THE FEDS' FOUL

June 1, 2006 -- How many national monuments - or, as the feds put it, "icons" - are to be found in New York City?

Well, either one or two fewer than existed on Sept. 10, 2001 - depending on how you count the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.

This is important, insofar as the Department of Homeland Security has decreed New York City deficient in national "icons," and thus subject to a breathtaking 40 percent cut in federal anti-terrorism aid.

Unless Washington comes to its senses, Gotham will get $125 million in Homeland Security funds during fiscal year 2006. And while that's still more than any other urban area, it's down sharply from the $207 million awarded last year.

Has the terrorist threat to New York really gone down that much? No way.

The feds even admit as much: "It does not mean in any way that the risk in New York is any different or changed or any lower," conceded Assistant Secretary Tracy Henke.

But according to a risk-assessment scorecard obtained by City Hall, funding assessments are apparently driven in part by the number of "national monuments and icons" to be found within city limits.

Of which New York City, according to the Department of Homeland Security, has none.

Zip.

So let's hope Michael Chertoff & Co. have better luck locating infiltrating terrorists than they had finding, say, the Empire State Building.

Not to mention the fact that the Justice Department put the infamous blind sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman, away for life for specifically conspiring against such national landmarks as the George Washington Bridge and the Holland Tunnel.

So let's get real. As Mayor Bloomberg put it yesterday, "When you stop a terrorist, they have a map of New York City in their pocket. They don't have a map of any of the other 45 places."

Places like Omaha, Neb.; Louisville, Ky., and Charlotte, N.C. - all of which had their funding sharply hiked under some mysterious new "risk analysis."

And yet Undersecretary George Foreman insists that the latest allocation ensures that Washington will "get the maximum benefit out of those dollars."

If, by "maximum benefit," he means keeping the pork-happy hogs on Capitol Hill satisfied, maybe he's right.

But if he means ensuring that homeland security funds actually go where the threat of terrorist attack is the greatest, then he's dead wrong.

As Bloomberg pointed out, "The federal government gives you money to do new things. They do not give you money to pay for things that you've already bought. And what we've said from Day One is that we're not going to wait for the federal government - we go out and buy every single thing we need to keep this city as safe as we possibly can right away."

Moreover, he notes, the feds "don't give you monies for ongoing operations."

That's a foolish policy. New Yorkers shouldn't have to pay a price for City Hall's commendable refusal, as Bloomberg put it, to "put this city in jeopardy by waiting for federal dollars."

Rep. Peter King (R-Nassau), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has vowed to make the feds "very sorry they made this decision."

We believe him.

And we expect that New York's entire congressional delegation - and its extraordinarily powerful business community - won't sit still for this outrageous pork-barreling.

The last time New York City was attacked, the economic impact reverberated far beyond the five boroughs.

The next time - if there is a next time - it won't be any different.

That can't be said for Omaha, Louisville or Charlotte.