Our headline on a recent Associated Press report informed readers that U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis of Greenville "questions Homeland Security outlays." No surprise. The Upstate congressman is a brave legislator who doesn't hesitate to call pork by its right name.

Nor, in fact, does the former Sept. 11 Commission. But unlike Rep. Inglis, the commission doesn't have to answer to constituents who are vying with their counterparts in other states for federal funds.

Late last year, in a follow-up report, former Sept. 11 commissioners pointed to pork-barrel spending as one of the most glaring failures of Homeland Security's response to their earlier recommendations. In apparent reaction to that criticism, the agency now has a more needs-based formula for security grants. But there still is a minimum funding allocation per state, regardless of whether the state has a port or other facilities that are deemed particularly vulnerable to terrorists.

In South Carolina, those funds are administered by the S.C. Law Enforcement Division. According to the AP report, some $2 million was spent in Greenville in the past two years.

Rep. Inglis not only questions the logic behind some of the past expenditures in his district, he recently turned down constituents seeking his support for more money for local fire companies. He declined, saying, "I don't think we can be buying radios and equipping fire stations all across the country."

Of course, he's right. That kind of routine expenditure is the responsibility of local government, not the feds.

At this point, the congressman noted, some $95 billion has been spent on Homeland Security projects. One of the more bewildering expenditures he cites in his own district is $75,000 for security cameras that are located in a private shopping mall. The congressman is skeptical, to say the least, that a private shopping mall in Greenville is a potential terrorist target.

So what's the explanation? SLED Chief Robert Stewart didn't designate the mall as a potential recipient. Homeland Security officials did that under a program known as a "buffer zone protection plan" that can include private property, particularly if it has a potential for crowds or is close to what's considered a sensitive facility. Somehow we doubt the potential for terrorists striking a mall in Greenville is as likely as one in, say, Washington, D.C.

We're impressed with Chief Stewart and the methodical way his office set out to determine the best use for the federal Homeland Security grant dollars. The regional training and equipment-sharing approach already has paid dividends, he noted, in the response to the Graniteville chlorine gas emergency.

But neither is there really any question that Washington's typical pork-barrel approach to the allocation of funds has resulted in many millions of misdirected dollars. Pointing to the record budget deficit, Rep. Inglis contends that "we just can't go on spending money like this." At some point, he said, people simply have to recognize that "there's no such thing as free money."

Rep. Inglis is the first to say that those needing that lesson most are members of Congress.