President Bush is under attack in New York magazine for his supposed poor treatment of New York. The article suggests that every possible element of the liberal agenda is good for New York and that therefore any deviation from it is bad for the city. The article quotes Rep. Jerrold Nadler speaking of federal allocation formulas created in the 1930s: “We’re no longer the rich state, but the formulas haven’t been changed.” If New York magazine is confident of the veracity of Mr. Nadler’s statement, we’d sure like to see it be adopted into the magazine’s pitch to advertisers of luxury goods, services, and real estate: “New York: We’re no longer the rich state.”

Nonsense. New York is a rich state. Of the 50 states, according to the federal Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, New York, when ranked by per capita income, was fifth, behind

only Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maryland. In average annual pay — a different measure than per capita income — New York was second in the nation in 2002, behind only Connecticut. Of the 400 richest people in America, by Forbes magazine’s count, 49 of them live in New York, more than in any other state save California. To suggest that New York was much richer in the 1930s doesn’t ring true. Ever hear of the Great Depression?

So a lot of the caviling about how New York doesn’t get back what it pays in to Washington is the result of a federal tax system that soaks the rich. Democrats like Mr. Nadler default on the opportunities they are given to vote to make the federal tax system flatter. Senator Kerry’s plan to reverse the Bush tax cuts for the rich would end up slanting the federal tax system even more sharply against New York. The article goes on to quote “a Bloomberg aide” asserting “The chairman of the House Appropriations Committee is from Kentucky.” The chairman of the House Appropriations Committee is Rep. C.W.”Bill”Young of Florida. Rep. Harold Rogers of Kentucky chairs a subcommittee.

Democrats — even Democrats who work for Mr. Bloomberg and are doing what they see as their job of lobbying for more money for the city — can complain all they want about the lack of homeland security funding for New York. But there is not enough money in the world, or enough security devices, to make the city or the county genuinely attack-proof while still maintaining our civil liberties. We would prefer some risk to tossing out the civil liberties. In any event, Mr. Bush’s approach of going after the terrorists on enemy soil stands the best chance of success at a more reasonable cost, whether it be money or liberty.

The hue and cry over homeland security is just a new twist on the old liberal program of crying wolf any time anyone in Washington tries to put any restraints at all on the growth of the welfare state. When New York magazine swings and misses it’s not a big deal. But to the extent the article aired the flawed logic behind the constant complaining of the city’s Democratic congressmen and Mr. Bloomberg’s Democratic aides, it’s worth paying attention to. As Mr. Bush arrives in New York for the Republican convention this summer, his detractors are going to be swarming. If this is all there is to throw at Mr. Bush, the president doesn’t have much to worry about.