Overall, the major moocher states off of Uncle Sam include Massachusetts, Connecticut, Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, North Dakota and New Mexico with per capita federal spending topping over $12,000. On the flip side, the states that receive the least (ranging from $0 to $8,999 per person) from Uncle Sam include New Hampshire (Yes!), Texas (Gov. Perry anyone?), Illinois, Minnesota, Utah, Nevada, Oregon and California.
Check out the map below to see where your state falls on the moocher scale . . .
I’ve always found the phrase “Federal Aid to the States” to be rather demeaning to states–does Uncle Sam think the states need aid the same way international aid is given to basket-cases across the globe? In most cases, this so-called “aid” is more about scoring political points than it is anything else, but I digress.
As part of a study I’m working on for the good folks at the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, I’ve been going through these reports. What I have found will amaze you–or horrify you depending on your ideological persuasion.
The chart below comes from the most recent FAS report and it shows per capita federal grants to state and local governments by state. The dark green indicates the states with the highest degree of federal aid while the light green indicates the states with the lowest degree of federal aid.
What I found interesting was that there are two low aid states that are stuck in a region of high aid states–New Hampshire in the Northeast and Texas in the south. We all know that New Hampshire and Texas stand out for their small(er) government policies at the state level, but how does that translate into less federal aid?
Stay tuned for tomorrow’s post as I delve into specific grant programs that will help answer that question–as well as providing its own shocking data. If you want to venture an guess, please weigh-in in the comment section.
Office of Personnel Management which manages all civilian employees except the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency
The table below shows the wide range of federal “salaries and wages” dependency by state. The states that are most dependent are: Hawaii (8.5 percent), Alaska (8.0 percent), Virginia (4.7 percent), Maryland (4.4 percent) and Kentucky (3.5 percent). Of note is the District of Columbia at 49.2 percent.
On the other hand, the states that are least dependent are: Connecticut (0.9 percent), New Jersey (1.1 percent), Wisconsin (1.1 percent), New York (1.2 percent) and Michigan (1.2 percent).
This is the last major federal spending category published in the CFFR. Next we will turn our attention to looking at these categories over time–which has seen the largest percentage increase in federal spending? Stay tuned.
According to the Consolidated Federal Funds Report (pdf) from which this data is drawn from, “procurement” constitute federal dollars that: “[are] covering federal government procurement contracts, are provided by [the United States Postal Service] USPS for Postal Service procurement and by the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) within the General Services Administration for procurement actions of nearly all other federal agencies, including the Department of Defense.” In a nutshell, everything from staplers to B2 Bombers.
The table below shows the wide range of federal “procurement” dependency by state. The states that are most dependent are: Virginia (17.4 percent), New Mexico (10.7 percent), Alaska (10.2 percent), Maryland (10.1 percent) and Missouri (6.5 percent). Of note is the District of Columbia at 35.5 percent.
On the other hand, the states that are least dependent are: Delaware (1.2 percent), Arkansas (1.3 percent), New York (1.5 percent), Montana (1.6 percent) and Minnesota (1.6 percent)
However, there is one important caveat to keep in mind with this particular category of federal spending. As noted above, Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland are the biggest recipients of federal procurement dollars due to their proximity to the Federal Government. Yet, not all of those dollars stay in those states/areas.
For example, take a large defense contractor whose headquarters is located in the Dulles corridor. The check from the Department of Defense will be cashed in Virginia, but the manufacturing may, and most likely, take place in other states. As a result, Virginia’s procurement is overstated while that in other states is understated. Unfortunately, this problem currently lacks a viable solution.
Following on my three previous blogs (here, here and here) . . . this blog shows federal “grants to state and local governments” spending as percent of personal income. What is this?
According to the Consolidated Federal Funds Report (pdf) from which this data is drawn from, “grants to state and local government” constitute federal dollars that are provided to other jurisdictions. This category is dominated by Medicaid which consists of federally-matched dollars tied to state spending. Another major component are grants for infrastructure spending.
The table below shows the wide range of federal “grants to state and local government” dependency by state. The states that are most dependent are: Alaska (9.7 percent), Wyoming (9.2 percent), New Mexico (8.8 percent), Vermont (8.7 percent) and Mississippi (7.9 percent)
On the other hand, the states that are least dependent are: Virginia (2.8 percent), Nevada (3.1 percent), Florida (3.1 percent), Colorado (3.3 percent) and New Hampshire (3.6 percent–Woo Hoo!)