New Mexico gets a large share of federal money, per capita, in part because of the salaries connected to its national laboratories, including Sandia.
(Sandia National Laboratories/AP)Photos (1 of 1)
Which states get the most federal money?
The government spent $9,184 per person last year. But the money was not distributed evenly among the 50 states.
By Mark Trumbull | Staff writer/ July 24, 2009 edition
Federal spending rose last year at a nearly double-digit rate – 9.3 percent – even before the government embarked on big economic rescue efforts such as bank bailouts and the Obama stimulus.
According to a Census report released this week, the federal government spent nearly $2.79 trillion domestically during fiscal year 2008, which ended last September. That amounts to $9,184 for each person living in the United States.
But that $9,184 was not distributed among evenly among the 50 states. The top state, Virginia, gets more than twice as many federal dollars for each resident as Utah, the bottom state.
(To see the state-by-state breakdown, See Page xxii of the Census report.)
The Top 5:
1. Virginia ($15,256 spent per capita)
2. Maryland ($13,829)
3. Alaska ($13,730).
4. Kentucky ($12,242)
5. New Mexico ($12,017)
The Bottom 5:
46. Minnesota ($7,326)
47. Oregon ($7,264)
48. Wisconsin ($7,132)
49. Nevada ($6,638)
50. Utah ($6,255)
Is this the way things should work? If you’re from Utah or Nevada, it certainly may not seem that way. But whether the distribution is fair or not, many factors contribute to it:
Utah vs. New Mexico: Top and bottom
Consider that the Beehive State is a desert state with its share of high-tech firms, sagebrush, and fewer than 3 million residents. So is New Mexico. Yet Utah ranks last in the ranking of federal largess, while New Mexico is perennially near the top.
In a news article about its thin slice of federal pie, the Deseret Morning News in Salt Lake City attributes the difference partly to Utah’s relatively young population, so there are fewer Social Security checks and Medicare payments than most states have.
Also, the economy there hasn’t been hit as hard by recession, so a rise in jobless benefits nationwide last year didn’t show up as much of a trend in places like Provo. New Mexico, by contrast, gets an outsize share of procurement contracts and federal salaries – many tied to Energy Department labs in the state.
Virginia and Alaska: Very near and very far
Virginia and Maryland, of course, rank near the top because of their proximity to Washington, D.C. Lots of federal workers live in those states.
Alaska Republican politician Sarah Palin may not be a fan of big government, but her home state is also an outsized gainer from federal programs – especially military salaries and procurement.
The state known for the “bridge to nowhere” also scores big on transportation grants.
You get what you pay for – or not?
Research by the Tax Foundation casts the state-by-state contrasts in a different light, looking at what states get back relative to the tax dollars they send to Washington.
In a 2007 study (drawing on data from 2005) the Tax Foundation found that New Mexico ranked first, with residents getting back $2 in spending for every $1 they paid in federal taxes. The next leading states were Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, and West Virginia. At the bottom of the list were New Jersey (residents got 61 cents for every dollar of taxes), Nevada, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Minnesota
Comments
2. R. Howell | 07.27.09
Don’t forget that left out of the Alaskas equation is the fact that the federal government gets a larger percentage of our natural resourses revenue than any other state in the nation.(and the percentage is not small.)
3. Chip | 08.03.09
The “road to nowhere” was not ever done. Palin stopped that nonsense, and has saved the state millions. The corruption in that state has decreased 10 fold with her in power. I was stationed in Fairbanks and an honest politician is so rare these days, that the DemonCrats hate her. She is a true American hero that deserves to be hailed as that. The reason AK is getting money is because they were close to UTAH for the last 20 yrs and this past year they finally got some money…I’d like to see who is getting the money year by year for the past 40 years. That would be a true eye opening experience. Total it up CSM I’d like to see some objectivity in these numbers, instead of the past so many months….
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Rick Owens | 07.25.09
This is the crux of the health care reform issue. I live in Minnesota, where our health care system consistently ranks high in terms of cost/effectiveness of treatment. Our Medicare reimbursement rates are very low compared to the New York and Florida rates. And our quality of care exceeds those states and others that have more medical facilities and doctors.
It is ironic that Minnesota could likely be net losers again with health care reform, while the states who will get the most help (and need it the most) are from those states that have not developed decent care or access, and whose Senators and Congressman oppose the reform the loudest.