Fiscal Federalism X: Federal Salaries and Wages

Following on my five previous blogs (Procurement, Grants to State and Local Governments, Other Direct PaymentsRetirement and Disability and All Federal Spending) . . . this blog shows federal “salaries and wages” spending as percent of personal income. What is this?

According to the Consolidated Federal Funds Report (pdf) from which this data is drawn from, “salaries and wages” constitute federal dollars that are used for:

  • Department of Defense personnel
  • U.S. Postal Service employees
  • U.S. Coast Guard personnel
  • 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.

Federal Spending on Salaries and Wages as a Percent of Personal Income by State for 2008

Fiscal Federalism IX: Federal Procurement

Following on my four previous blogs (Grants to State and Local Governments, Other Direct PaymentsRetirement and Disability and All Federal Spending) . . . this blog shows federal “procurement” spending as percent of personal income. What is this?

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.

Federal Procurement Spending as a Percent of Personal Income for 2008

Fiscal Federalism VI: Federal Grants to State and Local Governments

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!)

Federal Grants to State and Local Governments as a Percent of Personal Income for 2008

Fiscal Federalism III: Federal Dependency

I’m a little weirded-out because I had posted this before, but now I can’t find it anywhere.  If you have seen this before, please leave a comment to let me know.  Otherwise, I guess it must have gotten lost in cyberspace.  Ah, the joys of blogging 🙂

At any rate, the table below shows the wide range of federal dependency by state (as measured by federal spending as a percent of personal income).  The states that are most dependent are:  Kentucky (37.8 percent), New Mexico (37.3 percent), Virginia (37.2 percent), Alaska (35.1 percent) and Mississippi (34.5 percent).

On the other hand, the states that are least dependent are: New York (18.9 percent), New Hampshire (18.6 percent–Woo Hoo!), Minnesota (17.9 percent), New Jersey (16.6 percent) and Nevada (16.5 percent).

Federal Spending as a Percent of Personal Income in 2008