, however, after the election of President Barack Obama.

U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, defended the programs as a good use of federal money. The money spent on helping police and fire departments is relative "budget dust" compared to the programs that really drive deficit spending, such as Medicare and defense spending, he said. The security of the citizens is a federal function, Courtney said, and police and firefighters are integral to assuring their well-being.

Matt A. Mayer, president of the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, a free-market think tank based in Columbus, Ohio, disagrees. Mayer, who worked for the Department of Homeland Security under its first secretary, Tom Ridge, contends these programs are pure pork. The availability of the federal funds, he contends, drives fire departments to come up with reasons to spend more money.

"Big toys for big boys," Mayer said.

More fundamentally, said Mayer, providing adequate police and fire protection should not be a federal responsibility. And while the money may seem small compared to the deficits confronting Washington, it symbolizes the inability of elected leaders to say no.

"If they can't address the easy stuff like this, how are they ever going to tackle the big budget problems?" he asked.

There is also the question whether that homeland security money would be more effective if directed to cities that are far more likely to be targets of terrorism than, say, Ashford, or to tackle difficult issues such as port security or better communication among emergency agencies.

In a 2007 report, the National Academy of Public Administration concluded the money is being spent to fix a problem that does not exist. "Basic fire incidents are usually well-handled in the U.S. and have been for some time," the report found.

Where help is needed, it said, is handling "large-scale, complex incidents" that "require cooperation of organizations and across jurisdictions." However, the fire grant programs almost exclusively fund local entities and isolated projects with little emphasis on improving regional capabilities.

Led by the tea party freshman class, Republicans in the House took an ax to the police and fire grant programs, cutting $300 million for COPS and reducing fire grants from $810 million to $300 million. But when Democrats moved to fully restore the funds, many Republicans buckled. The House restored COP funding on a 228-203 vote, and the fire grants 318-113.

To find different savings, the bills cut funding to NASA and for research and development at the Department of Homeland Security.

Unlike some on the far right, I do see a role for the federal government in working with states to provide a social safety net so that our less fortunate and elderly citizens are not left to suffer in extreme poverty. And this country does need to assure that people have the means to get basic health care.

But spreading the gift of federal cash among police and fire departments across this country has much more to do with pork barrel politics than it does national security.

Paul Choiniere is the editorial page editor.