Americans probably are not surprised by the opinion of former 9-11 Commission members that future terrorist attacks on U.S. soil are inevitable. However, some of the commissioners’ conclusions about the level of U.S. preparedness for such an attack are somewhat shocking.

After completing their work on the 9-11 Commission, five Republican and five Democratic members of that group formed a privately funded group known as the 9-11 Public Discourse Project. This week, that group issued a report card on the federal government’s response to recommendations made by the 9-11 Commission in July 2004. Many of the results were disappointing. The government’s response earned a lot of C’s and D’s and more F’s than A’s.

Some of the most disturbing grades came in improving airline safety. Despite much-publicized changes to boost airport security, efforts to improve airline screening to detect explosives got a C, screening of checked bags and cargo got a D, and improving airline passenger pre-screening got an F. It would be interesting to know what the critics thought about the presence and alertness of the air marshal who was quick to react this week when an airline passenger claimed to have a bomb.

The government also got a failing grade in dealing with communications issues that caused such problems as New York City police being unable to communicate directly with firefighters at the World Trade Center scene.

Perhaps the overriding problem for much of the Homeland Security program, however, has been the questionable allocation of more than $8 billion in federal funds. Although the 9-11 commission recommended that this assistance “be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities,” those who issued the recent report card say the nation has failed to deploy resources where the risk is greatest.

The reviewers cited some examples of how Homeland Security money has been used: the district of Columbia bought leather jackets and sent sanitation workers to self-improvement seminars, Newark, N.J., bought air-conditioned garbage trucks, and Columbus, Ohio, bought body armor for fire department dogs.

Here in Douglas County $250,000 in Homeland Security funding was used to buy a mobile command vehicle for the Emergency Preparedness Department. Another $570,000 was used to purchase various equipment for fire and law enforcement and provide new security systems for water and electric utilities.

From that $570,000, $100,000 was used to buy a new generator for the Judicial and Law Enforcement Center, $55,000 was used to buy new air packs for rural firefighters, $15,000 bought new impact-resistant windows and doors for Baldwin’s police headquarters, and $42,000 went for a new X-ray machine that has sat unused at the judicial center for months while officials try to figure out how to provide staffing to operate it.

All of these expenditures provided benefits and strengthened various important city and county services, but are they high priority items when it comes to addressing the terrorist threat facing the U.S.? Could the funds have been spent more effectively? Probably, but it is easy to second-guess and find fault.

Congress has an opportunity to correct one deficiency when it reauthorizes the Patriot Act. That is to include in the act a formula to distribute responder grants based on risks and vulnerabilities – a measure Americans should vigorously support.

Money alone won’t make America safe from terrorists, but the nation should be sure it gets the most bang for its bucks by directing federal money to address the most urgent threats to the nation’s security.