FISCAL YEAR 1999
Retrospective Issue • 1983-1999
24th Edition
INTRODUCTION
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
REPORT
Herman B. Leonard
Jay H. Walder
24th EDITION • DECEMBER 15 2000
This is the twenty-fourth edition in an annual series of reports beginning with Fiscal Year 1976.
Since 1992, the body of the report has been prepared by the Taubman Center for State and Local
Government at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and the introduction by
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
A JOINT PUBLICATION
Taubman Center for State
and Local Government
John F. Kennedy School
of Government
Harvard University
Office of Senator
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Senate
★
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
INTRODUCTION
9
by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES, FISCAL YEAR 1999
17
The Balance of Payments in FY 1999
20
The Geographic Distribution of Federal Taxes
25
The Geographic Distribution of Federal Spending
26
The Federal Budget and the States — A Retrospective
33
STATE PROFILES (in alphabetical order)
APPENDICES
59
109
Appendix A: Data Sources
109
Appendix B: Methodology
111
Appendix C: Fiscal Year 1999 Data
113
C-1: Balance of Payments, FY 1999
113
C-2: State Cost of Living Indexes
113
C-3: Federal Spending, Taxes, and Balance of Payments Per Capita, FY 1999
113
C-4: Per Capita Spending by Program by State, FY 1999
114
C-5: Per Capita Taxes and Spending by Program Area, FY 1999 (Unadjusted)
115
C-6: 17-Year Cumulative History, FY 1983–1999
116
C-7: State Demographic Information, FY 1999
116
Appendix D: Federal Balance of Payments, Taxes, and Spending, FY 1983–1999
117
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Balance of Payments, FY 1999
4
Table 2
Per Capita Changes in Actual Balance of Payments, Spending, and Taxes,
FY 1983/84–FY 1998/99
5
Table 3
Balance of Payments, FY 1999
20
Table 4
Per Capita Spending by Program by State, FY 1999
31
Table 5
Distribution of Spending by Program for Each State, FY 1999
31
Table 6
Per Capita Changes in Actual Balance of Payments, Spending, and Taxes,
FY 1983/84–FY 1998/99
37
Table 7
Budget Percentages of Federal Spending by Area, FY 1983/84 and FY 1998/99
40
Table 8
Variability of Spending Areas and Taxes, FY 1983/84 and FY 1998/99 and
Index of FY 1983/84–FY 1998/99 Change
40
Table 9
Total Expenditures, FY 1998/99
43
Table 10
Defense, FY 1998/99
44
Table 11
Major Base Closings
45
Table 12
Defense Salaries, FY 1998/99
46
Table 13
Defense Procurement, FY 1998/99
47
Table 14
Social Security, FY 1998/99
48
Table 15
Comparing FY 1998/99 and FY 1983/84 Social Security Benefits
50
Table 16
Medicare, FY 1998/99
51
Table 17
Comparing FY 1998/99 and FY 1983/84 Medicare Benefits
53
Table 18
Grants, FY 1998/99
54
Table 19
Taxes, FY 1998/99
56
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Per Capita Balance of Payments, FY 1999
1
Figure 2
Map of States with Greatest Per Capita Balance of Payments Surpluses
2
Figure 3
Map of States with Greatest Per Capita Balance of Payments Deficits
Figure 4
New York Balance of Payments Deficits 1983–1999
10
Figure 5
Federal Spending in New York, FY 1999
10
Figure 6
Cover of The Economist, October 28, 2000
13
Figure 7
Per Capita Balance of Payments, FY 1999
21
Figure 8
Total Balance of Payments, FY 1999
22
Figure 9
Per Capita Taxes and Spending Compared to National Averages
23
Figure 10
Map of Per Capita Balance of Payments, FY 1999
24
Figure 11
Map of Per Capita Federal Taxes Collected, FY 1999
25
Figure 12
Distribution of Federal Spending by Program, FY 1999
28
Figure 13
Map of Per Capita Federal Spending, FY 1999
29
Figure 14
A–E
Geographic Distribution of Per Capita Federal Spending by Program
(defense, non-defense discretionary, Social Security, Medicare, assistance programs)
30
Figure 15
Per Capita Spending by Program by State, FY 1999
32
Figure 16
Distribution of Spending by Program for Each State, FY 1999
32
Figure 17
Map of FY 1998/99 Social Security Spending — Difference from Predicted Value
49
Figure 18
Map of FY 1998/99 Medicare Spending — Difference from Predicted Value
52
Figure 19
Map of FY 1998/99 Grants Spending — Difference from Predicted Value
55
3
Acknowledgments
This is the ninth year of our fruitful association with the Taubman Center for State and
Local Government at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
Professor Herman B. “Dutch” Leonard, the Baker Professor of Public Management at the
Kennedy School, and Jay H. Walder, Lecturer in Public Policy, once again led our joint
effort. As always, we are indebted to them for their singularly creative analysis. Surely there
has been no equivalent in the long history of American federalism.
Marcia Ciro of Paper Trace Studio coordinated the report’s layout and graphic design,
helping us to present detailed statistical information in a clear fashion.
Many thanks to Jason Klurfeld, Therese Lee, and Gray Maxwell, formerly of my staff,
who now serves as Legislative Director to Senator Dianne Feinstein of California.
DPM
For the past nine years, we and other researchers from the Kennedy School's Taubman
Center have prepared the body of The Federal Budget and the States reports. This has
accorded us the rare opportunity of working with Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan on
a project that he began at the outset of his senate career twenty-four years ago. Senator
Moynihan is possessed of a unique intellectual vigor and curiosity, and to find these
qualities in a senior statesman with his graciousness and generous spirit has been a true
personal and professional privilege for which we are deeply grateful.
"We will not see his like again."
HBL and JHW
The Federal Budget and the States
Fiscal Year 1999
Executive Summary
Herman B. Leonard and Jay H. Walder
A. Alfred Taubman Center for State and Local Government
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
PER CAPITA BOP, FY 1999
– $ Deficit
Figure 1
The graph to the right shows
the per capita balance of
payments for each state,
Fiscal Year 1999.
wide disparity in the financial flows
between the Federal government and
each of the states has been a consistent feature of U.S. fiscal policy over the two
decades captured in this report series (and
probably for many years before that). While
arguments are often put forth highlighting
the benefits of uneven tax payments and
Federal spending across our diverse nation,
citizens and legislators continue to raise concerns about whether states receive a “fair
share” of Federal domestic spending or pay
more than their “fair share” in Federal taxes.
In the day-to-day process of formulating policy and administering the government, the financial flows to and from each
of the states have rarely been examined outside of the context of individual programmatic issues. Over the past few years, bitter
fights over allocation formulas dominated
the legislative discussion during the overhaul
of Federal social assistance programs and the
reauthorization of Federal highway and transit programs. This program-specific debate
about the fair and equitable distribution of
Federal funding will undoubtedly be revived
in the context of other Federal programs
and/or revisited in the context of the transportation and social assistance programs that
have been the focus of recent attention.
Looking beyond selected programmatic
initiatives, it is no secret that the economic
impacts of Federal spending and tax collections vary significantly across the states.
A
-3000-2500-2000-1500-1000 -500 0
Surplus $ +
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
NM
MT
VA
ND
WV
AK
MS
SD
AL
HI
OK
MD
AR
KY
LA
ME
SC
MO
TN
AZ
ID
IA
RI
WY
KS
VT
NE
PA
UT
NC
FL
GA
TX
OH
IN
OR
WA
CO
CA
WI
NY
MA
DE
MI
MN
NV
IL
NH
NJ
CT
You can access the full report and reach the authors on
the World Wide Web at: www.ksg.harvard.edu/fisc99
1
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
Figure 2
The ten states in white have
WA
the greatest Federal per
ME
MT
capita surpluses.
ND
MI
MN
OR
ID
VT
WI
SD
NY
MI
WY
PA
IA
NE
NV
UT
IL
OH
IN
KS
NJ
DE
MD
CO
CA
NH
MA
CT RI
WV
MO
VA
KY
NC
TN
AZ
OK
NM
SC
MS
HI
TX
AK
Some states do receive considerably more in
Federal spending than they pay in Federal
taxes, while the tax burden for other states
far exceeds the spending they receive. We
note a persistent, but often misunderstood,
pattern in the geography of these financial
flows. In general, residents of states in the
Northeast and Great Lakes regions pay much
more in Federal taxes than they receive back
in Federal spending, while many Sunbelt
and Great Plains states get more from the
Federal government than they send to Washington in taxes.
Figure 1 depicts the state-specific effect
of Federal spending decisions and tax collections for Fiscal Year 1999. The states at the
top of the graph have a balance of payments
surplus — they gain economic activity from
their financial relationship with the Federal
government. The donor states at the bottom
pay more in Federal taxes than they receive
in spending. Significant surpluses and
deficits were common — nearly half of the
states had surpluses or deficits that exceeded
2
AR
AL
GA
LA
FL
20 percent of the average per capita Federal
spending level (about $5,500).
At one end of the spectrum, ten states
had surpluses of approximately $2,000 or
more per capita. While there was no obvious
geographic pattern to these states, there was
a noticeable concentration in just a few areas
of the country (see Figure 2). New Mexico
has consistently led the nation with the greatest per capita balance of payments surplus
and its FY 1999 surplus of about $4,000 per
capita was more than $800 greater than the
surplus for Montana, the next highest state.
Among the states with net outflows to
the U.S. treasury, Connecticut continued to
have the highest per capita balance of payments deficit in the nation. Its deficit of
almost $2,800 per capita was more than
$500 greater than New Jersey, the state with
the next largest deficit. Seven other states,
primarily located in the Northeast, midAtlantic and Great Lakes regions, had deficits
of more than $1,000 per capita. Figure 3
shows the ten states with the largest deficits.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure 3
The ten states in black have
WA
ME
the greatest Federal per
MT
capita deficits.
ND
VT
MI
MN
OR
NH
ID
WI
SD
PA
IA
NE
UT
IL
OH
IN
WV
KS
RI
NJ
DE
MD
CO
CA
CT
MI
WY
NV
MA
NY
MO
VA
KY
NC
TN
AZ
OK
SC
AR
NM
MS
HI
TX
GA
LA
AK
Table 1 presents an alphabetical listing
of the states with the FY 1999 per capita balance of payments and the total surplus or
deficit for each state. Eleven states had total
surpluses that exceeded $5 billion. The total
surplus for Virginia was over $21 billion, by
far the largest in the nation, and the surplus
for Maryland exceeded $9 billion. Outside
of the Washington DC area, Alabama led the
nation with a surplus that also exceeded
$9 billion. All eleven of the states with net
inflows that exceeded $5 billion were in the
South and the combined surplus for these
states was about $96 billion.
California’s deficit of approximately $23
billion was the highest in the nation. This was
the result of its very large population of 33
million residents (almost 12 percent of the
total U.S. population), combined with its
moderate per capita deficit of about $700
(12th largest in the nation). The total deficit
for Illinois was also more than $20 billion, and
three other states — New Jersey, New York,
and Michigan — had total deficits in excess
AL
FL
of $10 billion. The combined outflow from
this group of five states alone was over $88 billion, and the total for the ten states with the
largest deficits was about $118 billion.
The FY 1999 results continue longstanding trends. The geography of surpluses
and deficits has been extremely consistent
over time — the states with the largest per
capita surpluses and deficits have changed
only slightly over the past seven years. Moreover, the few changes that we observe in
recent years do not appear to be related
directly to shifts in the priorities of U.S.
domestic spending, changes in the occupancy of the White House, or the majority
control of the Congress.
The Federal Budget and the
States — A Retrospective
enator Moynihan published the first
report in this series in 1977, after having been in the Senate for only half a
year. That first report grew out of his concern that Federal tax and spending policies
S
3
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
Table 1: Balance of Payments, FY 1999
STATE
PER CAPITA
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
2,091
2,777
904
1,633
(685)
(620)
(2,840)
(1,025)
47
(29)
1,982
829
(1,669)
(399)
750
373
1,595
1,576
1,324
1,770
(895)
(1,042)
(1,294)
2,684
1,187
TOTAL
RANK (IN MILLIONS)
9
6
20
13
39
38
50
43
31
32
10
21
47
35
22
25
14
15
16
12
42
44
45
7
18
9,139
1,720
4,319
4,166
(22,688)
(2,514)
(9,320)
(772)
707
(228)
2,350
1,038
(20,241)
(2,373)
2,151
990
6,317
6,892
1,660
9,155
(5,526)
(10,277)
(6,180)
7,431
6,490
STATE
PER CAPITA
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
3,109
320
(1,583)
(1,787)
(2,342)
3,944
(890)
146
3,043
(344)
1,866
(483)
256
528
1,265
2,327
961
(189)
230
343
3,069
(533)
2,808
(887)
386
TOTAL
RANK (IN MILLIONS)
2
27
46
48
49
1
41
30
4
34
11
36
28
23
17
8
19
33
29
26
3
37
5
40
24
2,745
533
(2,865)
(2,147)
(19,076)
6,862
(16,189)
1,115
1,928
(3,873)
6,266
(1,601)
3,076
523
4,914
1,706
5,270
(3,789)
490
203
21,094
(3,070)
5,074
(4,659)
185
were contributing to the general economic
decline in the state that he had been elected
to represent. His belief was that an accurate
understanding of the flow of funds between
New York residents and the Federal treasury
would be a critical first step in correcting
what he knew to be an unequal — and what
he perceived to be an inequitable — distribution of Federal funds. Senator Moynihan’s
imminent retirement from the United States
Senate is a natural occasion to review the
geographic shifts in Federal spending and
taxing decisions that have taken place during his Senate career. While there has been
a good deal of stability in the balance of payments patterns reported annually in The
Federal Budget and the States series, there
have been significant changes when we look
across a longer period of time.
With this in mind, this report contains
a fifteen-year analysis of the shifts in the
4
geography of Federal spending and taxes.
More specifically, we compare data on the
geography of Federal spending and taxes in
FY 1983 and FY 1984 to similar data for the
two most recent fiscal years (FY 1998 and
FY 1999). We average data for two years to
minimize the impact of any single-year
anomalies that may have occurred.
The Big Picture
Table 2 shows the aggregate changes for each
state in per capita balance of payments, total
Federal spending, and Federal tax payments
over the 15-year retrospective period. Many
states experienced relatively modest movement in their overall balance of payments
position — nearly half of the states moved
by $500 per capita or less, and for 10 of
those states, the change over the 15-year
period was less than $200 per capita. The
changes for the other states were larger, and
for some of these states the changes were
quite dramatic indeed.
The change in Connecticut’s balance of
payments position with the Federal government was most striking. Over the 15-year
period, Connecticut’s balance of payments
moved from a small surplus to the largest
deficit in the nation. The decline of nearly
$2,500 per person was far larger than the
decline for any other state. New Hampshire,
Nevada, Massachusetts, and California also
experienced declines of $1,000 or more. The
gains over the same period at the other end
of the spectrum were also striking. Citizens
in Oklahoma and Alaska saw their balance
of payments move up by over $2,500 per
capita and North Dakota, Montana, and
West Virginia experienced net increases of
more than $2,000 per capita.
The difference between the changes
experienced by citizens in Connecticut and
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE 2: Per Capita Changes in Actual Balance of Payments, Spending, and Taxes
FY 1983/84–FY 1998/99
Change in Balance of Payments
Change in Spending
Connecticut
New Hampshire
Nevada
Massachusetts
California
Washington
Missouri
Utah
Minnesota
New York
Georgia
New Jersey
Florida
Michigan
Wisconsin
Illinois
Vermont
Oregon
Colorado
Delaware
Arizona
Kansas
Tennessee
Indiana
Nebraska
Ohio
North Carolina
South Carolina
Idaho
Maryland
Rhode Island
Mississippi
Pennsylvania
Hawaii
Virginia
Arkansas
Maine
Alabama
New Mexico
South Dakota
Texas
Iowa
Kentucky
Wyoming
Louisiana
North Dakota
Montana
West Virginia
Oklahoma
Alaska
California
Connecticut
Nevada
New Hampshire
Utah
Washington
Missouri
Massachusetts
Hawaii
Kansas
New Jersey
New York
Minnesota
Delaware
Arizona
Colorado
Oregon
Wisconsin
Illinois
Georgia
Vermont
Michigan
Rhode Island
Indiana
Ohio
Mississippi
Florida
Idaho
New Mexico
Pennsylvania
Nebraska
Texas
South Carolina
Arkansas
Tennessee
Maine
Maryland
Virginia
Alaska
North Carolina
Alabama
Wyoming
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Iowa
South Dakota
North Dakota
Kentucky
Montana
West Virginia
$(2,461)
(1,513)
(1,357)
(1,274)
(1,105)
(955)
(825)
(823)
(742)
(477)
(446)
(435)
(243)
(121)
(113)
(105)
(62)
(20)
43
109
114
156
193
275
293
326
336
358
378
382
402
416
439
509
592
603
710
925
944
999
1,004
1,411
1,465
1,513
1,997
2,191
2,350
2,386
2,534
2,812
Change in Taxes
$(775)
(678)
(538)
(354)
(326)
(261)
(61)
(26)
332
410
420
433
527
637
648
724
752
760
771
786
799
848
873
901
931
955
978
1,019
1,036
1,072
1,094
1,149
1,207
1,238
1,249
1,283
1,315
1,330
1,459
1,487
1,675
1,744
1,778
1,860
1,950
1,980
2,009
2,078
2,296
2,311
Connecticut
Minnesota
Massachusetts
Georgia
Florida
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Tennessee
South Dakota
Michigan
Maryland
New York
Illinois
Wisconsin
Vermont
New Jersey
South Carolina
Nevada
Nebraska
Oregon
Missouri
Alabama
Virginia
Washington
Colorado
Idaho
Arkansas
Pennsylvania
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
Maine
Iowa
Mississippi
Arizona
Delaware
Utah
Rhode Island
California
Kansas
Wyoming
Texas
New Mexico
Montana
West Virginia
Hawaii
North Dakota
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Alaska
$1,783
1,269
1,248
1,232
1,220
1,159
1,151
1,056
981
968
933
910
876
873
861
855
849
819
802
772
764
751
738
694
680
640
635
634
627
613
605
573
539
539
534
527
497
471
330
255
231
145
92
(53)
(75)
(176)
(183)
(218)
(674)
(1,352)
5
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
CRITICAL METHODOLOGICAL CONCEPTS
AND CHOICES
We made the following
methodological choices to
define more precisely the
concept of the flow of Federal
funds to and from each state
as that term is used in this
report:
• We considered only Federal
spending within the borders
of the fifty states (including defense) for which the
Bureau of the Census produces geographic data (the
main item excluded is the
interest payments on the
Federal debt);
• We allocated taxes in the
same amount as spending
(reflecting the fact that
even if there is a Federal
deficit, it is not free, or if
there is an overall surplus,
it is not a net cost to the
economy); and
• We adjusted all figures
for taxes and spending to
reflect the cost of living
in each state.
A detailed discussion of our
data sources and methodology
can be found in Appendices A
and B.
Alaska, the two states with the most extreme
situations, is over $5,200 per capita. In
effect, the Federal government imparted a
net economic torque that provided a major
impulse in the economy of Alaska while at
the same time a Federal economic brake was
being applied to Connecticut. Other states
experienced significant, but less intense, versions of this same phenomenon.
The Tax Side
The distribution of Federal taxes is the deep
drumbeat in the background of the changes
we observe in the balance of payments. Federal taxes collected in eight states increased
by more than $1,000 per capita between
FY 1983/84and FY 1998/99. Connecticut
had the most significant increase in taxes,
nearly $1,800 per capita, but several southern states — Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, and Tennessee — also experienced
large increases in Federal tax collections.
Alaska was the only state where Federal tax
collections declined by more than $1,000 per
capita. Two other oil-producing states, Oklahoma and Louisiana, also experienced substantial declines in Federal taxes. Virtually
every component of Federal taxes is closely
related to income, and the geography of Federal taxation closely tracks the geography of
average individual earnings.
Changes in Spending
Given the growth in overall Federal expenditures, most states experienced substantial
increases in Federal spending between FY
1983/84 and FY 1998/99. Forty-two states
experienced an increase in real per capita
Federal spending, ranging from a little more
than $300 per capita in Hawaii to more than
$2,300 per capita in West Virginia. Of the
eight states that saw a decline in real Federal
spending, the shortfall in three states —
6
California, Nevada, and Connecticut —
exceeded $500 per capita. California had the
largest per capita spending decline in the
country, a fall of 14 percent in constant dollars from the average per capita Federal
spending received in FY 1983/84. Adjusting
for inflation, Federal spending was $25 billion lower in California in FY 1998/99 than
it was in FY 1983/84.
In addition to the increase in Federal
expenditures, there have also been significant
changes in the priorities of Federal spending
during this time period. Most important,
defense spending fell as a fraction of Federal
spending by about half, from about 26 percent of domestic expenditures to about 13%.
At the same time, mandatory programs, particularly Medicare and Medicaid, drove a
large portion of the growth in Federal spending. This change in the budget mix of Federal spending helps to explain some of the
changes that we observe in Table 2. The geographic distribution of defense spending
across the states is indeed quite different
from the geographic distribution of the nondefense components of Federal spending. As
funds shifted away from defense, states with
formerly high defense spending tended not to
experience offsetting growth in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, for example.
The Importance of Defense
Defense spending is particularly important
because it has a highly variable and distinctive pattern across the states. Not only did
the level of defense spending change, but the
pattern of defense spending across the states
also shifted considerably. For example, actual
FY 1998/99 defense spending in ten states
was 50 percent greater than the level that
would have been expected if the nationwide
decline in defense spending had been dis-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
tributed proportionately across the states. At
the same time, defense spending in eleven
other states was more than 25 percent lower
than would have been predicted.
In general, we find that:
■
Defense spending is considerably
more volatile than any other component of Federal spending, with actual
defense spending dispersed widely
around the national average. Dollar
for dollar, defense spending imparts
three times as much variation among
the states as any other area of Federal
spending;
■
The other spending components —
Social Security, Medicare, Grants, and
Other Federal Spending — are about
equally volatile and all of these spending components are much less volatile
than defense. States are moderately
clustered around the national average
and a typical state departs from the
national average, in either direction,
by about one-third.
The result is that defense drives the outcomes considerably more than one would
expect by examining its budget share alone.
And, over the time period of this analysis,
defense spending became more concentrated
in fewer states as the overall level of defense
spending declined.
The State Profiles that follow this report
capture state-specific information and highlight the different factors relevant for each
state. Each profile includes demographic
information that helps to understand the
distribution of the parts of Federal spending
that are largely determined by characteristics
of the population. We rank each state
according to the overall balance of payments
and also in relation to the separate tax and
spending data. Continuing a new feature
that we initiated last year, each State Profile
highlights the distribution of Federal spending by program — defense, non-defense discretionary, Social Security, Medicare, and
assistance programs — and by the more traditional “objects of expenditure” that we
have used in prior reports in this series.
State-specific calculations for the balance of
payments, taxes, and spending by program
can be compared to national rankings and
national averages to gain important perspective. And the historical trends in taxes and
spending (adjusted to 1999 dollars) allow for
state-specific comparisons over time.
State Profiles
hroughout this report, we focus on the
factors that are helpful in understanding the national trends and patterns in
the geographic distribution of taxes and
spending. Still, the circumstances particular
to an individual state are often an important
factor in understanding the balance of payments outcomes.
T
7
Page 8 intentionally left blank
Introduction: Quadragesimo anno
by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
n my first Senate campaign in 1976, I argued that there was an imbalance of
payments between New York and the Federal government. My opponent, then
Senator James L. Buckley, now Judge Buckley, said there was no such imbalance,
that Federal data showed just the opposite. The Senator was and is a person of the
greatest integrity; scrupulous about facts. Had I been wrong? After the election, I
returned to the question. It turned out we were both right. The Treasury Department did indeed produce an annual accounting of Federal transfers which showed
New York in surplus. But the accounting was daft. In brief, the Treasury
recorded as a transfer to New York monies deposited in the New York branch
“I return to two prinof the Federal Reserve Bank for interest payments on the Federal debt, which
ciples I enunciated
thereupon were disbursed around the world. The same with foreign aid paytwenty-four years ago
ments. When these accounts straightened out, a striking imbalance of payments emerged. New York was one of the largest donor states in the Union.
in the first volume:
It has been almost a quarter-century since that first report came out.
One. The Federal govIn that Introduction I wrote:
ernment should know
I
what it is doing to the
I hope to begin a series to be issued once a year...tracing the ups and downs of
Federal expenditures for the previous fiscal year. It is time we started keeping track.
I sent the report to President Jimmy Carter, who replied cordially. (I have
to assume he knew how well Georgia did in its exchange with the Federal govTwo. The unintended
ernment.) But the tally brought little response in New York itself. We went
effects of what the Fed- on, year after year. We got better at the task, or so we thought; still, few seemed
eral government is
to notice. Among those few were scholars at the Taubman Center for State
and Local Government, which is part of the John F. Kennedy School of Govdoing should be raised
ernment at Harvard. In 1991 they proposed a joint collaboration. This was
to the level of conmost welcome; it was time the analysis be extended to include each of the
sciousness and either
other states.
embraced or eliminated.”
The report had, in a sense, raised a new issue of Federalism. Rather, it raised
an old issue in a new context. There was a good deal of debate surrounding
the adoption of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution concerning the
“tax wealth” of the several states, and the “apportionment” of the expenses of the
Federal government among them.
The rule is you never know much about a subject until “you can measure what
you are speaking about, and express it in numbers,” as stated by Lord Kelvin, the
Scottish physicist who defined the absolute temperature scale later named after him.
economy of New York.
9
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
Figure 4
A simple but often overlooked postulate. Our goal with the report was to measure the
balance of payments between New York and Washington. I return to two principles I
Balance of Payments
enunciated twenty-four years ago in the first volume:
Deficits 1983–1999
One. The Federal government should know what it is doing to the economy of
(in billions of 1999 dollars)
New York.
1983
-7.7
Two. The unintended effects of what the Federal government is doing should be
1984
-6.3
raised to the level of consciousness and either embraced or eliminated.
1985
-9.4
We have accomplished the first principle. Actually, we have gone beyond it. The
1986
-13.5
Fisc is now a national document. People pay attention. It is a special pleasure to learn
1987
-14.5
1988
-18.0
that it is now read with some attention in Albany. It is well reported in the New York
1989
-19.0
press. Consider the recent New York Senate race; our data were featured in the debates,
1990
-19.2
referenced in stump speeches, made a point of in the Sunday morning shows. We have
1991
-17.8
surely fulfilled the first principle that we laid down 24 years ago. Kelvin would approve.
1992
-14.4
As for the second principle, we have partially fulfilled it. We may not like the
1993
-16.8
1994
-20.0
results. But we have a better understanding of the relationship between New York and
1995
-17.1
the Federal Government. For instance, we know that over the past 16 years New York
1996
-14.0
has run a total balance of payments deficit of $252 billion. We know that for the fifth
1997
-12.7
consecutive year New York ranks 41st in the balance of payments, with a per capita
1998
-15.5
deficit of $890. That the total deficit, $16.2 billion, is now the fourth largest in the
1999
-16.2
nation behind California, Illinois, and New Jersey. We are aware that while the state
Total BOP Deficits FY83–FY99
has the 10th highest real per capita income rate, $29,997, it also has the fourth high= $252.2 billion.
est cost-of-living index and the second highest poverty rate. (Nineteen percent. New
Mexico has the highest at 22 percent.) This places New York in an unusual position:
a relatively wealthy state with a striking number of persons living in poverty.
Last year, for the first time, thanks to our Harvard colleagues, Professors Herman
B. Leonard and Jay H. Walder, the Fisc compared the different states in the five major
areas of expenditure: defense, non-defense discretionary, Social Security, Medicare,
and assistance programs. We can now see which states are the biggest winners and
losers in each category. New York does not do well. We are No. 1 in assistance programs,
which I have previously characterized as disaster relief. No. 48 in defense spending.
This brings us to the second part of the second principle. Should we reconsider
Figure 5
our relationship with the Federal government? It was fine for New York to send more
Federal Spending
to Washington during the New Deal, when other regions were in crisis. We were happy
in New York, FY 1999
to help. But that is no longer the case. We have seen a gradual role reversal. The transfer
(in billions of 1999 dollars)
of wealth keeps working against us.
National National
In the Introduction to last year’s Fisc, I suggested a Grand
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Compromise. “It is time to trade. Less activism in Washington
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$305
48
$907
in return for more revenue at home, for whatever active meaNon-defense discretionary
1,370
41
1,693
sures recommend themselves to the state or municipality in
Social Security
1,473
32
1,508
question. Conservatives can then bring about or watch being
Medicare
812
15
761
brought about a genuine shrinkage in the size of the national
Assistance programs
985
1
616
government.”
Total spending
$4,944
37
$5,486
New York State
10
INTRODUCTION BY SENATOR MOYNIHAN
The idea attracted some interest. Newsday observed:
Has the New Deal gotten old? Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) says it has.
He has just released his 23rd annual study showing that New York sends billions of
dollars more to Washington than it gets back in Federal funds. It’s time, the retiring
senator says, to rethink the wisdom of a national system that takes so much from places
to give to others. While that may sound like heresy from a Democrat, Moynihan is at
least partly right. After 60 years on any one philosophical course, it makes sense to
revisit the assumptions that led you down that road.1
The late and much lamented journalist Lars-Erik Nelson wrote,
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York is the last of the New Deal liberal
Democrats, so we must sit up and pay sharp attention when Moynihan says that New
Deal-type government has become a bad deal for New York.2
There does seem to be a movement away from New Deal-type government. In his
1999 essay, “An Essay on Fiscal Federalism,” Professor William E. Oates of the
University of Maryland writes, “fiscal decentralization is in vogue.” He continues:
Both in the industrialized and in the developing world, nations are turning to devolution to improve the performance of their public sectors. In the United States, the central government has turned back significant portions of federal authority to the states
for a wide range of major programs, including welfare, Medicaid, legal services, housing, and job training. The hope is that state and local governments, being closer to the
people, will be more responsive to the particular preferences of their constituencies and
will be able to find new and better ways to provide these services. In the United Kingdom, both Scotland and Wales have opted under the Blair government for their own
regional parliaments. And in Italy the movement toward decentralization has gone so
far as to encompass a serious proposal for the separation of the nation into two independent countries. In the developing world, we likewise see widespread interest in fiscal
decentralization with the objective of breaking the grip of central planning that, in the
view of many, has failed to bring these nations onto a path of self-sustaining growth. 3
In the introduction to their collection, The New Federalism, John A. Ferejohn and
Barry R. Weingast write that for the first 150 years of the American republic, the
Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution as requiring strict limits on the national
government’s authority to regulate markets and promote public welfare.4
They write,
1. Newsday, "Newer Deal?"
December 21, 1999.
2. Lars-Erik Nelson, "Pat Moynihan’s startling idea: Junk New
Deal," Daily News, December
10, 1999.
3. Wallace E. Oates, "An Essay
on Fiscal Federalism," Journal
of Economic Literature, Vol.
XXXVII (September 1999),
page 1120.
4. John A. Ferejohn and Barry R.
Weingast, eds. The New Federalism (Stanford, CA: Hoover
Institution Press, 1998), page
vii.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
Consider the commerce clause, the national government’s principle source of
authority to regulate. Although a large part of modern America, the commerce clause
went unused for nearly all the first hundred years of the Constitution. The Federal
government exercised this authority for the first time in 1887 with the inception of
railroad regulation.5
Ferejohn and Weingast continue,
The growth of the federal government, increasingly the principal source of economic and social regulation, markedly altered American federalism. During America’s
first 150 years, economic regulation and the promotion of social welfare remained the
domain of the states. In the past sixty years, however, those powers have been shared,
with the national government free to enter policy areas that had previously been the
province of the states or that had not been subject to any government action.6
However, there is now, as stated earlier by Oates, a movement to return power to
the states. Scholars and policymakers suggest that reinvigorating Federalism may
11
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
provide a better approach to many problems. For the past five years, the Supreme
Court has handed down decisions circumscribing Congressional authority. An effort
has begun to sort things out. In a chapter in The New Federalism, Ronald McKinnon
and Thomas Nechyba offer an analytic mode.7 They write that if a given amount of
the service can be provided more cheaply when it is produced for many rather than a
few citizens, as with national defense, if the benefit of the service extends over a large
geographic area as with certain types of pollution control, or if decentralization would
lead to “bad” competition among states or inequitable outcomes across states, these
services should be provided by the national government. If, in contrast, local tastes
for a particular government activity differ widely, as with spending on recreational
facilities, if localized information needs to be taken into account to provide the
service most effectively as with schools, or if competition between local governments
leads to healthy competition and innovative local policy experiments, then it may be
that state and local governments are better suited to provide the service.8
The question of Federalism was front and center over 200 years ago, when 55 representatives from twelve states (Rhode Island declined the invitation) convened in
Philadelphia “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation,” which most Americans acknowledge were inadequate for the task of governing
the new nation. The Articles reserved too much power for the states and ceded too
little to the nascent Federal government. The single-chamber Congress could borrow
money, but not levy taxes, so credit was a problem. Nor could Congress regulate commerce (the states were free to erect trade barriers between each other, and did) nor
prohibit the states from coining money. Congress could determine how much money
the Federal government needed and assess each state “in proportion to the value of all
lands within each state,” but had no means of collecting the assessments other than
voluntary compliance by the states.
At the Constitutional Convention, Federalists argued that the Articles needed to
be replaced entirely by a new system providing for a more energetic, assertive central
government. No one questions the need for a strong national government as set forth
in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States. Madison so argued in The
Federalist No. 14:
…as our bulwark against foreign danger, as the conservator of peace among ourselves, as the guardian of our commerce and other common interests, as the only
substitute for those military establishments which have subverted the liberties of the
old world, and as the proper antidote for the diseases of faction, which have proved
fatal to other popular governments, and of which alarming symptoms have been
betrayed by our own.
7. Ronald McKinnon and Thomas
Nechyba, "Competition in
Federal Systems," in The New
Federalism, eds. John A. Ferejohn and Barry R. Weingast,
(Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1998).
8. Ibid.
12
Similarly, Hamilton, in The Federalist No. 9, warned against “splitting ourselves
into an infinity of little, jealous, clashing, tumultuous commonwealths, the wretched
nurseries of unceasing discord and the miserable objects of universal pity or contempt.”
Well, yes. But bear in mind that when Madison spoke of the “diseases of faction”
he had in mind what we now call political parties. And that it is our national political
parties that most prevent our splitting into an infinity of “jealous, clashing, tumultuous
commonwealths.” Not in the sense of secessionist movements — although we had one
INTRODUCTION BY SENATOR MOYNIHAN
a century and a half ago and are only just getting over
it. Withal, we are a stable republic, in which citizens
share a strong national identity. The issue is one of, well,
good government. How do we best govern ourselves two
centuries later?
I beg the indulgence of readers — I won’t be hectoring you again! — to call attention to the constitutional debates now taking place in Europe. If ever there
was an example of “little, jealous, clashing, tumultuous
commonwealths” it was surely Europe in the 20th century. They almost destroyed themselves, and the rest of
us as well. After World War II they came to their senses
and began to develop institutions of economic and
political union, with deliberative bodies and high
courts. Since 1992 this has been known as the European Union. This done, the question now arises of how
“to form a more perfect one.” Just as it did for our
framers.
The October 28, 2000 edition of The Economist in
London proposed a draft constitution. The cover read:
Figure 6
Cover of The Economist,
October 28, 2000
We, the people of Europe, in order to form a perfect – but not ever closer – union…
Article 1 sets out the “Founding principles.” “Liberty, democracy, and the rule of
law.” But then, in the final clause:
The Union and the Member States shall uphold the principle of subsidiarity.
Subsidiarity is not an everyday term, but it embodies a powerful idea that at one
or two removes has had considerable influence on 20th century political thought. The
term derives from the Latin subsidium meaning help or support. The idea evolved in
the course of a century of commentary on the encyclical Rerum novarum (“Of new
things”) in which Pope Leo XIII in 1891 set forth principles that, in the church’s view,
should guide social policy in an industrial world. Leo had been papal nuncio in Belgium in the 1840s, where he saw the beginnings of the industrial revolution. That
profound economic change brought an extreme social creed, sometimes called laissezfaire, sometimes liberalism, of every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost.
No, said the church. Wages, for example, should be set by family needs, not by the
market. (Hence the family allowance of most — all — western European nations.)
Workers should have the right to organize unions. Human rights were to be respected.
Radical stuff for the time!
Forty years later, in 1931, Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno introduced the idea of
subsidiarity to supplement the earlier encyclical. Nothing should be done by a higher
agency of government that can be done better or at least as well by a lower agency. In
1991, the current Pope John Paul II issued Centesimus annus, which affirmed and
added to the earlier pronouncements.
13
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
9. Address by Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, then United States
Representative to the United
Nations, to the Pacem in Terris
IV Convocation at the Sheraton-Park Hotel, Washington
D.C., December 2, 1975.
14
These ideas made their way slowly if at all over here. During the 1928 presidential
campaign, Al Smith, our first Catholic candidate for that office, found himself accused
of being bound, as a Catholic, to follow some papal encyclical. What in the hell, he
asked Robert Moses, is a papal encyclical? Looking through an essay written in 1975,
I remarked on the confusion. “For generations they [the catholic laity] had been beset
by aged Irishmen, doing their best, who from drear episcopal studies in 19th century
slums had been sending forth diocesan letters denouncing ‘liberalism,’ by which they
intended the Manchester School of Economics, but which the Democratic faithful
assumed to mean the New Deal and its forebears.”9
All that may be behind us now that The Economist, founded in 1843 to champion free
trade, and not at all unreceptive to the Manchester School, has taken up the cause!
And it is perhaps no loss that it comes to us as a moral principle, rather than simply a management idea. It is time to go beyond the arguments about Big Government
and States Rights, and all that. After some 40 years in Washington, I attest that we
get involved in far too many miniature issues. School uniforms. This need not be done
from Washington. Can’t be done effectively. It belongs to levels of government closer
to the problems involved. This means those governments have to be solvent. For New
York this means keeping more of our money at home. This won’t happen, however,
until we break the century-long habit of preferring that the money go to Washington
first. How did we become the state with the second highest poverty rate in the nation?
Our colleagues Leonard and Walder at the Kennedy School have offered a clarifying
model to explain what has been going on at the different levels of American
government during this century. To wit: the income elasticity of the Federal, State,
and local tax systems. With the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, the Federal
government adopted the graduated income tax as a permanent feature of Federal
finance. With the great growth of income over the 20th century there was a
corresponding increase in Federal revenue but at an even higher rate. By contrast, state
sales tax revenues were sluggish, and local property taxes frequently flat. Quite apart
from the income redistribution proposals of the various progressive movements in the
century, money flowed out of Washington for the simple reason that it flowed into
Washington. Herewith a classic case of Robert K. Merton’s Law of Unintended
Consequences. The graduated income tax, a signal aim of the progressive movement,
was meant to bring about more equality among citizens. To an extent it did that, but
it also brought about a huge disparity in the uncommitted resources of the Federal
against State and local governments.
In 1969, I became Assistant to President Nixon for Urban Affairs. Revenue sharing
was an obvious response to the increasing difficulties cities were experiencing. On
April 14, 1969, not three months in office Nixon sent a Special Message to Congress
on Forthcoming Legislating Proposals Concerning Domestic Programs. Revenue
sharing was among them. It served us well, as I believe, until repealed in the 1980s. It
may be it can be revived in the context of the current and anticipated surpluses. But
don’t count on it.
INTRODUCTION BY SENATOR MOYNIHAN
But let us be of cheer, and keep our perspective. When we came to Washington in
1977 New York City was bankrupt, or as near as makes no matter. It took a quartercentury on the Finance Committee to help set things right. Along with a fine succession of Mayors and Governors and Presidents, and a wonderful New York congressional delegation. In the end we succeeded. This September Standard & Poor’s
upgraded New York City’s bond rating to A, the highest rating the City has been
granted in 25 years. And the Federal government has helped.
See that it lasts!
D.P. M.
November 18, 2000
★ ★ ★
We owe much of our success and our deepest gratitude to our friends at Harvard.
The remarkable inventiveness and analytic strategies of Professors Herman B. Leonard
and Jay H. Walder and their associates, Monica E. Friar and Jose A. Acevedo, have
made this document what it is today.
15
Page 16 intentionally left blank
The Federal Budget and the States
Fiscal Year 1999
Herman B. Leonard and Jay H. Walder
A. Alfred Taubman Center for State and Local Government
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
A NOTE ON THE
FEDERAL FISC
Technically, the term “Fisc”
refers to a state, Federal, or
royal treasury. In this report,
we adopt a geographic perspective and we utilize the
term “Fisc” to refer to the
financial flows between the
Federal government and the
states. We look at a range of
taxes that represent the total
Federal tax burden, including:
individual income tax; corporate income tax; estate and
gift taxes; employment taxes;
Social Security taxes; and
excise taxes. On the other side
of the equation, we consider:
payments from the Federal
treasury to state and local
governments, Federal employees, individuals (e.g., Social
Security payments), and
government contractors. The
total picture captured by all
of these flows makes up the
Federal Fisc.
s the nation seems to be — or at least,
hopes to be — entering a sustained
period of budget surpluses, the debate
about the fairness or equity of the distribution of Federal spending does not appear to
be fading away. The share that a state’s citizens and businesses receive of the approximately $1.5 trillion in domestic Federal
spending, and the share that a state’s taxpayers pay of the roughly equal amount collected
in Federal taxes, have a substantial impact on
economic activity. And it is no great secret
that these impacts vary considerably across
the states. Citizens in some states receive
much more in Federal spending than they
pay in taxes; for other states the tax burden
far exceeds spending. Among the many other
things that this net flow of funds through the
Federal treasury accomplishes — planned or
not — is to rearrange, and in some cases
rearrange quite significantly, the geographic
location of economic activity.
There is no definitive consensus as to
whether an important purpose of the Federal
financial system is to redistribute economic
activity across states, or whether such redistribution is merely a result of decisions taken
with other motivations. There are at least
three starkly differing conceptions of the
Federal financial role embedded in different
parts of the ongoing debate:
A
■
That the Federal Fisc should be
designed to be neutral across states —
that is, that each state should “get back”
a close approximation of what it pays
in. Under this conception, the Federal
government would be operating mainly
as a unified tax system, but its existence
would not change the resources available, on balance, for programs in individual states;
■
That a central purpose of the Federal
financing system should be to rebalance the resources available across the
states, using resources available from
states with wealthier taxpayers or
stronger economies to finance programs
that would not otherwise be possible in
less wealthy states using their resources
alone; and
■
That net redistribution of resources and
economic activity across states is a more
or less accidental by-product of individual programs designed to achieve
important Federal purposes. Following
this logic, programs should be located
wherever activities need to be or can
best be carried out and should be
financed through a unified tax system
based largely on income but that makes
little or no direct reference to location.
17
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
Given this lack of consensus, it should be
no surprise that concerns about whether
states receive a “fair” proportion of Federal
expenditures — or pay more than their “fair”
AS AN INTERESTING SIDENOTE, Thomas Anton credits President Lyndon Johnson with
the initiation of steps that led to a comprehensive database of Federal expenditures by state.
In preparation for a meeting in Texas with a group of state governors, President Johnson had a
series of reports prepared to show each governor how much his or her state was receiving from
the Federal government. Following this meeting, the Bureau of the Budget established a regular basis for the collection and publication of this information (an extremely labor-intensive
effort at the time). The Bureau of the Census took over this effort beginning with Federal FY
1981 and the methodology was revised at that time. See Anton, Thomas J., “Outlays Data and
the Analysis of Federal Policy Impact,” in Norman J. Glickman, ed. The Urban Impacts of Federal Policies (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980), page 122.
1 Construction of the Interstate
Highway system was supported
by an excise tax on gasoline
sales and motor vehicle fees.
2 In reality this was an artificial
constraint. Congress adopted a
policy that utilized existing
surpluses in the Highway Trust
Fund as a means to allow highway spending to exceed the
amount of gas taxes earmarked
for road construction. As a
result, almost all states were
able to get more in highway
spending than they sent to
Washington in taxes. See David
Luberoff, “A Tale of Two
Tables,” Governing, May 1997.
3 David Luberoff, “A Tale of Two
Tables,” Governing, May 1997.
18
share in Federal taxes — have become a prevalent feature of Federal policy debates. Consider, for example, the long-standing issues
surrounding the funding of Federal surface
transportation programs. For many years,
during the most active period of Interstate
Highway construction, Federal apportionment formulas were not principally concerned with the geography of supporting tax
revenues.1 Congressional representatives were
focused instead on the significant new highway construction being generated. This focus
changed as the Interstate Highway system
neared completion. The highway legislation
that was enacted in 1987 guaranteed donor
states a minimum funding allocation equal to
85 percent of their contribution to the Highway Trust Fund and this minimum was subsequently increased to 90 percent in 1991.2
As legislators geared up for reauthorization of surface transportation legislation in
1997, regional disputes on the equity of
transportation funding became the primary
focus of attention. One group of states
sought to minimize the redistribution of
highway resources by insisting that the minimum funding allocation for each state be
increased to 95 percent of the money it contributes to the Highway Trust Fund. Senator John Warner of Virginia summed up the
concerns of these Sunbelt and Midwestern
states when he threatened that the legislation
“will not see the light of day unless fairness
is brought into the formula. It is as simple
as that”3 (emphasis added). Ultimately, Congress relied on a traditional solution to
resolve the surface transportation stalemate
— increasing the “size of the pie” to ensure
that almost every state would receive funding at least equal to the prior year’s level.
While this “solution” resolved the immediate transportation stalemate, the spending
levels authorized in the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century, or TEA-21,
fall well outside of the budget parameters
that had been agreed to by the President and
Congress in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act.
It is clear that this model cannot be replicated on a wide-scale basis without jeopardizing plans for balanced budgets, tax relief,
and investment in the financial stability of
Social Security and Medicare.
But even this hard-fought and expensive
solution did not end the jockeying over
transportation funding. Just a year after the
TEA-21 bill was enacted, the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee
approved a controversial “transit cap” measure that would have reopened the transportation funding formulas by limiting the
annual funding from the total Federal transit program to 12.5 percent for any state.
Supporters of the transit cap did not justify
the change on the basis of need. Rather, they
argued that New York and California take a
large share of Federal transit funds, leaving
a relatively small amount for communities
in the South and West. Opponents of the
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
measure lined up behind the idea that it
would reduce Federal support for the states
with the most transit-reliant populations and
decrease the benefits from Federal transit
assistance. They also pointed to the conclusions of this report, which showed that California and New York paid much more in
taxes than they received back in Federal
spending. In the end, the senators from New
York and California successfully stalled the
measure’s passage, but it is likely that the
debate will be revived in the future.
similarly bitter and intense debate
surrounded the recent overhaul of
Federal welfare programs. Having
provided the states discretion to set program
rules, there is relatively little policy to be set
at the Federal level other than the distribution of Federal funding levels across states.
For example, in the past, Federal grants for
welfare matched state contributions, so that
states had an incentive to contribute more.
If the new block grants were distributed
based on prior year allocations, states that
were receiving a relatively large amount of
Federal support because of their own efforts
would more or less receive permanently
higher funding as a result — even if they
reduced their own efforts. No surprise then
that coalitions formed in Congress in the
interest of finding “fair formulas” to allocate
and distribute funds.4
One problem with these policy debates is
that the extent and direction of subsidies
between the states is widely misunderstood.
Not much can be said about the overall fairness of the geography of Federal spending by
examining individual programs one at a time.
In this annual report, we step back from the
distribution of each Federal program and
look instead at the geography of the approx-
A
4 At one point, Senator Kay
Bailey Hutchison of Texas,
joined by a group of 30 senators from Sunbelt states and
California, proposed an AFDC
formula that would take child
poverty rates and the size of
the state into account. If it
had been enacted, more money
would be directed to Southern
states and states with small
populations. See Monica E.
Friar and Herman B. Leonard,
The Federal Budget and the
States, FY 1994, page 66.
5 We refer to this as a “balanced-budget” approach to
examining the geography of
Federal spending. We are thus
focusing on the question,
“What is the net geographic
impact of Federal spending
on allocable, domestic Federal
programs, together with the
tax collections necessary to
fund those expenditures?”
6 The real level of services provided by a given level of nominal spending and the real
burden from a given level of
nominal taxes will vary
depending on the cost of living
in a state. Residents of lowcost states receive more real
services from a given level of
nominal spending than residents of high-cost states; the
effect of taxes is reversed.
imately $1.5 trillion of domestic taxing and
spending that the government undertakes
each year. To the extent that policy decisions
are driven by beliefs about the distribution
and equity of Federal funds across the states
— and, to a considerable extent, they are —
we hope that this research can help to bring
those policy forces into alignment with the
realities instead of the myths.
To undertake this analysis, we obtained
geographic data on Federal tax collections
and the location of Federal expenditures.
Appendix A details the sources of our data.
The National Tax Foundation annually presents estimates of Federal tax collections by
state, and these estimates underlie our analysis of the geography of Federal taxes. The
Bureau of the Census provides reasonably
consistent historical geographic data on Federal expenditures; these figures provide the
basis for our analysis of expenditures.
Appendix B lays out in detail the concepts and methodology we have developed
and applied. For purposes of the analysis presented here, we exclude those aspects of Federal spending that do not occur domestically
(for example, defense expenditures made in
other countries), or for which we cannot get
geographic data on the recipient distribution
(most prominently, interest payments on the
Federal debt). So as not to treat the Federal
deficit as a free source of resources (each dollar of debt, and the interest on it, is eventually paid — even if only by issuing additional
debt), we distribute an amount of taxes equal
to the total amount of domestic spending for
which we can get geographic allocation information.5 Throughout the report, we adjust
figures for taxes and spending to account for
differences in costs of living in different
states.6 These indices are listed in Table C-2
19
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
A NOTE ON THE COST OF LIVING INDEX (COL INDEX)
Average per capita income is a key factor in the balance of payments equation through its
influence on Federal tax burdens and the distribution of the means-tested portion of allocable
Federal expenditures. However, Federal tax policy does not take into account discrepancies in
the cost of living across states nor do Federal programs (with the notable exceptions of some
entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid) adjust the level of outlays to account
for regional cost of living differences. The real level of services provided by a given level of
nominal spending varies with the costs of providing those services in a state. Residents of
higher-cost states receive fewer real services from a given nominal level of Federal spending
than residents of lower-cost states. In addition, changes in costs over time affect the real
level of services even within a given state.
To facilitate a comparison of the real impact of fiscal flows to and from the Federal government, we adjust all tax and spending data in this study by a State Cost of Living Index (COL
Index). This index was developed by Herman B. Leonard and Monica E. Friar of the Kennedy
School of Government at Harvard University and is presented in a working paper entitled,
“Variations in Cost of Living Across States” (Taubman Center for State and Local Government,
1998); the values for FY 1999 were updated by Monica Friar and provided to us for this report.
The index measures the relative changes in costs across states and across time for the past 16
years using regional and selected area Consumer Price Indices applied to family budget data.
(Appendices A and B provide a more detailed explanation of this data adjustment.) Unless
otherwise noted, all tax and spending figures are reported in cost-adjusted, 1999 dollars.
TABLE 3: Balance of Payments, FY 1999
20
STATE
PER CAPITA
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
$2,091
2,777
904
1,633
(685)
(620)
(2,840)
(1,025)
47
(29)
1,982
829
(1,669)
(399)
750
373
1,595
1,576
1,324
1,770
(895)
(1,042)
(1,294)
2,684
1,187
TOTAL
RANK (IN MILLIONS)
9
6
20
13
39
38
50
43
31
32
10
21
47
35
22
25
14
15
16
12
42
44
45
7
18
$9,139
1,720
4,319
4,166
(22,688)
(2,514)
(9,320)
(772)
707
(228)
2,350
1,038
(20,241)
(2,373)
2,151
990
6,317
6,892
1,660
9,155
(5,526)
(10,277)
(6,180)
7,431
6,490
STATE
PER CAPITA
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
3,109
$320
(1,583)
(1,787)
(2,342)
3,944
(890)
146
3,043
(344)
1,866
(483)
256
528
1,265
2,327
961
(189)
230
343
3,069
(533)
2,808
(887)
386
TOTAL
RANK (IN MILLIONS)
2
27
46
48
49
1
41
30
4
34
11
36
28
23
17
8
19
33
29
26
3
37
5
40
24
2,745
$533
(2,865)
(2,147)
(19,076)
6,862
(16,189)
1,115
1,928
(3,873)
6,266
(1,601)
3,076
523
4,914
1,706
5,270
(3,789)
490
203
21,094
(3,070)
5,074
(4,659)
185
of Appendix C. Thus we are examining the
flows of “purchasing power” gained or lost as
a result of each state’s financial relationship
with the Federal government.
The difference between Federal spending received and taxes paid is the “balance
of payments” between each state and the
Federal government. A positive balance of
payments indicates that a state receives more
from Federal spending than it pays in Federal taxes. These states experience a net gain
in economic activity as a result of Federal
policies and might be described as recipients.
A negative balance of payments indicates
that the state is a net donor — it pays more
in Federal taxes than it receives in Federal
spending.
In a system where Federal policies are
either explicitly designed to redistribute economic activity across states, or where commitments are made without reference to
geography, there will always be donor and
recipient states. We have no presumption
that the net flow of economic activity is
either desirable or undesirable. In this annual
report, we simply present what the different
outcomes are and try to understand how
they come about — that is, to explain the
major forces that drive the differences in outcomes across states.
The Balance of Payments
in FY 1999
wide disparity in the financial flows
between the Federal government and
each of the states has been a consistent feature of U.S. fiscal policy over the past
two decades (and probably for many years
before that). In past reports, we have commented that this redistribution of economic
A
THE BALANCE OF PAYMENTS IN FY 1999
Figure 7
The graph to the right
shows the per capita
balance of payments for
each state, FY 1999.
activity occurs widely among the states. In
FY 1999, we again note that nearly half of
the fifty states had balance of payments surpluses or deficits that exceeded 20 percent of
the average Federal spending level (nearly
$5,500 per capita). Figure 7 depicts the balance of Federal spending decisions and tax
collections for each state. The states at the
top of the graph experienced net inflows as a
result of their financial relationship with the
Federal government; the states at the bottom
are donor states — they pay more in Federal
taxes than they receive in Federal spending.
New Mexico has ranked first in the
nation in per capita balance of payments surplus since FY 1984, and its FY 1999 surplus
of nearly $4,000 per capita was more than
$800 greater than Montana, the next highest state. New Mexico’s real per capita
income is the lowest in the country — about
21 percent below the national average, and
its tax collections, which are highly correlated with income, are among the lowest of
the states. At the same time, New Mexico
was a leading state for Federal spending, with
defense-related expenditures that were
almost three times the national average, and
non-defense discretionary spending that was
nearly 60 percent above the national average. New Mexico’s adjusted poverty rate is
the highest in the nation and its per capita
income is the lowest in the nation, so it is
not surprising that the state receives about
20 percent more in assistance spending than
the national average.
Among states with net outflows, Connecticut continued to have the highest per
capita balance of payments deficit in the
nation. Its deficit of more than $2,800 per
capita was more than $500 greater than New
Jersey, the state with the next largest deficit.
Connecticut residents have the highest per
PER CAPITA BOP, FY 1999
– $ Deficit
-3000-2500-2000-1500-1000 -500 0
Surplus $ +
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
NM
MT
VA
ND
WV
AK
MS
SD
AL
HI
OK
MD
AR
KY
LA
ME
SC
MO
TN
AZ
ID
IA
RI
WY
KS
VT
NE
PA
UT
NC
FL
GA
TX
OH
IN
OR
WA
CO
CA
WI
NY
MA
DE
MI
MN
NV
IL
NH
NJ
CT
capita income in the nation and Federal taxes
collected were more than 45 percent above the
national average. It ranks near the national
average in receipt of Federal spending.
Defense spending, a key component of Federal expenditures in Connecticut, has declined
21
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
Figure 8
Total Balance of Payments, FY 1999
TOTAL BOP, FY 1999
– $ Deficit
Surplus $ +
-25 -20 -15 -10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
VA
MD
AL
MS
LA
NM
MO
KY
OK
TN
WV
SC
AZ
AR
PA
MT
HI
IA
ND
AK
SD
ME
NC
ID
KS
FL
NE
RI
UT
VT
WY
GA
DE
OR
NH
IN
CO
NV
WA
TX
OH
WI
MA
MN
CT
MI
NY
NJ
IL
CA
7 The net flow from the ten
states with the largest total
deficit was even greater —
about $118 billion.
22
steeply over the past decade,
although it remains more
than 15 percent above the
national average. However,
Connecticut ranked next to
last for non-defense discretionary spending, more than
30 percent below the national
average.
Table 3 (page 20) presents
the per capita balance of payments and the total balance of
payments for each state. California’s very large population
and moderate per capita
deficit resulted in the largest
total deficit of any individual
state, nearly $23 billion in FY
1999 (Figure 8). Illinois, New
Jersey, and New York also had
total deficits that exceeded
$15 billion. The total surplus
for Virginia ($21 billion) was
far greater than for any other
state. Outside of the capital
region, Alabama led the
nation with total surplus that
exceeded $9 billion and several other southern states had
total surpluses that were over
$6 billion.
Consistent with our observation in prior years, we
noticed a strong geographic
concentration of the states
with the largest per capita
surpluses or deficits. The
Northeast, mid-Atlantic, and
Great Lakes regions encompassed almost all of the states
with large per capita deficits
(see Figure 10). Nevada was
the only state outside of these regions with
a large balance of payments deficit. The ten
states with the largest per capita deficits were
almost unchanged from last year; Massachusetts was the only state that moved into the
“bottom ten,” and its rank shifted only
slightly from 40th in FY 1998 to 42nd in FY
1999. These ten states had a combined outflow of about $93 billion.7
While there was no obvious pattern to
the geography of the states with large surpluses, we note that they were concentrated
in just a few areas of the country. Again,
these states have been almost unchanged
over the past year. South Dakota and
Alabama moved into the top ten while Kentucky and Maryland shifted down slightly.
The total gain for the ten states with the
greatest per capita surpluses was about $60
billion, approximately $4 billion less than
last year.
Figure 9 compares taxes paid and Federal
spending received to the national average of
$5,486 per capita. The horizontal axis measures Federal tax collections; each state is
plotted along this axis according to how
much its tax collections differ from the
national average. Similarly, states are plotted
along the vertical axis according to the
amount that Federal spending differs from
the national average. The diagonal bands
represent the balance of payments at intervals of $500 per capita. States within a diagonal band will have similar per capita
balance of payments surpluses or deficits, but
they may have very different underlying situations in terms of taxes paid and spending
received. For example, the balance of payments results for Wyoming, Kansas, and Vermont are quite similar; all three states have
a per capita surplus of about $350 and they
can be found in the upper half of the light-
THE BALANCE OF PAYMENTS IN FY 1999
States whose tax payments and receipt of
Federal spending are close to the national
averages are plotted near the intersection of
the horizontal and vertical lines in the middle of the chart. Moving out from the center, a large grouping of states can be found
in the upper left quadrant, indicating low
Federal taxes and high Federal spending.
With the exception of the capital region
states of Maryland and Virginia, all of the
colored band in the middle of Figure 9.
However, looking more closely at the chart,
we see that Federal spending for the three
states runs a range from about 16 percent
above the national average in Wyoming to
about 8 percent below the national average
in Vermont. Tax collections follow a similar
pattern, with Vermont approximately 14
percent below the national average and
Wyoming approximately 8 percent above.
+70%
Figure 9
High Spending
Low Taxes
Per Capita Taxes and Spending Compared to National
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
Averages
Two states with identical balance of payments may have
MD
+$
NM
00
ations. The graph separates
30
00
+50%
very different underlying situ-
00
AK
15
MT
the per capita national aver-
+$
SD
bands indicate groups of
states with similar resulting
per capita balances of
payments.
P=
+$
ita
BO
0
ap
50
rc
00
10
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
NC
MA
ID
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
00
GA
TX
00
RI
25
AZ
ME
15
IA
30
hand corner. The shaded
SC
-$
graph in the lower right-
AR
FL
TN
-$
found diagonally across the
HI
KY
LA
20
low Federal spending can be
+10%
-$
States with high taxes but
WY
OK
-$
left-hand corner of the graph.
MO
-$
taxes will appear in the upper
AL
-$
Federal spending and low
+20%
pe
spending. States with high
WV
MS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
vertical axis plots Federal
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
tions from each state; the
0
50
measures Federal tax collec-
0
+$
10
+30%
ages. The horizontal axis
00
information in comparison to
00
+$
ND
20
+40%
spending and presents the
+$
25
the effects of taxes and
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
23
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
Figure 10
Per Capita Balance
WA
ME
of Payments, FY 1999
MT
ND
KEY
States with biggest
ID
surpluses (over $1,000
VT
WI
SD
NY
MI
WY
per capita)
States with greatest
PA
IA
NE
NV
UT
deficits (over $500
per capita)
MI
MN
OR
IL
OH
IN
CO
CA
KS
NJ
DE
MD
WV
MO
NH
MA
CT RI
VA
KY
NC
TN
AZ
OK
AR
NM
MS
HI
TX
AK
states with balance of payments surpluses
that exceed $1,000 per capita appear in this
area. New Mexico stands out with per capita
spending that was more than 40 percent
above the national average and tax collections that were more than 25 percent below
the national average.
Another group of states on the left side
of the graph had tax payments that were
more than 20 percent below the national
average — Arkansas, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine,
Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and West Virginia. All of these
states have per capita incomes that are
among the lowest in the nation. Idaho and
Utah stand out in this group with balance of
payments surpluses that were far smaller
than the other “low tax” states. Utah is particularly notable. It ranked next to last in the
country in Federal spending and this shortfall offset the low Federal tax collections in
the state. The result was a balance of payments surplus that was only about $200.
Almost all of the other low tax states had bal-
24
SC
AL
GA
LA
FL
ance of payments surpluses that exceeded
$1,500 per capita, and four of these states,
New Mexico, Montana, West Virginia, and
Mississippi, had surpluses that exceeded
$2,500 per capita.
Most of the states with large balance of
payments deficits are grouped in the lower
right quadrant, indicating high taxes and low
spending. Connecticut contributed the
most, with tax collections that were about 47
percent higher than the national average,
nearly $1,500 per capita higher than the tax
collections from the next highest state (New
Jersey). New Hampshire had the lowest Federal spending level in the nation, more than
25 percent below the national average.
Only four states are in the upper righthand quadrant of the graph, indicating that
both Federal spending and tax receipts
exceeded the national average. Virginia and
Maryland have large balance of payments
surpluses and obviously benefit from their
proximity to the nation’s capital. Florida’s
mild weather and tax policies have attracted
THE GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL TAXES
Figure 11
Per Capita Federal
WA
ME
Taxes Collected, FY 1999
MT
ND
KEY
MI
MN
OR
Lowest amount of
ID
taxes collected
VT
WI
SD
NY
MI
WY
(Below $4,800)
Moderate taxes
PA
IA
NE
NV
UT
($4,800 – $5,800)
IL
OH
IN
CO
Highest amount of
MO
VA
KY
taxes collected
NC
TN
(Above $5,800)
AZ
OK
SC
AR
NM
AL
MS
HI
TX
AK
an elderly population that benefits from
non-means-tested income and medical support. Since its per capita income and Federal
tax payments are slightly higher than the
national average, its overall per capita balance of payments is essentially neutral.
Wyoming was the only other state where
taxes and spending were above the national
average. Wyoming’s Federal spending was
driven by non-defense discretionary spending that was more than 80 percent above the
national average.
The Geographic Distribution
of Federal Taxes
he distribution of Federal taxes across
states is relatively easy to predict,
because virtually every component of
Federal taxes is closely related to income.
Personal income taxes, the single largest
component of the Federal tax system, made
up about half of total FY 1999 tax receipts
and corporate income taxes contributed
about another 10 percent.8 Social Insurance
T
8 Information on Federal tax
receipts is from the Budget of
the United States Government,
Fiscal Year 2001, Historical
Tables, page 30.
NJ
DE
MD
WV
KS
CA
NH
MA
CT
RI
GA
LA
FL
taxes based on wages (such as Social Security
and Medicare), which have declined in
recent years as a percentage of total tax
receipts, account for another third of Federal revenues. Even excise taxes (on fuel, cigarettes, and alcohol) are positively related to
income. It is no wonder, therefore, that per
capita tax payments are highly correlated
with per capita income — in FY 1999, the
simple correlation of income and taxes
exceeded 0.95. The most important influence determining the amount of taxes paid
by a state — by a wide margin — is the average earnings of its residents.
The geography of Federal taxation, thus,
directly follows the geography of average
individual earnings. Figure 11 provides a
map of the states divided into thirds by per
capita Federal taxes, with those shaded darkest paying the highest amount of taxes per
capita. It is almost identical to the tax distribution that we observed last year. The average Federal tax burden of residents of
different states varies considerably, but other
25
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
A NOTE ON FEDERAL EXPENDITURES
In our effort to construct the balance of payments statistic, we consider the total flow of
funds between the Federal government and the people of each state. That is, we seek to measure the net flows of economic activity between each state and the Federal government. The
spending side of the equation accounts for all domestic Federal spending, including Social
Security, defense, income support payments, veterans’ benefits, agricultural subsidies,
Medicare, Medicaid, and other grants to state and local governments. We believe that this
broad measure of Federal spending is the most appropriate concept on which to base the
analysis we present in this report. The reality is that economic impacts are apparent from all
Federal spending and tax programs — regardless of whether the states administer the programs themselves (as in the case of Medicaid, transportation, or welfare) or the Federal government provides the service directly (defense), or payment is made directly from the Federal
government to individual citizens (Social Security). To be consistent, we also look at all
sources of Federal receipts used to finance these programs.
For the reports in this series covering Federal Fiscal Years 1981 through 1997, the primary
data source for the spending information was the Federal Expenditures by State report that was
published annually by the U.S. Census Bureau, but was discontinued after FY 1997. The Federal
Expenditures by State report presented the state-by-state distributions of Federal expenditures
and classified the information into objects of expenditures, including salaries and wages,
direct payments to individuals, procurement contracts, grants to state and local governments,
and other miscellaneous spending that did not fit neatly into the other categories.
Most of these statistics are now being published as part of the Census Bureau’s Consolidated Federal Funds Report (CFFR) series. The dollar amounts are distributed into five object
categories, including salaries and wages, procurement contracts, grant awards, retirement and
disability, and other direct payments. An important distinction between the two report series
is that Federal grants in the CFFR generally represent obligations, and payments to state and
local governments are not distinguished from grants to non-governmental recipients (including
grants to individuals, and profit or non-profit institutions). In the previous Census Bureau
publication, the grant data represented actual cash outlays of the Federal government and
only grants to state and local governments were included.*
In this current report, the time series for total spending, total taxes, and the balance
of payments have all been recomputed from the new data and are internally consistent for
Federal Fiscal Years 1983-1999. However, the historical figures that were computed from the
new data are not perfectly consistent with the data presented in prior years of this report
series. The data for years prior to FY 1983 were not recomputed and are no longer included
in this series. Additional information on the change in reporting methodology can be found
in Appendix A of this report.
*This data series is continued in a new publication, The Federal Aid to States, which is one of
two publications that now comprise the Census Bureau’s Consolidated Federal Funds Report series.
9 The Federal tax system also has
a (much larger) redistributive
effect across individuals (due
largely to the progressive structure of its main component, the
Federal income tax); higherincome individuals and families
pay a considerably higher proportion of their income to the
Federal government than do
lower-income households. The
fact that the total flow of Federal
taxes is only mildly progressive
across states shows, however,
that, in effect, most of the individual redistribution carried out
through the Federal tax system is
redistribution among people in
the same state, not across states.
26
than the association of high average incomes
with high Federal tax payments, there is no
obvious or very strong geography to this distribution. Northeastern states tend to have
relatively high incomes, and pay high Federal taxes, as do two of the states bordering
the Great Lakes and a cluster of states (New
Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia)
along the Atlantic coast. Most regions tend
to have a mixture of high- and low-taxpay-
ing states. The largest blocks of low-taxpaying states are in the South and in the mountain region of the West; the largest block of
middle-income states is in the central part
of the nation.
We should note that while the positive
association between income and taxes
implies that the Federal government’s tax
system is redistributive, it does not necessarily imply that it is progressive. For a tax system to be progressive, higher-income
households must pay more than a proportionately higher amount in taxes. Is the tax system of the Federal Fisc, viewed with regard
to its effects across states, progressive? The
answer is that it is very mildly progressive —
the lowest-income states, on average, pay
about 18 percent of their income in Federal
taxes, while the highest-income states pay
about 20 percent. Viewed across time, the
tax system is a steady force in the Federal Fisc
for modest redistribution across the states
from wealthier states to poorer states.9
The Geographic Distribution
of Federal Spending
nlike the geographic distribution of
taxes, which is relatively easy to predict because of the strong correlation
with income, there are many factors that
influence where the Federal government
spends money. The demographics and characteristics of each state shape even the most
straightforward policy objectives. For example, the proportion of elderly residents in
each state largely determines the geographic
distribution of Social Security benefits, by
far the largest Federal spending program.
Agricultural subsidies are concentrated in
states with large amounts of farmland. And
the geographic distribution of defense
U
THE GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL SPENDING
10 Associated Press, “Congress
Passes Drunk Driving Rules,”
October 3, 2000.
spending is determined to a great extent by
the location of defense contractors and existing military facilities.
Other factors are more political. Congressional election campaigns frequently
revolve around the question of “who can
bring home the bacon” and parochial selfinterest often overshadows other factors in
Federal spending decisions. In some
instances, Congress makes specific geographic determinations, such as the location
of military facilities and Federal office buildings, or earmarks highway grants for the
construction of particular roadways. In other
cases, Congress defines the overall program
structure and delegates responsibility for the
allocation of funds to the appropriate
Federal agency.
Congress may also reduce or withhold a
state’s receipt of Federal funds in an attempt
to influence state-level policy decisions.
Congress recently passed a transportation
spending bill, for example, that included a
tough national standard for drunken driving
with penalties for states that don’t abide.
Under the measure, states that fail to adopt
a 0.08 blood alcohol content standard as the
legal level for drunken driving by 2004
would stand to lose millions of dollars in
Federal aid. Recalcitrant states would lose 2
percent of their highway money by 2004,
with the penalty increasing to 8 percent by
2007. The drunken driving provision is patterned after the Federal effort to increase the
minimum drinking age to 21 years, under
which no state lost any funding in the end.
Indeed, the drunken driving bill allows states
to be reimbursed for any lost money if they
adopt the 0.08 blood alcohol content standard by 2007.10
Nor should one ignore the impact of
changes in national policies. Over the past
two decades, we have seen significant shifts
in the priorities of U.S. domestic spending — the defense build-up in the early
1980s and the subsequent curtailment of
defense spending as the Cold War ended;
the end of general revenue sharing for state
and local governments; the growing importance of entitlement benefits for the elderly
and poor as a percentage of Federal spending; and the sharp decline in non-defense
discretionary domestic spending for much
of the 1980s, to name only a few of the
most obvious.
Finally, state actions themselves affect the
allocation of funds from the capital. While
it is clear that no state government has an
interest in maximizing all types of Federal
assistance, states have an incentive to maximize certain kinds of Federal spending. For
example, it is easy to see why states would
seek to attract Federal grants for economic
development, transportation, education, and
public safety. Similarly, salaries for Federal
workers, defense contracts, and other Federal procurement contracts all bring economic activity to a state or region. In
general, citizens and taxpayers view this Federal spending positively. On the other hand,
fear of becoming a “welfare magnet” may
keep states from increasing benefit levels and
maximizing Federal reimbursement for programs like Medicaid. Similarly, large Federal
grants for unemployment compensation
reflect a weakness in the state’s economy, and
compensation for black lung disease reflects
the presence of a serious health problem
among the state’s citizens. While the Federal
spending may help to remedy the underlying problem, most states would prefer to
avoid problems of this kind even if it means
that they have to forego the associated Federal expenditures.
27
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
Figure 12
Distribution of
Federal Spending
Assistance
programs
11%
Defense
(incl. veterans'
benefits)
17%
by Program, FY 1999
Medicare
14%
Non-defense
discretionary
31%
Social Security
27%
11 Pear, Robert, “40 States Forfeit
Health Care Funds for Poor
Children,” The New York Times,
Sept. 23, 2000.
12 Federal government expenditures in this analysis do not
include the net interest on the
Federal government debt,
international payments and
foreign aid, and expenditures
for selected agencies such as
the Central Intelligence Agency
and the National Security
Council. See Appendices A and
B for further detail on data
sources and methodology.
13 Defense spending includes all
military and civilian expenditures by the Department of
Defense, defense-related
expenditures by the Department of Energy, military
retirement, and veterans’
benefits.
28
The Children’s Health Insurance Program provides an interesting example of state
actions affecting the allocation of Federal
spending. Recently, The New York Times
reported that forty states were expected to
lose hundreds of millions of dollars of Federal support that was intended to provide
health insurance for children in families with
too much income to qualify for Medicaid
and too little income to afford private insurance. Under the bill adopted by Congress in
1997, the unspent funds will be reallocated
to the ten states that used their full allotments of Federal money within a three-year
period. States offered a variety of explanations for the failure to utilize the available
Federal support. Some pointed to the strong
economy and said that they could not find
enough eligible uninsured children to use all
of their allocated Federal money. Other
states indicated that they were reluctant to
put up the state money that would be
required to obtain the full amount of Federal money available to them. Legislators in
Colorado, for example, which is expected to
lose about $19 million from its 1998 allotment, indicated that they were unwilling to
shift more state resources to health care from
other areas of public spending.11
FY 1999 Spending Patterns
Y 1999 spending in the fifty states and
the District of Columbia totaled $1.5
trillion, with average per capita spending of approximately $5,486.12 Figure 12
summarizes aggregate Federal spending by
program. Social Security benefits dominate
Federal spending, accounting for approximately 27 cents of every dollar spent in FY
1999, or approximately $1,500 per capita.
This is only slightly less than the amount
spent for all non-defense discretionary programs combined, a broad grouping that
includes thousands of Federal programs in
agriculture, education, environmental protection, housing, national parks, and transportation (to name but a few). Defense
spending, which has declined in recent years,
increased slightly in FY 1999 and now
accounts for about 17 percent of domestic
Federal expenditures.13 Medicare, another
large spending area that has been increasing
over the past two decades, represented about
14 percent of total Federal spending in FY
1999. And, finally, we grouped a variety of
means-tested assistance programs, including
Medicaid, AFDC, Food Stamps, Housing
Assistance, and Unemployment Insurance,
into a broad category called “direct assistance” (about 11 percent of Federal spending in FY 1999).
The map in Figure 13 highlights the geographic distribution of Federal spending
across the fifty states. In general, the regional
distinctions that are evident from our analysis of the balance of payments are also evi-
F
THE GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL SPENDING
WA
Figure 13
ME
MT
Per Capita Federal
Spending, FY 1999
ND
ID
KEY
(Below $5,200)
PA
IA
NE
NV
UT
IL
OH
IN
CO
KS
CA
NC
TN
AZ
Highest amount of
OK
NM
NJ
VA
KY
($5,200 – $6,000)
NH
MA
CT RI
DE
MD
WV
MO
Federal spending
SC
AR
Federal monies received
(Above $6,000)
NY
MI
WY
Federal monies received
VT
WI
SD
Lowest amount of
Moderate amount of
MI
MN
OR
MS
AL
GA
HI
TX
AK
dent when we look at Federal spending.
Most of the states in the Northeast, Great
Lakes, and mid-Atlantic regions with large
balance of payments deficits were, not surprisingly, also among the states that received
the smallest amounts of Federal spending.
Looking east from Minnesota toward the
Atlantic coast, only Maine, Rhode Island,
and Pennsylvania had Federal spending that
exceeded the national average, and in each
case only by a very small margin (less than
1 percent). Federal spending also tended to
be below the national average in most of the
states that are west of the Rocky Mountains.
There is wide variation in Federal spending across the fifty states. The two states in
the capital region rank first and second in
Federal spending, with per capita receipts
exceeding $8,000 in FY 1999. Five other
states received more than $7,000 in Federal
spending per capita, more than one-third
above the national average. Each of these
states — New Mexico, North Dakota,
Alaska, Montana, and South Dakota —
ranked among the top states for receipt of
LA
FL
non-defense discretionary spending. Alaska
and New Mexico also rank among the top
states for defense spending. At the other end
of the spectrum, per capita spending in New
Hampshire was only slightly above $4,000
per year. New Hampshire ranked among the
bottom ten states for every category of Federal spending except defense, and even
defense spending in New Hampshire was
more than 35 percent below the national
average. Federal spending in Utah, Nevada,
and New Jersey was only slightly higher.
Utah ranked among the bottom states for
Social Security, Medicare, and other assistance programs, Nevada ranked in the bottom ten for all categories of Federal spending
except defense, and New Jersey received the
lowest allocation of non-defense discretionary spending in the country. Table 4 provides a complete listing of Federal spending
by program by state and Table 5 contains the
corresponding percentage breakdown of the
programs for each state. The same information is presented graphically in Figures 15
and 16.
29
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
WA
ME
MT
ND
ID
WI
SD
NY
MI
WY
Figure 14, A–E
PA
IA
NE
NV
Geographic Distribution of
VT
MI
MN
OR
UT
IL
CO
KS
CA
DE
MD
WV
MO
VA
KY
Per Capita Federal Spend-
NC
TN
AZ
OK
NM
ing by Program (defense,
NJ
OH
IN
NH
MA
CT RI
SC
AR
MS
GA
AL
HI
non-defense discretionary,
LA
TX
AK
FL
Social Security, Medicare,
A
and assistance programs),
Defense
FY 1999
WA
ME
MT
KEY
ND
ID
Lowest third
VT
MI
MN
OR
WI
SD
NY
MI
WY
NE
NV
Middle third
PA
IA
UT
IL
KS
CA
Highest third
DE
MD
WV
MO
VA
KY
NC
TN
AZ
OK
NM
NJ
OH
IN
CO
NH
MA
CT RI
SC
AR
MS
GA
AL
HI
LA
TX
AK
FL
B
Non-defense Discretionary
WA
ME
MT
ND
MI
MN
OR
ID
VT
WI
SD
NY
MI
WY
NE
NV
PA
IA
UT
IL
KS
DE
MD
WV
MO
VA
KY
NC
TN
AZ
OK
NM
NJ
OH
IN
CO
CA
NH
MA
CT RI
SC
AR
MS
GA
AL
HI
LA
TX
AK
FL
C
Social Security
WA
ME
MT
ND
ID
VT
MI
MN
OR
WI
SD
NY
MI
WY
NV
PA
IA
NE
UT
IL
KS
CA
DE
MD
WV
MO
VA
KY
NC
TN
AZ
OK
NM
NJ
OH
IN
CO
NH
MA
CT RI
SC
AR
MS
GA
AL
HI
LA
TX
AK
FL
D
Medicare
WA
ME
MT
ND
ID
VT
MI
MN
OR
WI
SD
NY
MI
WY
PA
IA
NE
NV
UT
IL
OH
IN
CO
KS
CA
OK
MO
NM
VA
KY
NC
SC
AR
MS
AL
GA
HI
TX
LA
AK
FL
E
30
Assistance Programs
NJ
DE
MD
WV
TN
AZ
NH
MA
CT RI
The maps in Figure 14 display the geographic distribution of per capita Federal
spending in each of the five broad program
categories that we described above. The
darker shading indicates that the concentration of Federal spending among the states
(or regions) differs significantly across the
program areas. Figure 14A, for example,
which shows the distribution of defense
expenditures, indicates a concentration in
the national capital region, and beyond that,
a concentration mostly in southern and
southwestern states. The geographic distribution of non-defense discretionary spending
(Figure 14B), on the other hand, is concentrated from the Midwest to the Rockies. Figures 14C and 14D indicate the distributions
for Social Security and Medicare, two large
Federal spending programs that have a
strong geographic concentration in the eastern and central regions (consistent with their
having a generally slower population growth
and therefore a relatively larger percentage
of older people). Figure 14E shows that Federal support for assistance programs is heavily concentrated in the Appalachian
mountain states of the east, running from
Louisiana all the way to Maine, and in a few
other states. Thus, each spending area has its
own characteristic geographic pattern.
Because these patterns are so dissimilar —
but also likely to be rather durable — much
of the change in the overall geographic distribution of Federal spending appears to
have been driven by changes in the mix of
these different programs as components of
the budget. Over the past decade, Social
Security and Medicare have increased as
a fraction of the overall budget at the
same time that the share of Federal
spending devoted to discretionary expenditures (including defense) has decreased.
THE GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL SPENDING
TABLE 4: Per Capita Spending by Program by State, FY 1999
(figures in 1999 dollars adjusted by COL index)
Defense
(incl.veterans’ Non-defense Social
benefits) Discretionary Security
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
US
$1,320
2,194
1,361
595
943
1,408
1,046
615
1,058
1,322
2,391
1,166
354
493
325
898
970
788
1,110
1,895
836
265
432
1,285
1,293
596
657
944
576
504
2,655
305
898
1,005
514
1,255
354
563
824
1,438
638
686
1,037
725
587
3,685
1,377
419
284
769
907
$1,964
3,786
1,689
1,772
1,439
1,884
1,156
1,458
1,392
1,626
1,441
1,616
1,442
1,318
2,409
2,083
1,702
1,815
1,399
3,768
1,528
1,197
1,713
1,877
1,966
3,939
2,177
1,172
1,189
1,097
2,678
1,370
1,415
3,745
1,275
1,864
1,564
1,450
1,409
1,346
3,720
2,029
1,801
1,854
1,690
2,851
1,490
2,036
1,333
3,062
1,693
$1,802
657
1,474
1,932
1,195
1,143
1,543
1,578
2,025
1,360
1,107
1,412
1,501
1,663
1,837
1,646
1,858
1,597
1,589
1,322
1,415
1,742
1,455
1,776
1,776
1,624
1,614
1,349
1,358
1,452
1,387
1,473
1,666
1,624
1,660
1,685
1,571
1,812
1,624
1,682
1,678
1,722
1,278
989
1,491
1,382
1,325
2,332
1,688
1,472
1,508
Medicare
Assistance
Programs
$917
234
657
870
708
513
817
685
1,200
666
456
505
755
719
720
758
800
1,001
648
762
891
824
595
863
881
630
629
561
528
765
530
812
677
720
786
839
601
1,022
828
665
682
862
686
373
574
588
527
968
645
574
761
$607
779
435
703
624
355
661
514
445
520
541
479
540
492
529
447
781
807
794
587
691
655
581
788
629
599
547
330
415
543
742
985
631
596
592
554
662
684
819
679
558
771
574
385
719
320
619
967
571
461
616
Total
$6,610
7,649
5,617
5,871
4,909
5,303
5,224
4,851
6,121
5,493
5,937
5,178
4,592
4,686
5,820
5,832
6,111
6,008
5,539
8,334
5,361
4,682
4,775
6,589
6,544
7,389
5,624
4,355
4,067
4,362
7,992
4,944
5,287
7,690
4,827
6,198
4,752
5,531
5,504
5,810
7,276
6,071
5,377
4,324
5,061
8,825
5,339
6,724
4,521
6,338
5,486
TABLE 5: Distribution of Spending by Program
for Each State, FY 1999
Defense
(incl.veterans’ Non-defense Social
benefits) Discretionary Security
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
US
20%
29
24
10
19
27
20
13
17
24
40
23
8
11
6
15
16
13
20
23
16
6
9
19
20
8
12
22
14
12
33
6
17
13
11
20
7
10
15
25
9
11
19
17
12
42
26
6
6
12
17
30%
49
30
30
30
36
22
30
23
30
24
31
31
28
41
36
28
30
25
45
29
26
36
28
30
53
39
27
29
25
34
28
27
49
26
30
33
26
26
23
51
33
34
43
33
32
28
30
29
48
31
27%
9
26
33
24
22
30
33
33
25
19
27
33
35
32
28
30
27
29
16
26
37
30
27
27
22
29
31
33
33
17
30
32
21
34
27
33
33
30
29
23
28
24
23
29
16
25
35
37
23
27
Medicare
Assistance
Programs
14%
3
12
15
14
10
16
14
20
12
8
10
16
15
12
13
13
17
12
9
17
18
12
13
13
9
11
13
13
18
7
16
13
9
16
14
13
18
15
11
9
14
13
9
11
7
10
14
14
9
14
9%
10
8
12
13
7
13
11
7
9
9
9
12
11
9
8
13
13
14
7
13
14
12
12
10
8
10
8
10
12
9
20
12
8
12
9
14
12
15
12
8
13
11
9
14
4
12
14
13
7
11
Total
100%
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
31
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
Figure 15 (left)
Per Capita Spending by
Program by State, FY 1999
(1999 dollars)
Figure 16 (right)
Distribution of Spending by
Program for Each State,
FY 1999
KEY
Defense
Non-defense discretionary
Social Security
Medicare
Assistance programs
32
$0
$1000 $2000 $3000 $4000 $5000 $6000 $7000 $8000 $9000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
US
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
US
Consequently, the geographic pattern of
total spending has shifted toward the central
states in which Social Security and Medicare
are relatively concentrated. In spite of their
falling size, however, defense and nondefense discretionary spending remain
important determinants of the overall out-
come for many individual states, because
they are so highly variable across states.
Defense spending, for example, which averages about $900 per capita for the nation as
a whole, ranges from about $265 per capita
in Michigan to nearly $3,700 per capita in
Virginia — a range of nearly four times its
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES — A RETROSPECTIVE
average.14 The Social Security program, by
contrast, which spends an average of about
$1,500 per capita for the nation as a whole,
ranges only from about $650 per capita in
Alaska to just over $2,300 per capita in West
Virginia — a range only slightly larger than
its average.
A discussion of the spending by program
for each state is provided as part of the State
Profiles at the back of this volume. Table
C-3 in the Appendix provides a state-by-state
listing of Federal spending, taxes, and balance of payments and Tables C-4 and C-5
provide a listing of Federal spending by program by state.
The Federal Budget and the
States — A Retrospective
enator Moynihan’s imminent retirement from the United States Senate is
a natural occasion to review the geographic shifts in Federal spending and taxing
decisions that have taken place during his
Senate career. Senator Moynihan initiated
this report series in 1977, after having been
in the Senate for only half a year. It was from
its beginning, and remains today, the most
comprehensive report in the nation on the
geography of Federal taxes and spending.
The first report, at that point focused almost
exclusively on New York, grew out of his concern that Federal policies were contributing
to the general economic decline in the state
that he was representing. Senator Moynihan
argued that an accurate understanding of the
flow of funds from New York residents and
businesses to the Federal treasury, and the
concurrent Federal outlays directed toward
New York, would be the first step in correcting what he knew to be an unequal, and what
he perceived to be an inequitable, distribu-
S
14 Even excluding Virginia as an
outlier because of the location of the Pentagon, defense
spending still has a range of
almost three times its average
between Michigan and New
Mexico, the state with the
second highest level of
defense spending.
15 Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, The
Federal Government and the
Economy of New York State,
United States Senate, June
27th, 1977. A revised edition,
correcting a mistake in the
original calculations, was
published on July 15th, 1977.
16 Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, New
York State and the Federal
Fisc, Federal Fiscal Year 1977,
United States Senate, July
16th, 1978, page ii.
17 Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, New
York State and the Federal
Fisc: III, Federal Fiscal Year
1978, United States Senate,
June 10th, 1979.
tion of funds. A complicating factor was significant data problems that were discovered
during the preparation of the initial report.
For example, the annual data published by
the Federal Community Services Administration (CSA), known at the time as Federal
Outlays, recorded nearly 50 percent of the
“Interest on the Public Debt” as outlays
attributable to New York, since the payments
were made through the Federal Reserve Bank
of New York. Likewise, the Federal Outlays
report indicated that New York received
more than 40 percent of the national outlay
for “Foreign Economic and Financial Assistance” since the foreign aid transactions were
similarly handled through New York banks.
After adjusting the CSA data for these errors,
Senator Moynihan prepared a report on The
Federal Government and the Economy of New
York State and entered it into the Congressional Record. One explicitly stated goal was
to invite further investigation and discussion
of the analysis.15
The CSA recognized the problem with
its allocation methodology and beginning
with the next fiscal year adopted a new
approach in which expenditures such as foreign aid and payments on the national debt
were no longer allocated to any one state.
The revised report series, renamed The Geographical Distribution of Federal Expenditures,
served as a key data source for Senator
Moynihan’s now annual report “tracing the
ups and downs of Federal expenditures for
the previous fiscal year.”16 The Senator continued to note, however, that only the most
egregious data problems had been resolved
in the new CSA publication, and argued that
other Federal transactions such as agricultural export sales should be similarly omitted from allocations for any state.17
33
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
18 Edwin L. Harper, “Memorandum for Assistant Secretaries/Directors for
Management, December 14,
1981 as contained in Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, New York
State and the Federal Fisc: VI,
Federal Fiscal Year 1981,
United States Senate, July
26th, 1982, page 3.
19 The Community Services
Administration was abolished
as the start of Fiscal Year
1982.
20 Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, New
York State and the Federal
Fisc: VII, Federal Fiscal Year
1982, United States Senate,
July 25th, 1983, page 31.
21 Moynihan, FY 1977, revised
edition, page 20.
22 Moynihan, FY 1982, page 7.
23 New York did have a brief balance of payments surplus in
FY 1983.
24 Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, New
York State and the Federal
Fisc: XV, Federal Fiscal Year
1990, United States Senate,
July 28th, 1991, page 3.
25 Moynihan, Daniel Patrick and
the Taubman Center for State
and Local Government, New
York State and the Federal
Fisc: XVI, Federal Fiscal Year
1991, United States Senate,
July 24th, 1991.
34
An even more serious challenge to the
preparation of the annual report series came
late in 1981, when the Office of Management and Budget decided to discontinue the
compilation and distribution of data that
had been contained in the The Geographical
Distribution of Federal Expenditures report
and directed all Federal agencies not to submit data to the Community Services Administration for Fiscal Year 1981.18 The sixth
report in the series, published by Senator
Moynihan in July 1982, was notable for its
lack of data for the most current fiscal year.
The cover of that report posed a one-word
question, “DISCONTINUED?,” and indeed,
at the time, it seemed that it might well be
the last report in the series.
With the enactment of Public Law 97236, the data series was revived and the
Bureau of the Census developed a system to
collect and release geographic data on Federal expenditures.19 The FY1981 and FY1982
data were compiled belatedly, and the Senator’s report on the flow of Federal funds
incorporating this data continued on schedule in July 1983. The FY 1982 report did represent a break in some ways, however, since
some of the revisions in procedures implemented by the Census Bureau prevented a
strict comparison of the newly published data
with the data that had been prepared by the
Community Services Administration.20
Throughout the series of annual reports,
Senator Moynihan continued to note New
York’s large balance of payments deficit,
although he dismissed the notion that any
state is entitled to a dollar for dollar return on
its taxes paid to the Federal treasury. As he
noted in the first edition, “the idea that each
State ought somehow to have a neutral or positive ‘balance of payments’ with the Federal
government has no more conceptual clarity
than do similar notions about international
trade.”21 He repeated this point in the seventh
edition with the succinct statement that, “we
are, after all, one nation” and New York, as a
state, was still better off than many.22 But he
remained concerned about the extent to
which New York was a net loser in the overall
transaction with Washington and, more generally, the failure of others to recognize and
correct what he believed to be a systematic
bias in the distribution of Federal outlays.
For the next ten years, the Fisc, as the
report came to be known, continued to show
that New York and several other states in the
Northeast and Great Lakes regions ran persistent balance of payments deficits with the
Federal government.23 Even the large Federal budget deficits that fueled Federal
spending in the 1980s failed to reverse the
persistent deficits in these states. In the 15th
edition, published in July 1991, Senator
Moynihan renewed his call for a debate over
the regional effects of Federal fiscal policy
and pointed out that “influencing the scale
and duration of imbalances in these flows of
[Federal] resources could provide a powerful
lever for the Federal government to balance
economic growth across the nation.” He
went on to add, somewhat pessimistically,
that in his eight years of service on the Senate Budget Committee, the discussion rarely
turned to the state-level geographic distribution of Federal expenditures and taxes.24
The next year, Senator Moynihan and
the Kennedy School of Government’s Taubman Center for State and Local Government formed a partnership to continue the
production of the Fisc in the expectation
that the joint product would have wide
interest outside of New York State. Senator
Moynihan continued to contribute his own
introduction to each edition, while faculty
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES — A RETROSPECTIVE
26 Friar, Monica E. and Herman
B. Leonard, The Federal Budget and the States, Fiscal Year
1993, United States Senate,
July 28th, 1994, page 5.
27 Friar, Monica E. and Herman
B. Leonard, The Federal Budget and the States, Fiscal Year
1993, page 56.
28 See, for example, Friar, Monica, E., Herman B. Leonard
and Jay H. Walder, The Federal
Budget and the States, Fiscal
Year 1995, United States Senate, September 30th, 1996;
Walder, Jay H. and Herman B.
Leonard, The Federal Budget
and the States, Fiscal Year
1997, United States Senate,
September 30th, 1998; and
Leonard, Herman B., Jay H.
Walder and Jose A. Acevedo,
The Federal Budget and the
States, Fiscal Year 1998,
United States Senate,
December 9, 1999.
29 Friar, Monica E., Herman B.
Leonard and Jay H. Walder,
The Federal Budget and the
States, Fiscal Year 1995,
United States Senate,
September 30th, 1996.
30 We constructed these figures
from several different data
sources, including separate
source data for individual
programs (for defense, Social
Security, and Medicare) and
data by object of expenditure
(for grants). As a result, there
may be some minor inconsistencies in the data we are
examining across the period.
By construction, most inconsistencies that may have
arisen will appear in the
residual “Other spending”
category (which we do not
separately analyze), but it
is possible that some minor
inaccuracies remain in other
categories.
and research staff associated with the Taubman Center wrote the body of the report.25
In FY 1993 and all subsequent editions of
the now retitled report, The Federal Budget
and the States, the authors analyzed the
impact of differential costs of living on the
state’s balance of payments positions using
a state cost of living index that measures
the relative costs across states and across
time. That is, each state’s spending and
taxes were adjusted by the cost of living
index and the figures in the report were
reported in cost-adjusted dollars.26 The FY
1993 report also moved beyond the traditional analysis of the balance of payments
that had been the focus of the report series
since its inception and included a special
analysis on a topic of broad national interest. The chapter on the geographic impacts
of Social Security analyzed the net impact
of FICA-financed benefit payments and
FICA collections on a state-by-state basis.27
A continuing feature of The Federal Budget
and the States series, the special analyses in
later editions have examined the geographic
equity of Federal spending and the amount
of redistribution that takes place across the
states as a result of the flows of Federal
taxes and spending.28
The 20th Anniversary Edition, The Federal Budget and the States, Fiscal Year 1995,
completed the gradual evolution to a
national focus. Recognizing that many citizens and elected officials are principally concerned with their home state, the report
introduced a state-specific summary for each
state. These State Profiles, which have
become an integral component of the report,
include highlights for each state as well as
demographic and historical data that can
assist readers in better understanding the
state balance of payments outcomes.29
The current analysis seeks to expand on
this state-specific information by considering the nationwide shifts that have taken
place over the longest range of time for
which we can construct reasonably consistent data. As we have noted earlier in this
report, the Bureau of the Census established
a new system for the collection of data on
the geographic distribution of Federal spending when they assumed responsibility for this
data series in the early 1980s, and further
methodological changes were introduced
even more recently in the calculation of data
for FY 1998 and subsequent years. With this
in mind, we have concentrated our review
on the geographic shifts in the years from FY
1983 to the current period, during which
time the Census Bureau has released consistent underlying data on Federal expenditures, and we have the greatest confidence
that year-to-year comparisons can be meaningful and reliable. Appendix A provides
additional information on the data sources
for this report series.
This section therefore contains a 15-year
analysis of the shifts in the geography of Federal spending and taxes. We compare data
on the geography of Federal spending and
taxes in FY 1983 and FY 1984 to similar
data for the two most current fiscal years (FY
1998 and FY 1999). We average the data for
two years to minimize the impact of any
single-year anomalies that may have
occurred; we will refer to these averages as
figures for FY 1983/84 and FY 1998/99. All
figures are presented in cost-of-living-indexadjusted 1999 dollars. We are able to
develop consistent data across the period for
tax payments, for total spending, and for
four components of spending: defense,
Social Security, Medicare, and grants.30
35
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
The Big Picture: What Happened Over
the 15-Year Retrospective Period?
able 6 shows the aggregate changes
for each state in per capita balance of
payments, total Federal spending,
and Federal tax payments over the 15-year
retrospective period. Many states experienced relatively modest movement in their
overall balance of payments position —
nearly half of the states moved by $500
per capita or less, and for 10 of those
states, the change over the 15-year period
was less than $200 per capita. The changes
for the other states were larger, and for
some of these states the changes were quite
dramatic indeed.
The change in Connecticut’s balance of
payments position with the Federal government was most striking. Over the 15-year
period, Connecticut’s balance of payments
moved from a small surplus to the largest
deficit in the nation. The decline of nearly
$2,500 per person was far larger than the
decline for any other state. New Hampshire,
Nevada, Massachusetts, and California also
experienced declines of $1,000 or more.
The gains over the same period at the other
end of the spectrum were also striking. Citizens in Oklahoma and Alaska saw their balance of payments move up by over $2,500
per capita and North Dakota, Montana, and
West Virginia experienced net increases of
more than $2,000 per capita.
The difference between the change experienced by citizens in Connecticut and
Alaska, the two states with the most extreme
situations, is over $5,200 per capita. In effect,
the Federal government imparted a net economic torque that provided a major impulse
in the economy of Alaska while at the same
time a Federal economic brake was being
T
31 This section draws upon the
Budget of the United States
Government, Fiscal Year 2001,
Historical Tables.
36
applied to Connecticut. Other states experienced significant, but less intense, versions
of this same phenomenon.
What Drove the Shifts in the
Aggregate Results?
able 6 makes it plain that both
changes in Federal spending and
changes in Federal tax payments were
important in producing the changes in the
overall balance of payments results across
the 15-year period. In the sections that follow, we will explore first how and why the
distribution of spending changed and then
briefly review how Federal tax collections
changed.
There are many reasons, of course, why
the distribution of per capita Federal spending may have shifted over the course of 15
years.31 In aggregate, domestic allocable Federal spending increased significantly during
this period. In FY 1998/99, the Federal government spent nearly $5,600 for each man,
woman, and child in the country; in FY
1983/84, the comparable spending figure
was a little over $4,700 in 1999 dollars.
The 1980s began with substantial
momentum in the growth of Federal spending in the areas of human resources and
grants to state and local governments (and,
although this analysis focuses on allocable
domestic Federal spending, the growth in
Federal interest payments also bears mention). In the early 1980s, the nation added
substantially increased defense spending
along with continued growth in human
resource spending through entitlement programs. This expansion of Federal spending,
combined with a national recession and the
tax cuts enacted in the early years of the Reagan presidency, resulted in a sharp increase
T
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES — A RETROSPECTIVE
TABLE 6: Per Capita Changes in Actual Balance of Payments, Spending, and Taxes
FY 1983/84–FY 1998/99
Change in Balance of Payments
Change in Spending
Connecticut
New Hampshire
Nevada
Massachusetts
California
Washington
Missouri
Utah
Minnesota
New York
Georgia
New Jersey
Florida
Michigan
Wisconsin
Illinois
Vermont
Oregon
Colorado
Delaware
Arizona
Kansas
Tennessee
Indiana
Nebraska
Ohio
North Carolina
South Carolina
Idaho
Maryland
Rhode Island
Mississippi
Pennsylvania
Hawaii
Virginia
Arkansas
Maine
Alabama
New Mexico
South Dakota
Texas
Iowa
Kentucky
Wyoming
Louisiana
North Dakota
Montana
West Virginia
Oklahoma
Alaska
California
Connecticut
Nevada
New Hampshire
Utah
Washington
Missouri
Massachusetts
Hawaii
Kansas
New Jersey
New York
Minnesota
Delaware
Arizona
Colorado
Oregon
Wisconsin
Illinois
Georgia
Vermont
Michigan
Rhode Island
Indiana
Ohio
Mississippi
Florida
Idaho
New Mexico
Pennsylvania
Nebraska
Texas
South Carolina
Arkansas
Tennessee
Maine
Maryland
Virginia
Alaska
North Carolina
Alabama
Wyoming
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Iowa
South Dakota
North Dakota
Kentucky
Montana
West Virginia
$(2,461)
(1,513)
(1,357)
(1,274)
(1,105)
(955)
(825)
(823)
(742)
(477)
(446)
(435)
(243)
(121)
(113)
(105)
(62)
(20)
43
109
114
156
193
275
293
326
336
358
378
382
402
416
439
509
592
603
710
925
944
999
1,004
1,411
1,465
1,513
1,997
2,191
2,350
2,386
2,534
2,812
Change in Taxes
$(775)
(678)
(538)
(354)
(326)
(261)
(61)
(26)
332
410
420
433
527
637
648
724
752
760
771
786
799
848
873
901
931
955
978
1,019
1,036
1,072
1,094
1,149
1,207
1,238
1,249
1,283
1,315
1,330
1,459
1,487
1,675
1,744
1,778
1,860
1,950
1,980
2,009
2,078
2,296
2,311
Connecticut
Minnesota
Massachusetts
Georgia
Florida
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Tennessee
South Dakota
Michigan
Maryland
New York
Illinois
Wisconsin
Vermont
New Jersey
South Carolina
Nevada
Nebraska
Oregon
Missouri
Alabama
Virginia
Washington
Colorado
Idaho
Arkansas
Pennsylvania
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
Maine
Iowa
Mississippi
Arizona
Delaware
Utah
Rhode Island
California
Kansas
Wyoming
Texas
New Mexico
Montana
West Virginia
Hawaii
North Dakota
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Alaska
$1,783
1,269
1,248
1,232
1,220
1,159
1,151
1,056
981
968
933
910
876
873
861
855
849
819
802
772
764
751
738
694
680
640
635
634
627
613
605
573
539
539
534
527
497
471
330
255
231
145
92
(53)
(75)
(176)
(183)
(218)
(674)
(1,352)
37
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
in the national deficit and the interest payments to service the national debt. By the
late 1980s, the defense build-up that had
started earlier in the decade had ended and
total discretionary Federal spending was
declining. In contrast to defense spending,
non-defense discretionary outlays declined
sharply for much of the 1980s before climbing somewhat in the 1990s. Beyond discretionary spending, mandatory programs,
which include Social Security, Medicare,
deposit insurance, and means-tested entitlements (Medicaid, aid to dependent children,
food stamps, and other programs subject to
an income test) drove a larger part of the
growth in Federal spending over the past fifteen years. While Social Security stabilized
as a percent of GDP during this period, Federal spending for Medicare and Medicaid far
outpaced the growth in GDP.
In and of themselves, these changes in
the priorities of Federal spending drove some
important changes in the geography of Federal spending. For example, as the so-called
peace dividend is reinvested from defense to
non-defense expenditures, the country
should see an adjustment in the geography
of Federal expenditures from states that had
successfully competed for defense contracts
and military facilities toward states that are
the recipients of other Federal spending.
However, this simple comparison between
FY 1983/84 spending and FY 1998/99
spending captures both the shifts that took
place because of the shifting mix of expenditures (as the level of defense spending
declined while other areas rose) and the
shifts that took place because the geographic
pattern within each area of spending shifted.
For example, while defense spending in the
nation as a whole fell in real terms by more
than 40%, defense spending in Idaho, Ken38
tucky, and Oklahoma actually increased significantly over the period. Viewed against
the average (downward) movement of the
other states, the increase in defense spending in these states is even more significant.
Thus, we want to separate the movement
that resulted from the change in the average
level of spending for the nation as a whole
from the movement that took place because
the state experienced a relative shift in its
receipt of that spending.
To separate these two components of
change in the data across the fifteen years,
we derived a “predicted value” for FY
1998/99 spending that would result from
these changes in the aggregate level of Federal spending if the geography of Federal
spending were otherwise left unchanged.
That is, for each spending component, the
predicted value for each state equals the
actual FY 1983/84 spending (adjusted to
constant 1999 dollars) plus the state’s share
of the aggregate change in spending that has
occurred over the past fifteen years.
While overall Federal expenditures
increased between FY 1983/84 and FY
1998/99, the predicted value for any spending component can be higher or lower than
the actual spending for FY 1983/84 (depending upon whether spending in that area grew
or shrank). In defense, for example, the predicted value for FY 1998/99 will be far less
than the cost-adjusted FY 1983/84 spending. Similarly, the significant increase in
Medicare spending over this period implies
that the predicted value for FY 1998/99
Medicare spending will be higher than the
actual FY 1983/84 Medicare spending.
States in which the actual FY 1998/99
spending fell below the predicted value lost
Federal spending — in a relative sense, compared to other states — even if the absolute
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES — A RETROSPECTIVE
level of spending increased between FY
1983/84 and FY 1998/99. Picking up again
on the Medicare example, nationwide
Medicare spending increased by nearly 90
percent on average from FY 1983/84 to FY
1998/99 and the increase in every state was
at least 47 percent. Despite this widespread
gain, Medicare spending in fully half of the
states fell below the predicted value; these 25
states were thus relative “losers” in the
Medicare spending changes. Similarly, states
in which the actual FY 1998/99 Federal
spending exceeded the predicted value
increased their share of Federal spending,
although in some cases the absolute value of
Federal spending declined from FY 1983/84
to FY 1998/99. Defense spending is the most
striking example of this latter situation. In
aggregate, defense spending fell from an average of about $1,235 in FY 1983/84 to about
$830 per capita in FY 1998/99, a decline of
more than 30%. Nonetheless, defense spending exceeded the predicted value in 30 states,
and, in more than one-third of those states,
defense spending exceeded the predicted
value by more than 50 percent. These states
were clear relative winners in the competition for defense spending, even as the country as a whole shifted its spending priorities
away from military spending.
Disaggregating the Overall Changes
hile there is a good deal of stability from year to year in the balance
of payments patterns reported in
The Federal Budget and the States series, there
have also been some areas with significant
changes when we look across the sweep of
the 15-year period from FY 1983/84 to FY
1998/99. These changes are the composite
result of a series of “moving parts” — shifts
W
in the mix of spending across programs and
shifts in the distribution of spending across
states within programs. Do the changes
mostly arise because there were
significant shifts between programs, with
different programs having significantly different spending patterns across the states? Or
is most of the change driven by shifts in
where the spending for individual programs
is concentrated — that is, were there significant shifts in the geographic distribution
within programs?
To find out, we will first look at the
degree to which the mix of spending across
programs actually changed — and at how
different the distribution of spending across
states is in different programs. We will then
see how important the changes in each area
are as components of the changes in the
overall picture. Finally, we will combine the
changes in mix and the changes in geographic patterns of spending across states
within programs to see how we can best
account for the overall shifts observed
between FY 1983/84 and FY 1998/99.
Shifts in the Mix of Federal Spending
Across Programs
e know from our earlier discussion
that there have been significant
shifts in the budget mix of Federal
spending. Table 7 shows the budget mix
divided between defense and non-defense
spending for both FY 1983/84 and FY
1998/99 and shows the breakdown within
the non-defense areas in each period. Over
the course of our study period, defense
spending fell as a fraction of Federal spending by half, from about 26 percent to about
13 percent. By contrast, the shift among the
other areas was relatively minor. Among the
W
39
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
non-defense spending areas, Social Security
and the residual category of “other” spending fell slightly as a percentage of the nondefense budget, and Medicare and grants
rose slightly, but these shifts were small compared to the shift between defense and these
four areas taken together.
In and of itself, this shift alone would not
produce much change in the overall outcome if the pattern of defense spending
across the states was similar to the pattern of
spending in other areas. As it turns out, the
FY 1983/84 correlations among
TABLE 7: Budget Percentages
defense, grants, and “other”
of Federal Spending by Area
spending are relatively low —
FY 1983/84 and FY 1998/99
that is, a state’s relative standing
FY 1983/84
FY 1998/99
Defense
26%
13%
in defense tells us relatively little
All Non-Defense
74
87
about how much it will receive
Total
100%
100%
in grants or in “other” spending.
Detail: Percentages of
These spending patterns are
All Non-Defense Spending
indeed quite different from one
Social Security
33%
30%
Medicare
12
16
another, and a shift from one
Grants
20
21
category to another in the budOther spending
35
32
getary mix can therefore be
Total
100%
100%
expected to have significant
impacts. Even more important, defense is
moderately correlated with both Social Security and Medicare — but negatively, which
implies that states with high defense spending have differentially low receipts in Social
Security and Medicare. This means that as
funds shift away from defense, states with
formerly high defense spending will tend not
to experience offsetting growth in Social
Security and Medicare — thus exacerbating
the impacts of the budget shift.
Thus, budget mix — at least as between
defense and non-defense spending — shifted
substantially over the 15-year period, and
the area from which it shifted had a significantly different pattern of spending across
the states than the areas to which it shifted.
40
We should anticipate, then, that the change
in the balance of payments outcomes attributable to the shift in the mix of the Federal
budget will be a substantial component of
the overall story.
Shifts in the Geographic Patterns
Within Program Areas
o see how important changes in the
geographic patterns of spending
within program areas are in generating
the overall changes in balance of payments
outcomes across the period, we must look at
each spending area separately and see how
significantly its pattern was altered across the
period. It is useful to assess both (a) how
variable its pattern is across the states; and
(b) how much its pattern changed across the
15 years. Areas with relatively little volatility
across the states play a subdued role in the
overall determination of the balance of payments results. And even areas with substantial volatility will not play a large role in
explaining the changes over time unless they
shifted significantly over the 15-year period.
One way to assess the amount of variability in different spending areas is to examine
how much difference there is from state to
state in per capita spending received compared to the national average — that is, we
T
TABLE 8: Variability of Spending Areas and
Taxes, FY 1983/84 and FY 1998/99 and
Index of FY 1983/84–FY 1998/99 Change
FY1983/84
Variability
FY 1998/99 FY 1983/84 to
Variability FY 1998/99
Change
Defense
Social Security
Medicare
Grants
Other Spending
100
28
34
28
33
105
22
31
30
34
49
12
18
14
17
TOTAL SPENDING
19
19
15
TAXES
16
17
11
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES — A RETROSPECTIVE
FORMING INDICES OF VARIATION AND CHANGE
In this section, we create a basic measure of each state’s relative standing, compared to
the national average, for each spending area and for taxes. This measure characterizes
each state’s position by its percentage deviation from the national average. It thus
shows, through a measure that is independent of the actual spending level, how different the receipts or tax payments of each state are from the others.
This measure can be used to form an index of the variation across the states at any
given time within each spending area (or for Federal tax payments). A small index of variation would indicate that all states are tightly clustered (in percentage terms) around the
national average; a larger index would show that states are more widely scattered around
the average. Technically, the measure we use to indicate the amount of variability is the
standard deviation of the natural logarithm of the percentage difference from the average. By taking the natural logarithm, we treat multiplicative deviations in each direction
as equal (that is, a doubling is considered to be the same size shift as a halving). The
standard deviation of the natural logarithms of each state’s percentage deviation from the
national average measures how far the typical state is from the average. It is more intuitive to express this standard deviation after converting it back into a multiplicative factor, which shows by what factor the typical state varies from the national average — that
is, how “far” the typical state is, in a multiplicative sense, from the national average. A
value of 30 indicates that the typical state varies from the national average — either
above or below — by a factor of 1.30. A value of 10 would indicate that the average
state is within a factor of 1.10 of the average — that is, no more than 10 percent from
the average in one direction or the other. Generally, slightly more than half of the states
will have deviations that are equal to or smaller than this average.
We can use the same kind of measure to assess how much change the typical state
has experienced, when compared to other states, in its receipts of spending in a given
area (or in its payments of Federal taxes). To do so, we focus on the change in each
state’s relative standing (again compared to the national average in each year). Take, for
example, a state that stood 20 percent above the national average in defense spending
in FY 1983/84, and suppose that it increased to 30 percent above the national average
by FY 1998/99. The factor by which its relative standing has changed is thus 1.3/1.2 =
1.083. Forming this ratio for each state shows the range of changes experienced by different states over the period. Converting these to natural logarithms (again, so as to
treat increases and decreases symmetrically), we can compute the standard deviation of
this state-by-state list of changes in relative standing, and then convert the standard
deviation back into a multiplicative factor. This gives the average multiplicative factor
by which a state’s relative standing in the given area changed over the 15-year period.
The “index of change” used in this section gives this factor as a percentage value. Thus,
an index of change of 10 would indicate that the typical state changed its standing,
compared to the national average, by a factor of 1.10, and that slightly more than half
of the states are likely to have experienced changes by a factor of 1.10 or less over the
period. If all states maintained exactly the same relative standing across the period,
then the index of change would be 0, corresponding to a multiplicative factor of 1.00,
indicating that the typical state experienced no change at all in its relative position
compared to the national average. The index of change should be thought of as a percentage of the national average, so that an index of 25 indicates that the typical state
changed its standing relative to the national average by 25 percent of the national average or less over the period.
32 The sidenote, “Forming Indices of Variation and Change” explains in more
technical detail how we formed the measures used in this section.
can focus on the percentage variability in
spending (or taxes) compared to the national
average. In a similar way, we can assess the
amount of change experienced by the average
state in each area between FY 1983/84 and
FY 1998/99.32 Table 8 shows an index of the
variability of each spending area together
with an index of the amount of change experienced by the average state between FY
1983/84 and FY 1998/99 in each area.
Several results are immediately apparent
from Table 8:
(1) Defense spending is considerably
more volatile in both FY 1983/84
and FY 1998/99 than any other component of spending — and its volatility increased slightly over the period.
States are widely dispersed around
the national average; a randomly
selected state is likely to have per
capita spending either double or half
the national average. Dollar for dollar, defense spending imparts three
times as much variation among the
states as any other spending area.
(2) The other spending components are
much less volatile than defense, and
about as volatile as one another. States
are moderately clustered around the
national average in all of these areas.
The typical state departs from the
national average, in either direction,
by approximately one-third.
(3) Total spending is even more stable
than its most stable components. The
typical state differs in total per capita
spending from the national average,
in either direction, by about onefifth. In spite of the variability of the
other areas, and particularly the high
variability of defense spending, total
spending is relatively narrowly dis41
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
tributed across the states. This
implies that, on balance, variations in
the individual spending areas on
average tend to cancel each other out,
leaving the total more tightly distributed around the national average
than the components.
(4) Taxes are even more tightly distributed around the national average
than is spending, with the typical
state varying from the average by
about one-sixth. This reflects the relatively tight distribution of per capita
income around the national average.
In both FY 1983/84 and FY 1998/99,
the variability index for per capita
income was only 12, lower than the
variability index associated with taxes
and substantially lower than any
component of Federal spending.
(5) In addition to being more variable in
both FY 1983/84 and FY 1998/99,
defense spending also changes considerably more across the period than
do other forms of spending. The typical state changes how far it is from
the national average by a factor of
1.5; in the other spending areas, typical changes are only by a factor of
1.1 to 1.2.
33 Note how different the map
for defense spending (Figure
14A, page 30) is from the
maps for the other spending
areas in Figure 14.
42
Thus, defense spending is, dollar for dollar, a much more powerful engine of different fiscal outcomes across the states in both
FY 1983/84 and FY 1998/99 than any other
spending area. In addition, the shifts in
defense spending (again on a dollar-for-dollar basis) over the 15-year period resulted in
considerably more change in the relative fiscal standing of the states than the changes in
any other area. Defense drives the outcomes,
considerably in excess of what would be suggested by its budget share. And defense
spending also shifted considerably more than
proportionately to its budget share.
Shifts Between Programs versus
Shifts Within Programs
s the preceding discussion highlights,
there have been significant changes
both in the budget mix of Federal
spending and in the geographic pattern of
spending within various spending areas —
each of which can be anticipated to contribute importantly to the overall shifts in
the balance of payments outcomes over the
period. How much of the overall change
does each of these components explain?
Not surprisingly, neither simple explanation by itself accounts for a very large fraction of the overall change — each is
important, neither is dominant, and, importantly, the total change is more than the sum
of its parts. If we use the FY 1983/84 spending patterns, and allow only the budget mix
to shift, we account for only about one-fifth
of the total changes that actually took place.
And if we use the FY 1983/84 budget mix,
allowing only the spending patterns in each
spending area to change to their FY 1998/99
patterns, we account for only about onefourth of the actual change. Thus, both the
change in spending patterns within each
spending area and the shift between defense
and the other four spending areas is important in explaining the overall outcome —
and, importantly, most of the explanation
lies in the interaction of the two, not in
either by itself. The shift away from defense
spending is important because defense
spending has a highly variable and distinctive pattern across the states.33 And not only
did the level of defense spending change, but
its pattern also shifted significantly. The
other areas experienced smaller changes in
A
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES — A RETROSPECTIVE
TABLE 9: Total Expenditures, FY 1998/99
% Change
from
Predicted
Value
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
17%
8
-1
10
-25
1
-23
0
4
2
-8
8
4
8
32
-6
29
25
12
3
-14
6
-2
2
-14
29
8
-23
-20
-4
0
-5
21
19
8
25
3
8
3
10
22
9
11
-19
4
2
-17
33
5
21
Change from
Predicted
Value
(1999$
in billions)
$4.1
0.4
(0.4)
1.4
(53.9)
0.1
(5.2)
0.0
3.1
0.6
(0.6)
0.5
2.3
2.0
4.0
(1.0)
5.7
5.1
0.8
1.3
(5.2)
2.7
(0.5)
0.4
(5.8)
1.4
0.7
(2.3)
(1.2)
(1.5)
(0.0)
(4.5)
7.0
0.8
3.8
4.1
0.5
4.8
0.2
2.0
0.9
2.8
10.4
(2.2)
0.1
1.4
(6.4)
3.0
1.0
0.5
% Change
Change from
from
FY 1983/84
FY 1983/84 Actuals
(1999$
in billions)
35%
25
14
27
-14
16
-11
15
19
17
6
24
20
24
52
8
49
43
29
19
0
22
13
17
-1
49
25
-11
-8
11
15
10
39
37
24
44
19
24
19
26
40
26
28
-7
19
18
-5
53
20
39
$7.3
0.9
3.1
3.1
(25.5)
2.9
(2.2)
0.5
14.7
6.1
0.4
1.3
9.3
5.3
5.6
1.1
8.2
7.8
1.6
6.8
(0.2)
8.3
2.5
2.6
(0.3)
2.0
1.8
(1.0)
(0.4)
3.4
1.8
7.9
11.3
1.3
10.5
6.2
2.5
12.9
0.9
4.7
1.5
6.8
22.9
(0.7)
0.5
9.1
(1.5)
4.2
4.0
0.8
their spending patterns, but their distinctive
differences from the FY 1983/84 defense
spending pattern became important as funds
shifted away from defense and their shares
of the budget increased.
In the next sections, we examine the
shifts that took place in each of the spending areas and in tax payments in more detail.
A Closer Look at the Changes
in Federal Spending
iven the growth in overall Federal
expenditures, most states saw real
Federal expenditures increase substantially between FY 1983/84 and FY
1998/99. Table 9 shows a summary of FY
1998/99 spending as compared to the “predicted value” and actual FY 1983/84 spending. Forty-two states experienced an increase
in per capita Federal spending, ranging
from a little more than $300 per capita in
Hawaii to more than $2,300 per capita in
West Virginia. Only eight states experienced
a decline in real Federal spending; the
shortfall in three states — California,
Nevada, and Connecticut — exceeded $500
per capita.
California had the largest per capita
spending decline in the country, a fall of 14
percent in constant dollars from the average
per capita Federal spending received in FY
1983/84. Adjusting for inflation, Federal
spending in California was $25.5 billion
lower in FY 1998/99 than it was in FY
1983/84. The contrast is even more striking
when one compares actual Federal spending
in FY 1998/99 to what California would
have received if the state had received a proportionate share of the increase in Federal
spending that took place in aggregate around
the country. This comparison produces a
relative shortfall of nearly $54 billion.
G
43
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
TABLE 10: Defense, FY 1998/99
% Change
from
Predicted
Value
34 For the purpose of this
analysis, defense spending is
defined as the sum of Department of Defense salaries and
wages, Department of Defense
procurement contracts, and
Department of Energy
defense-related activities.
Department of Defense grants
to state and local governments are captured within
the aggregate data on
“Grants” and spending for
military retirement is included
within the data for “Other
Federal Expenditures.”
44
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
68%
49
36
-41
-40
60
-36
-32
11
25
30
124
15
-21
31
-30
105
8
71
30
-35
-41
-27
-11
-21
39
28
-19
-56
-11
63
-54
30
38
-1
76
27
7
8
22
36
32
5
-32
-8
56
-7
116
-20
75
Change from
Predicted
Value
(1999$
in billions)
$1.7
0.4
1.2
(0.4)
(17.2)
1.7
(1.8)
(0.1)
1.0
1.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
(0.6)
0.1
(0.8)
1.6
0.2
0.5
2.0
(2.3)
(1.2)
(0.5)
(0.3)
(1.6)
0.1
0.2
(0.3)
(0.6)
(0.4)
1.5
(4.9)
1.1
0.1
(0.0)
1.3
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.8
0.1
0.6
0.7
(0.5)
(0.0)
7.9
(0.5)
0.2
(0.2)
0.1
% Change
Change from
from
FY 1983/84
FY 1983/84 Actuals
(1999$
in billions)
-4%
-15
-22
-66
-66
-9
-63
-61
-37
-29
-26
28
-34
-55
-25
-60
17
-38
-2
-26
-63
-67
-58
-49
-55
-20
-27
-54
-75
-49
-7
-74
-26
-21
-43
0
-28
-39
-39
-30
-23
-25
-40
-61
-47
-11
-47
23
-55
0
$(0.2)
(0.2)
(1.3)
(1.2)
(49.8)
(0.4)
(5.7)
(0.4)
(5.9)
(3.2)
(0.9)
0.2
(1.6)
(2.8)
(0.2)
(2.8)
0.5
(1.4)
(0.0)
(2.9)
(7.1)
(3.3)
(2.1)
(2.4)
(7.4)
(0.1)
(0.3)
(1.3)
(1.3)
(3.3)
(0.3)
(11.7)
(1.6)
(0.1)
(3.4)
0.0
(0.2)
(3.2)
(0.4)
(1.8)
(0.1)
(0.9)
(10.2)
(1.8)
(0.2)
(2.6)
(5.6)
0.1
(1.0)
0.0
Eight states experienced double-digit
percentage declines when compared to the
predicted value for total Federal spending.
Three of these states were in New England
— Connecticut, New Hampshire, and
Massachusetts — and four other states were
in the Far West — California, Nevada, Utah,
and Washington. Missouri was the only state
outside of these two regions to experience a
sharp decline in per capita Federal spending.
In each of these eight states, defense spending was a primary driver of the overall shortfall in spending. Moreover, as we saw in
Table 8, defense spending exhibits about
three times the volatility across states as the
other spending areas and its geographic pattern changed three to four times as much as
those of other areas, so it is likely to contribute an important part of the explanation
of the 15-year changes. With this in mind,
we turn our discussion to the geographic
impacts of defense spending.
Defense 34
ationwide, defense spending declined
dramatically between FY 1983/84
and FY 1998/99. Table 10 shows
the actual percentage changes in defense
spending across the period for each state,
together with the difference between actual
FY 1998/99 spending and “predicted”
defense spending based on FY 1983/84
spending adjusted for the change in the
national average. Per capita defense spending declined by more than 40 percent in
real terms, from an average of $1,235 per
capita in FY 1983/84 to an average of $705
in FY 1998/99 (all figures in cost-adjusted
1999 dollars). Forty-five of the fifty states
experienced declines in per capita defense
spending. Only three states — Idaho,
N
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES — A RETROSPECTIVE
Source: United States General
Accounting Office, “Military
Bases: Lessons Learned from
Prior Base Closure Rounds,”
July 1997. This table relies
on the Department of
Defense’s characterization of
which bases are to be considered major and which are closures versus realignments.
Major base realignments are
excluded from the table.
35 See United States General
Accounting Office, “Military
Bases: Lessons Learned from
Prior Base Closures,” Report
to the Congress, GAO/NSIAD97-151 for background on the
base closing process through
1995.
36 The Department of Defense
has until 2001 to complete
the BRAC actions identified
by the commission. Two of
the 97 bases identified for
closure or realignment were in
Guam.
37 Letter from John B. Goodman,
Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense to Henry L. Hinton,
Jr., Assistant Comptroller
General, United States General Accounting Office, July 8,
1977 as contained in
GAO/NSIAD-97-151, page 59.
38 GAO/NSIAD-97-151, page 7.
The GAO report also notes
that 23,000 of the employees
have found jobs in other
defense or other government
activities and that several
Federal programs and grants
are available to help soften
the blow of base closures.
West Virginia, and Kentucky — had significant increases when compared to the FY
1983/84 spending level. At the other end
of the spectrum, the per capita defense
spending in ten states declined by more
than 60 percent from the cost-adjusted FY
1983/84 levels. In two of these states, New
Hampshire and New York, the decline
from actual FY 1983/84 defense spending
was about 75 percent.
TABLE 11:
It is striking to look at
Major Base
the loss in actual spending
Closings
in states with significant
CA
24
FL
7
losses in defense activity.
MA
6
California, for example,
NV
5
would
have
received
NC
5
approximately
$50
billion
IN
4
VT
4
in additional defense
IL
4
spending annually if the FY
SD
4
1983/84 per capita spendMI
3
ing level had continued in
UT
3
TX
3
real terms. California’s popAR
2
ulation has increased by
CT
2
nearly 30 percent over the
WA
2
time
period,
which
PA
2
NM
2
accounts for a portion of
HI
2
the $50 billion. But even if
MT
2
California’s population had
NY
1
not increased from FY
DE
1
KS
1
1983/84 levels, California
MN
1
would have received nearly
NJ
1
$40 billion in additional
LA
1
defense spending if the
NE
1
CO
1
FY 1983/84 spending level
WY
1
had continued in real
terms. New York experienced the second
largest decline in annual defense spending
from FY 1983/84 to FY 1998/99 — almost
$12 billion — and the population of
New York was almost unchanged during
this period.
Defense Salaries and Wages
Military base closures have been a key element in the decline in defense spending following the end of the Cold War. Closing
unneeded defense facilities has historically
been difficult because of concern about the
economic impacts of base closings on local
communities and the political nature of the
decision-making process. No one questions
that defense expenditures have implications
that go beyond defense concerns alone, and
these “pork barrel issues” were one of the reasons that base closing decisions were stalemated throughout the 1980s. However, in
1988, Congress, with the approval of the
President, delegated the authority to a special commission to identify bases for realignment and closure and in 1991, 1993, and
1995 authorized three additional rounds of
base closing recommendations through independent commissions. Base Closure and
Realignment Commission (BRAC) recommendations must be accepted or rejected by
the President and Congress in their
entirety.35 In total, 97 out of a total of 495
major domestic military bases were recommended for closure and/or realignment by
the four BRAC commissions, and only four
of these recommendations remain uncompleted at the time of this report.36
BRAC savings are substantial; the
Department of Defense anticipates annual
recurring savings of $5.6 billion beginning
in FY 2002.37 The bulk of these savings will
come from approximately 107,000 civilian
defense jobs that will have been eliminated
as a result of the four BRAC rounds.38
Table 11 identifies the number of installations in each state that were identified by
the BRAC commission. Twenty-four of the
bases identified were in California, and four
45
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
TABLE 12: Defense Salaries, FY 1998/99
% Change
from
Predicted
Value
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
46
-1%
31
-19
-7
-34
3
-17
4
-3
15
2
8
17
-11
51
8
26
16
56
19
-36
-33
20
25
-6
30
2
-38
-80
-24
-10
-7
19
35
-2
28
9
-27
50
-25
-4
-21
7
-33
31
5
13
75
-3
65
Change from
Predicted
Value
(1999$
in billions)
$(0.02)
0.15
(0.23)
(0.03)
(3.99)
0.05
(0.07)
0.01
(0.13)
0.47
0.04
0.02
0.25
(0.07)
0.04
0.06
0.31
0.13
0.13
0.46
(0.23)
(0.22)
0.04
0.21
(0.06)
0.04
0.01
(0.20)
(0.34)
(0.30)
(0.08)
(0.07)
0.54
0.09
(0.03)
0.37
0.02
(0.50)
0.12
(0.55)
(0.01)
(0.12)
0.36
(0.32)
0.01
0.42
0.30
0.06
(0.01)
0.06
% Change
Change from
from
FY 1983/84
FY 1983/84 Actuals
(1999$
in billions)
-35%
-14
-46
-38
-56
-32
-45
-32
-36
-24
-32
-29
-23
-41
-1
-29
-17
-23
3
-21
-58
-56
-21
-17
-38
-14
-33
-59
-87
-50
-41
-39
-22
-11
-35
-16
-28
-52
-1
-51
-37
-48
-30
-56
-14
-31
-26
15
-36
9
$(0.82)
(0.10)
(0.85)
(0.23)
(10.11)
(0.65)
(0.27)
(0.09)
(2.09)
(1.16)
(0.85)
(0.09)
(0.49)
(0.41)
(0.00)
(0.33)
(0.31)
(0.27)
0.01
(0.77)
(0.56)
(0.57)
(0.06)
(0.21)
(0.61)
(0.03)
(0.22)
(0.48)
(0.56)
(0.94)
(0.48)
(0.58)
(0.95)
(0.04)
(0.75)
(0.33)
(0.08)
(1.43)
(0.00)
(1.69)
(0.10)
(0.41)
(2.43)
(0.82)
(0.01)
(3.83)
(0.91)
0.02
(0.12)
0.01
other states — Texas, Pennsylvania, New
York, and Illinois — had five or more base
closing decisions within their borders.
With this backdrop of base closings and
realignment, it is not surprising that all but
five states have experienced a “double-digit”
percentage decline when we compare FY
1998/99 Department of Defense salaries and
wages with comparable inflation-adjusted
information for FY 1983/84, as in Table 12.
West Virginia, Wyoming, and Maine were
the only states to experience an increase in
defense spending for salaries and wages, and
Iowa and Rhode Island had very small percentage declines. Nine states saw Federal
spending for Department of Defense salaries
and wages fall by more than 50 percent. New
Hampshire experienced the largest decline
in the country, an 87 percent decline from
FY 1983/84 to the most current fiscal years.
Nevada, Massachusetts, California, Utah,
Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
and New Jersey also experienced real declines
in Federal spending for Department of
Defense salaries that exceeded 50 percent.
While the geographic shifts in defense
salaries were undoubtedly affected by the
base closing decisions in the first four
rounds, base closings were not the only
determinant of the shifts. Nevada was spared
any base closings yet ended up with an
approximately 60 percent decline in Department of Defense salaries and wages while
seven bases were closed in Texas and the
decline in Department of Defense salaries
there was only about 30 percent. Similarly,
Illinois had five base closings yet Federal
spending has declined by less than 25 percent. The average decline across the states
was about 30 percent.
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES — A RETROSPECTIVE
TABLE 13: Defense Procurement, FY 1998/99
% Change
from
Predicted
Value
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
162%
65
76
-59
-40
117
-31
-61
28
34
86
226
3
-17
37
-42
313
9
88
41
-27
-39
-24
-20
-16
40
70
7
-37
1
30
-61
27
25
0
180
43
30
-24
123
149
56
6
-34
-6
117
-36
62
-18
65
Change from
Predicted
Value
(1999$
in billions)
$1.64
0.22
1.53
(0.38)
(11.52)
1.31
(1.30)
(0.14)
1.41
1.08
0.37
0.12
0.03
(0.35)
0.13
(0.75)
1.23
0.12
0.36
1.61
(1.43)
(0.77)
(0.40)
(0.37)
(0.91)
0.03
0.10
0.02
(0.21)
0.02
0.14
(4.37)
0.23
0.03
(0.01)
0.75
0.09
0.79
(0.07)
0.54
0.06
0.45
0.53
(0.26)
(0.01)
7.15
(1.37)
0.04
(0.14)
0.03
% Change
Change from
from
FY 1983/84
FY 1983/84 Actuals
(1999$
in billions)
32%
-17
-11
-80
-70
10
-65
-80
-36
-32
-6
65
-48
-58
-31
-71
109
-45
-5
-29
-63
-69
-62
-59
-58
-29
-14
-46
-68
-49
-35
-80
-36
-37
-50
42
-28
-34
-61
13
26
-21
-46
-67
-53
10
-68
-18
-59
-16
$0.65
(0.11)
(0.45)
(1.00)
(39.66)
0.22
(5.44)
(0.35)
(3.60)
(2.05)
(0.05)
0.07
(1.21)
(2.37)
(0.21)
(2.52)
0.85
(1.18)
(0.04)
(2.20)
(6.58)
(2.69)
(2.02)
(2.24)
(6.40)
(0.04)
(0.04)
(0.21)
(0.78)
(2.36)
(0.32)
(11.38)
(0.63)
(0.09)
(2.57)
0.34
(0.12)
(1.82)
(0.38)
0.11
0.02
(0.33)
(7.76)
(1.01)
(0.17)
1.18
(5.04)
(0.03)
(0.90)
(0.01)
Defense Procurement
Defense procurement represents the largest
expenditure item in the domestic allocable
expenditures for the Department of Defense.
In cost-adjusted 1999 dollars, nationwide
spending for defense procurement averaged
more than $190 billion annually in FY
1983/84. Fifteen years later, the comparable
figure for FY 1998/99 defense procurement
had declined by about $80 billion annually.
The impacts of this 42 percent decline in
defense procurement have not been evenly
distributed across the states. The defense
contracting industry has changed significantly over the past 15 years as major
weapons suppliers have consolidated and the
location of military work has been shifted to
new plants. Eight states saw an increase in
per capita defense procurement when we
compare the data for FY 1998/99 with comparable data for FY 1983/84, as in Table 13.
Defense procurement in Kentucky more
than doubled and procurement increased by
25 percent or more in Idaho, Oklahoma,
Alabama, and South Dakota. On the other
hand, defense procurement declined by 45
percent or more in nearly half of the states.
New York, Delaware, and Arkansas saw
defense contracts fall by 80 percent; Kansas
and California had only slightly smaller percentage declines. In fact, these percentage
declines may understate the real impact on
these states, since defense spending had not
reached its peak in FY 1983/84.
Social Security
ocial Security recently celebrated its
65th anniversary as a cornerstone of
the nation’s effort to provide workers
with a reasonable income after retirement.
In the years since the Social Security Act was
S
47
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
TABLE 14: Social Security, FY 1998/99
% Change
from
Predicted
Value
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
48
14%
69
-6
9
-12
8
-2
3
-4
2
10
0
-3
3
5
3
14
23
1
0
-8
2
-2
15
3
7
2
8
-4
-8
13
-10
14
12
4
16
-8
-1
-6
22
3
12
10
1
1
8
-10
20
0
43
Change from
Predicted
Value
(1999$
in billions)
$0.9
0.2
(0.4)
0.4
(5.1)
0.3
(0.1)
0.0
(1.0)
0.2
0.1
0.0
(0.5)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.8
1.2
0.0
0.0
(0.7)
0.3
(0.1)
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
(0.1)
(0.9)
0.3
(2.7)
1.4
0.1
0.7
0.7
(0.4)
(0.1)
(0.1)
1.1
0.0
0.9
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.6
(0.8)
0.6
(0.0)
0.2
% Change
Change from
from
FY 1983/84
FY 1983/84 Actuals
(1999$
in billions)
39%
106
15
32
7
32
19
25
18
24
35
22
18
26
28
25
40
50
23
22
12
25
20
40
26
31
25
32
17
12
38
10
39
36
27
41
13
21
14
48
26
36
34
23
23
31
10
46
21
74
$2.0
0.2
0.9
1.1
2.2
1.1
0.8
0.2
4.3
1.9
0.3
0.3
2.6
1.9
1.1
0.8
1.8
2.0
0.3
1.2
0.9
3.2
1.1
1.2
1.9
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.2
1.3
0.6
2.2
3.3
0.3
3.7
1.5
0.6
3.6
0.2
1.9
0.2
2.3
5.9
0.4
0.2
2.1
0.6
1.2
1.5
0.3
signed in 1935, the program was broadened
to include survivors benefits and disability
benefits in addition to retirement insurance.
Today, approximately 61 percent of total
Social Security benefits are paid as retirement insurance, 19 percent as survivors
insurance and 13 percent as disability insurance. In 1972, Congress expanded Social
Security by creating the Supplemental Security Income program to consolidate responsibility for programs that had been
administered by state and local governments.
Supplemental Security Income payments
totaled approximately $28 billion in FY 1999
(approximately 7 percent of Social Security).
The analysis in the following paragraphs
concentrates on the three traditional categories of Social Security and does not
include SSI payments.
Nationwide, Social Security spending
increased from about $275 billion in
FY 1983/84 to about $385 billion in
FY 1998/99 (all figures expressed in 1999
dollars).Table 14 shows the 15-year actual
changes and the difference between FY
1998/99 spending and “predicted” spending
for the Social Security program. On a per
capita basis, Social Security increased by
about 22%, from an average of about $1,150
in FY 1983/84 to an average of about $1,425
in FY 1998/99. Every state saw an increase
in Social Security spending when actual
FY 1998/99 spending is compared to actual
FY 1983/84. The smallest per capita
increases were in the far western states —
California, Washington, and Oregon — and
in a few states on the northeast coast — New
York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. In California, for example, the per capita increase
in Social Security was only about 7 percent.
Approximately two-thirds of the states experienced per capita increases between 20 per-
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES — A RETROSPECTIVE
WA
ME
Figure 17
FY 1998/99 Social Security
MT
ND
ID
VT
NY
WI
SD
from Predicted Value
MI
WY
KEY
More than 10% above
PA
IA
NE
NV
UT
predicted value
More than 10% below
MI
MN
OR
Spending — Difference
IL
OH
IN
KS
WV
MO
OK
NM
TX
AK
cent and 40 percent. At the other end of the
spectrum, two small population states —
Alaska and Wyoming — saw the largest percentage increases in Social Security spending
(an increase of more than 100 percent in
Alaska and approximately 75 percent in
Wyoming). Four other states saw increases
of more than 40 percent — Louisiana, South
Carolina, West Virginia, and Oklahoma.
Variations from the predicted values for
Social Security were relatively small. Per
capita Social Security spending fell below
the predicted value in only 14 states and
even then the variance was generally less
than 10 percent. Only California, New
York, and Washington saw Social Security
spending decline by more than 10 percent
from the predicted value. In the states
where Social Security spending exceeded the
predicted value, most increases were also
modest, with twenty states experiencing
increases of 10 percent or less. The map in
Figure 17 highlights the states where Social
Security spending was different from the
predicted value by more than 10 percent.
NC
TN
AR
SC
MS
HI
VA
KY
predicted value
AZ
NJ
DE
MD
CO
CA
NH
MA
CT RI
AL
GA
LA
FL
With the exception of three states with populations of less than one million residents
(Alaska, Wyoming, and North Dakota), all
of the states where Social Security spending
was more than 10 percent higher than the
predicted value are in the South.
Since Social Security is primarily a program that is designed to assist the elderly, we
looked at the correlation between per capita
spending in each state and the proportion of
each state’s population that was aged 65 and
over. As might be expected, we found a
strong positive correlation between the proportion of elderly residents in each state and
per capita Social Security spending. In FY
1983/84, the simple correlation for the combined retirement, survivors and disability
programs was 0.95; by FY 1998/99, the
same correlation had fallen to 0.81. Among
the components of Social Security, we find
that the retirement program produces the
strongest positive correlation with the percentage of elderly residents in each state, a
result that has changed only slightly in the
past fifteen years. Over time, however, the
49
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
TABLE 15: Comparing FY 1998/99 and
FY 1983/84 Social Security Benefits
% Change
Avg. 65+
Population as
a % of State
Population
AK
HI
WY
NV
SC
NM
DE
LA
WV
CO
MT
ND
OH
MD
PA
NC
MI
CT
VA
UT
OK
RI
NJ
AL
IN
AZ
TX
ME
KY
ID
NY
CA
IA
MA
IL
TN
SD
VT
NH
OR
MS
WI
FL
WA
NE
KS
MO
MN
AR
GA
50
91.0%
49.2
44.7
24.6
22.1
21.7
20.0
19.8
16.9
15.8
15.6
15.5
13.8
13.7
13.7
13.5
13.4
13.1
12.8
12.3
12.1
10.2
9.9
9.1
8.9
8.5
8.2
8.2
7.0
6.7
6.1
6.1
5.9
5.9
5.8
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.1
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.5
2.5
2.1
1.2
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.1
Change Avg.
Social Security
Benefits
Per Capita
$316
259
591
323
497
345
299
457
649
261
361
403
327
230
291
433
320
249
310
175
455
194
156
443
319
184
295
277
457
235
120
69
366
150
207
409
319
258
191
163
434
276
285
112
297
308
335
230
420
242
% Change
Avg. Social
Security
Benefits
Per Capita
109.2%
33.7
71.6
33.1
47.1
37.5
24.6
48.4
44.7
31.4
30.6
35.2
26.8
22.7
20.5
38.6
24.5
20.1
31.6
22.6
40.3
14.4
12.6
37.7
25.1
15.1
33.1
22.8
38.8
21.3
9.8
6.9
26.2
12.8
17.4
35.0
25.1
22.4
16.8
12.2
38.9
20.8
17.5
9.8
23.6
24.2
25.0
19.8
31.1
24.1
retirement program has become a smaller
proportion of total Social Security spending.
The largest proportionate increase has been
in the disability program, which has the least
direct tie to elderly residents. In FY 1998/99,
the simple correlation between the proportion of elderly residents in each state and per
capita disability spending was only 0.29.
We compared the shift in the distribution of per capita Social Security benefits to
the change in the proportion of elderly residents in each state. If Social Security benefits are following the elderly as they shift
residences, then the increases in per capita
spending should track closely with increases
in the elderly population. The results of this
calculation are in Table 15; the states with
the largest increases in elderly residents as a
proportion of statewide population are
shown at the top of the table. If the geographic shift in Social Security benefits is a
result of shifts in the location of elderly
Americans, then the changes in per capita
spending should track closely with the
changes in elderly residents. There is nothing in Table 15 to suggest that this is the case,
however. Several states with small increases
in elderly population as a proportion of
statewide population have experienced large
increases in per capita Social Security benefits. Arkansas, Mississippi, South Dakota,
Kentucky, Texas, and Alabama all had less
than a 10 percent increase in elderly residents
as a proportion of statewide population, yet
experienced increases in per capita Social
Security spending that exceeded 30 percent.
Some of the explanation for the geographic shift may also stem from the periodic changes in the eligibility criteria and
administration of the Social Security program. In 1950, 15 years after Social Security
was enacted, only 50 percent of the nation’s
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES — A RETROSPECTIVE
TABLE 16: Medicare, FY 1998/99
workers were covered under the program.
Shortly thereafter, major amendments were
enacted that raised benefits and placed the
program on the road to virtually universal
coverage. Later in the 1950s, Congress
broadened the scope of the disability programs and extended the coverage to workers
under age 50 and their dependents. In 1961,
the retirement age for men was lowered to
sixty-two and amendments adopted in 1980
made many changes in the disability program. Congress enacted other changes during the past 15 years, including the first
coverage of Federal employees, increases in
the retirement age, and further changes in
the eligibility criteria for disability benefits.39
A detailed analysis of these changes is unfortunately outside of the scope of this analysis. Indeed, it is likely that given the time-lag
between the enactment of programmatic
changes and the payment of benefits to eligible workers, the geographic shift in Social
Security benefits that we observe may have
its roots in changes adopted by the Congress
decades ago to provide coverage to a broader
group of American workers.
Medicare
edicare spending has increased
steadily from the inception of the
program in the late 1960s, and the
increases have been sharpest over the past fifteen years. Two driving forces, of course,
have been the aging American population
and the rapid escalation in the costs for medical treatment and procedures. In 1980,
approximately 10.8 percent of the U.S. population was aged 65 or older; by the turn of
the century, 12.0 percent of the population
had reached that age and Medicare was providing coverage for 97 percent of older
Americans.40 In addition, program eligibil-
M
39 See Social Security Commission, A Brief History of Social
Security, August 2000, for a
discussion of the development
of Social Security.
40 Health Care Financing Administration, “Medicare 2000: 35
Years of Improving Americans’
Health and Security,” July
2000, pages 12 and 16.
% Change
from
Predicted
Value
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
23%
31
-2
9
-14
-4
10
2
2
16
7
-1
-9
2
-8
-13
25
80
-15
1
-3
-9
-15
28
-3
0
-14
-22
-14
-4
-2
-5
18
-13
2
18
-21
6
-7
27
-11
26
10
5
-15
2
-8
25
-16
28
Change from
Predicted
Value
(1999$
in billions)
$0.8
0.0
(0.1)
0.2
(4.0)
(0.1)
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.7
0.0
(0.0)
(0.9)
0.1
(0.2)
(0.3)
0.6
2.0
(0.1)
0.0
(0.2)
(0.8)
(0.5)
0.5
(0.2)
0.0
(0.2)
(0.3)
(0.1)
(0.3)
(0.0)
(0.7)
0.8
(0.1)
0.2
0.4
(0.5)
0.7
(0.1)
0.5
(0.1)
1.0
1.3
0.0
(0.1)
0.1
(0.3)
0.4
(0.6)
0.1
% Change
Change from
from
FY 1983/84
FY 1983/84 Actuals
(1999$
in billions)
131%
146
84
106
61
80
107
93
91
118
101
87
72
93
73
64
135
239
60
90
83
71
59
141
82
89
63
47
62
81
85
79
122
64
92
121
49
100
75
138
68
136
107
98
61
93
73
136
58
142
$2.3
0.1
1.5
1.2
9.0
0.9
1.4
0.3
8.7
2.8
0.3
0.3
3.9
2.1
0.9
0.8
1.8
3.1
0.3
1.9
2.5
3.4
1.1
1.4
2.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
2.8
0.4
6.6
2.9
0.2
4.3
1.6
0.7
6.2
0.4
1.5
0.2
2.8
7.2
0.4
0.1
2.0
1.3
1.0
1.3
0.2
51
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
Figure 18
FY 1998/99 Medicare
WA
Spending — Difference
ME
MT
from Predicted Value
ND
MI
MN
OR
KEY
ID
More than 15% above
MI
WY
More than 15% below
PA
IA
NE
NV
predicted value
UT
IL
OH
IN
KS
AZ
NM
TX
AK
ity has been expanded over time. Although
Medicare was established as a program to
insure elderly Americans against the cost of
health care, Medicare was expanded in the
early 1970s to include individuals with disabilities who qualified for Social Security
Disability Insurance. Medicare’s benefit
package has also changed over time. In the
early 1980s, Medicare’s home health benefit
was expanded and hospice benefits for the
terminally ill were added. More recently,
Congress has expanded the Medicare program to add preventive benefits such as pap
smears, flu shots, and certain forms of cancer screening and diagnosis.41
Medicare spending nearly doubled in real
terms over the fifteen years that we consider
in this retrospective. Table 16 shows the
actual spending changes across the 15-year
period and the deviation from “predicted”
Medicare spending in FY 1998/99. FY
1983/84 Medicare spending was approximately $415 per capita (in 1999 dollars); by
FY 1998/99, comparable spending had
increased to nearly $800 per capita. Every
VA
KY
NC
TN
AR
SC
MS
HI
NJ
DE
WV
MO
OK
NH
MA
CT RI
MD
CO
CA
52
NY
WI
SD
predicted value
41 See Health Care Financing
Administration, July 2000, for
an overview of the Medicare
program.
VT
AL
GA
LA
FL
state saw an increase of at least 47 percent in
per capita Medicare spending when the
FY1998/99 data is compared to the
FY1983/84 figures. Louisiana saw an
increase of nearly 240 percent and three
other states (Alaska, Wyoming, and Mississippi) experienced increases in excess of
140 percent.
When we adjust for this average widespread gain by using our “predicted” spending, per capita Medicare spending in half of
the states fell below the predicted value;
these 25 states were the relative losers in the
Medicare spending changes. With a few
exceptions, variations from the predicted
value were modest. Looked at in a slightly
different way, the actual FY 1998/99 per
capita Medicare spending in 26 states fell
within 10 percent of the predicted value (in
either direction). The map in Figure 18
highlights the states where per capita
Medicare spending was more than 15 percent higher or lower than the predicted
value. The geographic concentration of
states with increased Medicare spending is
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES — A RETROSPECTIVE
TABLE 17: Comparing FY1998/99 and
FY1983/84 Medicare Benefits
42 In FY 1999, Medicare spent
an average of $5,410 per beneficiary. See Health Care
Financing Administration,
July 2000, page 13.
striking. Ten of the twelve states where the
actual FY 1998/99 per capita Medicare
spending exceeded the predicted values by
more than 15 percent were in the South.
Medicare is an entitlement program with
direct payments to individuals that are transportable between states. Although Congress
sets the eligibility criteria and benefit levels,
it does not directly control the state-specific
allocation of the Federal spending. Since the
Medicare program is designed to assist the
elderly, one would expect that the geographic distribution of Medicare benefits
would depend to a great extent on the proportion of elderly residents in each state.
Extending this point to our 15-year retrospective, one plausible explanation for the
geographic concentration noted in the preceding paragraph would be that there has
been a shift of elderly residents to the states
in which per capita Medicare spending
increased the most. Stated differently, while
the per capita spending level may have
increased substantially, the average spending
per beneficiary may show less variation.42
To assess the validity of this explanation,
we looked at the correlation between the per
capita Medicare spending in each state and
the proportion of each state’s population that
was aged 65 and over. As one would expect,
there is a strong positive correlation between
the proportion of elderly residents and per
capita Medicare spending, although the correlation had weakened in the more recent
time period. In FY 1983/84, the simple correlation was 0.87; by FY 1998/99, the simple correlation had fallen to 0.70.
More important for this analysis, we compared the change in the proportion of elderly
residents in each state to the change in the per
capita Medicare benefits in each state. The
results of that calculation are shown in Table
% Change
Avg. 65+ Pop.
as a % of
State Pop.
AK
HI
WY
NV
SC
NM
DE
LA
WV
CO
MT
ND
OH
MD
PA
NC
MI
CT
VA
UT
OK
RI
NJ
AL
IN
AZ
TX
ME
KY
ID
NY
CA
IA
MA
IL
TN
SD
VT
NH
OR
MS
WI
FL
WA
NE
KS
MO
MN
AR
GA
91.0%
49.2
44.7
24.6
22.1
21.7
20.0
19.8
16.9
15.8
15.6
15.5
13.8
13.7
13.7
13.5
13.4
13.1
12.8
12.3
12.1
10.2
9.9
9.1
8.9
8.5
8.2
8.2
7.0
6.7
6.1
6.1
5.9
5.9
5.8
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.1
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.5
2.5
2.1
1.2
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.1
Change Avg.
Medicare
Benefits
Per Capita
$143
229
338
189
390
246
333
714
560
232
300
279
382
367
515
379
348
431
288
189
465
362
347
524
350
309
362
246
465
238
364
275
303
415
316
504
277
219
207
199
511
239
581
227
242
297
401
225
450
369
% Change Avg.
Medicare
Benefits
Per Capita
149.7%
99.7
138.5
48.6
136.4
84.4
91.5
235.6
133.7
79.0
88.2
62.5
91.9
90.3
99.0
121.6
71.2
108.4
92.8
97.9
120.1
75.6
81.0
128.9
91.6
84.5
106.8
59.6
133.7
85.4
79.6
61.2
71.0
84.2
70.0
134.6
66.7
59.9
62.2
48.2
139.0
57.4
91.2
72.9
61.2
63.1
81.3
58.9
104.0
117.9
53
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
TABLE 18: Grants, FY 1998/99
17; the states with the greatest increases in
elderly residents as a percentage of the population are shown at the top of the table. If
Medicare benefits are following the elderly as
they shift their residences, then the changes
in per capita spending should track closely
with the demographic changes in the population. However, there is nothing in Table 17
to suggest that this is indeed the case.
A detailed analysis of other possible
explanations for the Medicare results is
unfortunately outside the scope of this
report. We can offer a few other thoughts as
a starting point for future study. By using
information on the number of elderly residents in each state, we have implicitly treated
elderly residents as a homogenous population with similar eligibility for Medicare and
similar requirements for Medicare spending.
For example, we have not been able to differentiate newly immigrated elderly residents
who may not have contributed to the
Medicare system (or for that matter, the
Social Security system) from elderly residents
who have earned eligibility over time. Similarly, we cannot differentiate elderly residents
who have moved from another state, perhaps
after retirement. Finally, as we noted in the
Social Security section, the eligibility for
these social insurance programs has
expanded over time, and workers in some
industries, such as farming, who were not
able to draw benefits in the past may be
receiving benefits today.
Grants
ederal spending through grants
increased by 46 percent in real terms
over the course of the 15-year retrospective period, rising from $700 per capita
(in 1999 dollars) in FY 1983/84 to a little
over $1,000 per capita in FY 1998/99. (By
F
54
% Change
from
Predicted
Value
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
8%
4
8
7
0
-11
1
-11
16
-9
2
-2
-13
0
3
-2
13
15
7
-3
-6
-10
-16
9
12
0
11
-31
-7
-17
6
-1
21
23
3
13
-8
-1
-6
15
-1
10
27
-19
-4
-16
-3
26
-12
-20
Change from
Predicted
Value
(1999$
in billions)
$0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
(0.4)
0.0
(0.1)
1.6
(0.7)
0.0
(0.0)
(1.6)
0.0
0.1
(0.0)
0.5
0.7
0.1
(0.2)
(0.4)
(1.1)
(0.9)
0.3
0.6
0.0
0.2
(0.5)
(0.1)
(1.3)
0.2
(0.2)
1.4
0.2
0.3
0.4
(0.3)
(0.2)
(0.1)
0.5
(0.0)
0.6
4.1
(0.4)
(0.0)
(1.0)
(0.1)
0.6
(0.7)
(0.2)
% Change
Change from
from
FY 1983/84
FY 1983/84 Actuals
(1999$
in billions)
57%
52
58
56
46
29
47
30
69
33
49
42
27
46
50
43
65
67
56
41
37
30
23
58
62
46
61
0
36
21
55
44
76
80
50
64
35
44
36
67
45
61
85
18
40
22
42
84
28
17
$1.7
0.5
1.6
1.0
10.7
0.7
1.1
0.2
4.7
1.8
0.3
0.4
2.2
1.5
0.9
0.7
1.9
2.2
0.6
1.6
2.0
2.3
0.9
1.3
2.2
0.4
0.6
(0.0)
0.3
1.1
1.0
7.8
3.5
0.5
3.4
1.3
0.9
3.8
0.3
1.6
0.4
2.3
8.7
0.3
0.2
0.9
1.6
1.3
1.1
0.1
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES — A RETROSPECTIVE
Figure 19
FY 1998/99 Grants
WA
Spending — Difference
ME
MT
from Predicted Value
ND
ID
More than 10% above
MI
WY
More than 10% below
PA
IA
NE
NV
IL
UT
predicted value
NY
WI
SD
predicted value
VT
MI
MN
OR
KEY
OH
IN
CO
CA
AZ
OK
NM
WV
MO
KS
TX
AK
contrast, total Federal spending increased in
real terms by only about 15 percent over this
period.) A major component of the expansion in Federal grants spending was the rise
of the Medicaid program, which for a period
in the late 1980s and early 1990s was the
most rapidly growing major component of
the Federal budget. In spite of its rapid
growth, grants were among the most stable
features of Federal spending, viewed from
the perspective of the shifts in the distribution of spending across the states. While
receipt of grants is moderately dispersed
across states at both the beginning and the
end of the period — Table 8 shows its relative variability to be substantially less than
defense, and roughly similar to the Social
Security, Medicare, and other spending categories — the change in the distribution of
grants spending was less than any other area
of spending except Social Security. On average, states moved their relative position,
measured as a proportion of the national
average, by about 15 percent over the 15year period; most states experienced modest
NJ
DE
MD
VA
KY
NC
TN
AR
SC
MS
HI
NH
MA
CT RI
AL
GA
LA
FL
changes in their receipts of grants compared
to other states.
About half of the states experienced
changes of 10 percent or more when compared to their predicted spending based on
FY 1983/84. Table 18 shows the actual
15-year changes and the deviations from the
predicted values. The map in Figure 19
shows the states that experienced changes of
10 percent or more from their predicted
spending. Eleven states experienced declines
of more than 10 percent in their relative
standing in the national distribution; of
these, the three with the largest changes
(Nevada [-31%], Wyoming [-20%], and
Utah [-19%]) and one with a smaller change
(Colorado) are clustered in the West. Four
others (Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, and
Michigan) are in the Great Lakes area. The
remaining three (New Jersey, Virginia, and
Delaware) are on the Atlantic seaboard.
Of the twelve states experiencing relative
increases (compared with the national average) of 10 percent or more, nine are clustered in the Southeast and the remaining
55
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES / 1999
TABLE 19: Taxes, FY 1998/99
% Change
from
Predicted
Value
43 See A Profile of Medicaid:
Chartbook 2000, Health Care
Financing Administration,
September 2000, page 12.
56
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
5%
-32
-2
3
-7
-1
13
-4
10
12
-16
2
2
0
-2
-8
1
-17
1
2
9
5
10
1
2
-14
3
1
9
0
-11
4
12
-16
-1
-24
2
-1
-3
7
10
10
-10
-1
7
0
-1
-14
4
-9
Change from
Predicted
Value
(1999$
in billions)
$0.9
(1.4)
(0.4)
0.3
(14.2)
(0.3)
2.9
(0.2)
8.0
4.7
(0.9)
0.1
1.2
(0.1)
(0.3)
(1.3)
0.2
(3.9)
0.1
0.7
3.2
2.7
2.7
0.1
0.6
(0.6)
0.3
0.1
0.6
0.2
(0.8)
3.6
4.3
(0.6)
(0.6)
(4.7)
0.4
(0.4)
(0.2)
1.2
0.3
2.5
(12.6)
(0.1)
0.2
0.1
(0.3)
(1.2)
1.1
(0.3)
% Change
Change from
from
FY 1983/84
FY 1983/84 Actuals
(1999$
in billions)
20%
-22
13
18
6
13
29
10
26
29
-4
17
16
14
12
5
16
-5
16
17
25
20
26
16
17
-1
18
16
25
15
2
19
29
-4
13
-14
17
14
11
23
26
26
3
14
22
15
14
-2
19
4
$3.3
(0.8)
2.5
1.6
10.9
2.7
5.8
0.4
18.3
9.5
(0.2)
0.8
10.6
3.7
1.5
0.7
2.4
(1.0)
0.7
4.8
7.7
9.5
6.0
1.5
4.2
(0.0)
1.3
1.5
1.4
7.0
0.2
16.5
8.7
(0.1)
6.8
(2.3)
2.5
7.6
0.5
3.3
0.7
5.8
2.9
1.1
0.5
5.0
4.0
(0.1)
4.6
0.1
three are in the Plains. Many of these states
began the period significantly below the
national average in grant receipts, moving up
across the period. In the southern states, this
may be associated with significant changes
in Federally mandated eligibility standards
that took place in the late 1980s.43
Changes in Federal Tax Collections
s Table 6 indicated, changes on the
tax side of the equation were a significant determinant of the overall
changes wrought over the retrospective
period in the balance of payments outcomes
for many states. We have emphasized in this
and earlier reports that the tax side of the
balance of payments calculation is a powerful and steady force that significantly affects
the overall outcome, virtually insuring (with
but a few striking exceptions) that highincome states will be net donors and that
low-income states will be net recipients.
Taxes constitute a steady, strong drumbeat
in the background, significantly tilting the
table on which the rest of the process plays
out. Taxes are highly correlated with income;
while this correlation has dropped slightly
across the 15-year retrospective period, it
remains in FY 1999 at .95. Not surprisingly,
the changes in per capita tax payments are
highly correlated with the changes in state per
capita incomes. Comparing the changes in
the ratio of each state’s per capita tax payments to the national average to the changes
in the ratio of each state’s per capita income
to the national average across the 15 years
shows a correlation of .88 — that is, changes
in the states’ standing in per capita tax payments across the period are strongly driven
by the corresponding changes in their per
capita incomes.
A
THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE STATES — A RETROSPECTIVE
As we saw in Table 8, per capita Federal
tax payments are also the most stable component of the balance of payments picture
— showing both the least variability across
states in each year and the least change across
the 15-year retrospective period. Table 19
shows the actual 15-year changes in tax payments, together with the FY 1998/99 deviations from tax payments predicted on the
basis of taxes in FY 1983/84. Most states
experienced only small changes in the ratio
of their per capita tax payments to the
national average, with fully two-thirds of the
states changing their standing relative to the
national average by less than 10%. Nine
states shifted down by 10 percent or more
compared to the national trend; of these, the
three with the largest changes (Alaska
[-32%], Oklahoma [-24%], and Louisiana
[-17%]) and one other (Texas) were experiencing high incomes from the oil industry
at the start of our retrospective period that
declined significantly by the late 1990s.
Seven states shifted up by 10 percent or
more compared to the national average; of
these, four (North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida) are in the South and
began the period with relatively low per
capita incomes, experiencing comparatively
rapid income growth over the period. Two
others (Connecticut and Minnesota) started
the period with relatively high per capita
incomes but also experienced upward shifts
in their per capita incomes relative to the
national average.
much more to find out about the details of
how and why the funds have shifted in the
ways we have observed. In addition to more
detailed descriptive presentation of these
changes, it would also be of great interest to
examine whether there are, underlying these
outcomes and the shifts in these outcomes,
common patterns of political power (for
example, associated with the size and seniority of Congressional delegations) or of institutional structure (for example, the
additional power granted to small states in
Congress by having an upper chamber that
has an equal number of senators no matter
how small the population of the state).
Questions for Further Research
here is a rich agenda of research issues
raised by the results we have summarized here. In each of the spending
areas and for Federal tax payments, there is
T
57
Page 58 intentionally left blank
AL
Real Per Capita Income $24,754
Cost of Living Index
0.93
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
14%
Residents 65 and Over
13%
Residents under 18
24%
Rank
39
40
19
25
40
Alabama
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
ith a slight increase in per capita spending, to about $6,600 per capita, and
a very slight decrease in taxes, Alabama’s balance of payments increased by
a little over $200, to nearly $2,100 per capita, 9th in the nation, bringing it back
into the top 10 states in balance of payments, where it has been in all but 3 years
since 1983. Its overall Federal spending ranks 9th, 20% above the national average. Most of its spending increase was in non-defense discretionary spending,
which increased by about 10% in real terms to a little over 15% above the national
average. Alabama continues to have a strong role in defense spending, receiving
45% more than the average state and ranking 11th. Alabama ranks 7th in Social
Security and 5th in Medicare, each about 20% above the average state. Its relatively low per capita income, nearly 15% below the national average, leaves it with
tax collections nearly 20% below the national average, ranking 38th.
Balance of Payments
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
$2,091
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
ALABAMA, FY 1999
9
Per Capita
Federal Taxes
$4,519
$9,139
National National
Rank
Avg.
38
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING
National National
IN ALABAMA, FY 1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
Non-defense discretionary
Social Security
Medicare
Assistance programs
$1,320
1,964
1,802
917
607
11
15
7
5
23
$907
1,693
1,508
761
616
Total spending
$6,610
9
$5,486
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Population: 4.4 million
W
PER CAPITA TAXES AND SPENDING COMPARED TO NATIONAL AVERAGES, FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
VA
+60%
2500
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
25
00
1500
00
AK
15
MT
10
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
pe
10
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
-$
+10%
0
50
0
+$
WY
OK
20
BOP
Rank
8
9
9
12
9
10
12
5
6
5
8
7
8
8
10
11
9
MO
15
Federal
Taxes from AL
$3,720
3,828
3,944
4,017
3,870
3,810
3,862
3,940
4,211
4,531
4,687
4,657
4,682
4,725
4,655
4,531
4,519
AL
-$
Federal
Spending in AL
$4,782
4,871
5,096
5,212
5,376
5,321
5,316
5,888
6,034
6,408
6,338
6,379
6,312
6,291
6,372
6,394
6,610
WV
MS
-$
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Balance of
Payments
$1,062
1,043
1,152
1,196
1,506
1,511
1,454
1,948
1,823
1,877
1,651
1,722
1,629
1,566
1,717
1,863
2,091
+20%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
+30%
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
+$
SD
0
00
500
00
+$
ND
20
+40%
+$
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
59
AK
Real Per Capita Income $25,606
Cost of Living Index
1.11
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
12%
Residents 65 and Over
6%
Residents under 18
32%
Alaska
Population: 0.6 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$2,777
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
ALASKA, FY 1999
Federal Taxes
6
Per Capita
$4,872
$1,720
National National
Rank
Avg.
33
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
ALASKA, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$2,194
Non-defense discretionary
4
$907
3,786
2
1,693
Social Security
657
50
1,508
Medicare
234
50
761
Assistance programs
779
8
616
$7,649
5
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Rank
33
6
27
50
2
laska’s receipts of Federal spending exceed the national average by nearly 40%;
combined with taxes more than 10% below average, this leaves Alaska with a
balance of payments surplus of nearly $2,800 per capita, 6th in the nation. Alaska
receives almost two and one-half times the national average in defense spending
(in which it continues to rank 4th), and over two times the average in non-defense
discretionary spending (in which it experienced a 22% increase, raising it to 2nd in
the nation in FY 1999). With one of the youngest populations in the country, and
the smallest fraction of population aged 65 or over, Alaska continues to rank last
in per capita receipts of both Social Security and Medicare, at 56% and 69% below
the national averages, respectively. Alaska continues to rank first in per capita
receipts of Federal grants to state and local governments. The state’s relatively low
per capita income (9% below the national average, ranking 33rd) drives its correspondingly low tax payments.
A
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
0
60
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
32
35
28
23
14
12
7
20
14
15
7
10
15
11
7
7
6
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from AK
$6,122
6,340
6,122
6,005
5,627
5,242
5,384
5,674
5,828
6,141
6,142
5,699
5,653
5,334
5,043
4,886
4,872
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in AK
$5,819
5,952
6,093
6,362
6,692
6,682
7,151
6,699
7,085
7,301
7,806
7,359
6,716
6,733
7,012
7,040
7,649
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$(304)
(388)
(29)
357
1,064
1,439
1,767
1,025
1,257
1,160
1,665
1,660
1,063
1,399
1,969
2,155
2,777
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
AZ
Real Per Capita Income $25,194
Cost of Living Index
1.00
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
18%
Residents 65 and Over
13%
Residents under 18
28%
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
Rank
37
17
4
22
6
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$904
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
ARIZONA, FY 1999
20
Per Capita
Federal Taxes
$4,713
$4,319
National National
Rank
Avg.
35
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
ARIZONA, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$1,361
9
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,689
26
1,693
Social Security
1,474
31
1,508
Medicare
657
32
761
Assistance programs
435
45
616
$5,617
24
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Arizona
Population: 4.8 million
rizona continued its trend of the last two years toward an improved balance of
payments with the Federal government; with an increase of $350 per capita in
total Federal spending (from increases in defense and non-defense discretionary
spending) and a slight decrease in taxes, its balance of payments surplus nearly
doubled, to about $900 per capita, 20th in the nation. Arizona receives almost
exactly the national average in total Federal spending, but only in defense spending (where it receives 50% more than the average state, ranking 9th) does it
receive more than the average. It receives almost the national average in nondefense discretionary spending and in Social Security, about 15% less in Medicare,
and in spite of having a relatively high poverty rate, it receives about 30% less
than the average state in Federal spending for assistance programs. Its relatively
low per capita income, about 10% below the national average, results in Federal
tax receipts about 15% below the average, leaving it overall with a moderate balance of payments surplus.
A
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
0
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
18
13
17
16
15
23
21
15
22
21
17
19
19
20
23
23
20
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from AZ
$4,250
4,169
4,326
4,470
4,364
4,313
4,254
4,120
4,239
4,439
4,451
4,438
4,570
4,590
4,699
4,774
4,713
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in AZ
$4,710
4,878
4,834
5,313
5,397
5,022
5,125
5,283
5,105
5,187
5,438
5,186
5,423
5,275
5,086
5,267
5,617
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$461
709
508
843
1,032
709
871
1,163
866
747
987
748
853
685
387
493
904
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
61
AR
Real Per Capita Income $24,300
Cost of Living Index
0.91
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
18%
Residents 65 and Over
14%
Residents under 18
26%
Arkansas
Population: 2.6 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$1,633
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
ARKANSAS, FY 1999
Federal Taxes
13
Per Capita
$4,238
$4,166
National National
Rank
Avg.
44
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
ARKANSAS, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$595
36
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,772
22
1,693
Social Security
1,932
3
1,508
Medicare
870
8
761
Assistance programs
703
12
616
$5,871
19
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Rank
43
47
5
9
21
rkansas continues for the fourth straight year to enjoy a rising balance of payments surplus, which increased in FY 1999 by about $100 per capita, to over
$1,600, 13th in the nation. With a relatively high fraction of its population over
65 years of age, Arkansas ranks 3rd in Social Security receipts and 8th in Medicare
receipts, about 30% and about 15% above the national average, respectively. Its
receipts of Federal defense spending remain about one-third below the national
average. In spite of having a relatively high poverty rate and a relatively low real
per capita income (about 15% below the national average), it receives only about
15% above the average in Federal assistance program spending. Overall, its receipts
of Federal spending are a little more than 5% above those of the average state; its
balance of payments surplus is generated largely by its low Federal tax payments,
nearly 25% below those of the average state (ranking 44th in the nation, and corresponding closely to its ranking 43rd in the nation in per capita income).
A
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
0
62
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
7
12
11
13
13
14
15
16
16
14
14
15
16
16
16
15
13
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from AR
$3,525
3,656
3,827
3,787
3,739
3,611
3,707
3,824
4,096
4,413
4,600
4,556
4,645
4,410
4,341
4,212
4,238
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in AR
$4,674
4,468
4,866
4,972
4,899
4,823
4,917
4,986
5,221
5,576
5,741
5,734
5,703
5,651
5,689
5,746
5,871
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$1,149
812
1,039
1,186
1,160
1,212
1,210
1,163
1,125
1,163
1,141
1,178
1,057
1,241
1,348
1,534
1,633
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
CA
Real Per Capita Income $29,217
Cost of Living Index
1.02
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
18%
Residents 65 and Over
11%
Residents under 18
27%
Rank
16
14
3
45
11
California
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
t $22.7 billion, California’s total balance of payments deficit with the Federal
government is the largest in the nation. Its per capita deficit increased in
FY 1999 for the fifth straight year, to $685 per capita, 12th largest in the nation.
Its overall receipts of Federal spending are about 10% below the average state.
Only in defense and assistance programs are California’s receipts near the national
average. Defense spending has declined by about 60% from its 1984 peak, and is
now within a few percent of the national average. Due to its relatively young population, its receipts of Social Security and Medicare are about 20% and about 10%
below the national average, ranking 46th and 25th, respectively. After rising from
1990 to 1994, total per capita Federal spending in California has declined steadily
through 1999, now to about the same level in real terms as in 1990. Taxes, by contrast, have been nearly constant in real terms since 1991, and are now about 2%
above the national average. The long-term and fairly steady erosion in California’s
balance of payments across the FY 1983–FY 1999 period closely mirrors its decline
in defense spending receipts.
Balance of Payments
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
$(685)
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
CALIFORNIA, FY 1999
39
Per Capita
Federal Taxes
$5,593
$(22,688)
National National
Rank
Avg.
17
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
CALIFORNIA, FY 1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$943
23
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,439
36
1,693
Social Security
1,195
46
1,508
Medicare
708
25
761
Assistance programs
624
21
616
$4,909
38
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Population: 33.1 million
A
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
0
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
17
16
21
28
33
37
40
39
40
39
36
35
36
36
37
39
39
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from CA
$5,292
5,229
5,359
5,441
5,335
5,294
5,279
5,344
5,572
5,711
5,633
5,546
5,484
5,529
5,515
5,588
5,593
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in CA
$5,763
5,684
5,672
5,567
5,214
4,997
4,876
4,864
4,996
5,245
5,325
5,362
5,229
5,143
5,052
4,988
4,909
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$471
454
313
125
(121)
(297)
(403)
(481)
(576)
(466)
(308)
(184)
(255)
(387)
(463)
(600)
(685)
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
63
CO
Real Per Capita Income $31,322
Cost of Living Index
1.01
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
8%
Residents 65 and Over
10%
Residents under 18
26%
Colorado
Population: 4.1 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$(620)
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
COLORADO, FY 1999
Federal Taxes
38
Per Capita
$5,923
$(2,514)
National National
Rank
Avg.
10
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
COLORADO, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$1,408
7
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,884
16
1,693
Social Security
1,143
47
1,508
Medicare
513
46
761
Assistance programs
355
48
616
$5,303
32
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Rank
5
15
48
47
17
olorado’s balance of payments with the Federal government has been on a
generally downward trend since it peaked at a surplus of a little over $1,000
per capita in the early 1990s; with the exception of last year, it has declined
steadily since 1991, and now ranks 38th in the nation, with a deficit of about
$600 per capita. Its tax payments rank 10th in the nation, about 8% above those
of the average state, and have been steady or slightly rising in real terms for a
decade. By contrast, its receipts of Federal spending have been slowly declining.
Defense spending has fallen particularly precipitously; it peaked at over $2,000 per
capita in 1989 but has now fallen to just over $1,400, or by a little more than
40%. Even so, Colorado continues to be one of the largest recipients of defense
spending, ranking 7th and receiving more than half again as much as the average
state. Only one area, assistance spending, changed materially in real terms from
FY 1998 to FY 1999; it fell by about 10%. Colorado continues to be one of the lowest ranking states in receipts of Social Security, in Medicare, and in assistance programs, reflecting its relatively young population and relatively low poverty rate.
C
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
0
64
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
37
40
41
31
24
20
17
21
20
22
26
30
35
35
39
38
38
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from CO
$5,247
5,133
5,201
5,260
5,014
4,847
4,838
4,972
5,247
5,558
5,816
5,811
5,836
5,783
5,759
5,818
5,923
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in CO
$4,662
4,568
4,650
5,285
5,543
5,647
5,916
5,932
6,269
6,138
6,075
5,912
5,603
5,582
5,229
5,374
5,303
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$(585)
(565)
(552)
25
529
799
1,078
960
1,022
579
259
101
(233)
(201)
(530)
(444)
(620)
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
CT
Real Per Capita Income $34,902
Cost of Living Index
1.12
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
11%
Residents 65 and Over
14%
Residents under 18
25%
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
Rank
1
5
33
8
32
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$(2,840)
50
$(9,320)
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
National National
CONNECTICUT, FY 1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Federal Taxes
$8,064
1
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
CONNECTICUT, FY 1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$1,046
18
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,156
49
1,693
Social Security
1,543
28
1,508
Medicare
817
14
761
Assistance programs
661
17
616
$5,224
34
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Connecticut
Population: 3.3 million
onnecticut’s balance of payments with the Federal government has been on a
generally downward trend since 1983, and has been a deficit in every year since
our study began. It has had the largest per capita deficit in the nation for the last
7 years. Driven by continuing increases in tax payments, associated with its highest-in-the-nation per capita income, and by a precipitous decline in defense spending (which is now just over $1,000 per capita, barely one-third of its 1984 peak),
Connecticut now has a per capita deficit in excess of $2,800. Connecticut’s tax payments have ranked first on a per capita basis in every year since 1985; it now pays
over $8,000 per capita in taxes, nearly half again as much as the average state. It
ranks near the average in receipts of Federal funds overall, and is within a few percent of the average state in every category except defense (in which, in spite of its
nearly steady decline since 1985, it still ranks 18th, at 15% more than the average
state) and non-defense discretionary spending (in which it ranks 48th, receiving
about one-third less than the average state); its persistent balance of payments
deficit is driven by its tax payments, not by its failure to attract Federal spending.
C
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
0
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
33
28
37
44
45
46
45
49
47
49
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from CT
$6,212
6,112
6,448
6,721
6,733
6,808
7,130
7,007
7,055
7,320
7,365
7,540
7,662
7,292
7,553
7,826
8,064
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in CT
$5,891
6,082
6,092
5,899
5,666
5,475
5,880
5,109
5,470
5,151
5,161
4,986
5,196
5,236
5,115
5,394
5,224
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$(321)
(29)
(356)
(821)
(1,067)
(1,332)
(1,249)
(1,898)
(1,585)
(2,169)
(2,203)
(2,554)
(2,466)
(2,056)
(2,438)
(2,432)
(2,840)
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
65
DE
Real Per Capita Income $29,783
Cost of Living Index
1.03
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
10%
Residents 65 and Over
13%
Residents under 18
24%
Delaware
Population: 0.8 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$(1,025)
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
DELAWARE, FY 1999
Federal Taxes
43
Per Capita
$5,876
$(772)
National National
Rank
Avg.
11
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
DELAWARE, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$615
34
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,458
32
1,693
Social Security
1,578
26
1,508
Medicare
685
27
761
Assistance programs
514
39
616
$4,851
39
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Rank
11
13
41
24
44
elaware’s balance of payments deficit with the Federal government continues
to be just over $1,000 per capita, the 8th largest in the nation; it has ranked
in the top ten states on the basis of per capita balance of payments in every year
since our sample period began. The state ranks 39th in overall receipts of Federal
spending, and ranks below the average state in receipts in every spending area
except Social Security, where the reasonably typical age mix of its population leads
it to receive benefits about 5% above those of the average state. It receives about
one-third less in defense spending than the average state, and in non-defense discretionary, Medicare, and Federal aid for assistance programs it falls between 10
and 20% below the average of other states. Its relatively high per capita income,
about 5% above the average state, leads to tax payments about 7% above those
of the average state, ranking 11th in the nation.
D
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
0
66
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
46
46
48
48
47
45
47
48
49
48
48
48
44
42
43
43
43
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from DE
$5,388
5,222
5,252
5,704
5,414
5,572
5,659
5,930
6,240
6,626
6,563
6,333
6,284
5,835
5,783
5,790
5,876
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in DE
$4,112
4,205
4,109
4,172
3,971
4,283
4,149
4,069
4,265
4,557
4,582
4,593
4,869
4,819
4,758
4,739
4,851
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$(1,277)
(1,017)
(1,144)
(1,532)
(1,443)
(1,289)
(1,510)
(1,861)
(1,975)
(2,069)
(1,981)
(1,740)
(1,415)
(1,016)
(1,025)
(1,050)
(1,025)
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
FL
Real Per Capita Income $29,718
Cost of Living Index
0.94
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
14%
Residents 65 and Over
18%
Residents under 18
24%
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
Rank
12
32
18
1
47
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$47
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
FLORIDA, FY 1999
31
Per Capita
Federal Taxes
$707
National National
Rank
Avg.
$6,074
6
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
FLORIDA, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$1,058
17
Non-defense discretionary
1,392
40
1,693
Social Security
2,025
2
1,508
Medicare
1,200
1
761
445
44
616
$6,121
14
$5,486
Assistance programs
Total spending
$907
Florida
Population: 15.1 million
lorida continues to be one of a small number of states where both Federal
receipts and Federal taxes exceed the national average. Over the last two
decades, its Federal spending and Federal taxes have been in very close balance.
Overall, Florida attracts about 10% more in per capita Federal spending than the
average state. Florida’s demographics drive its receipts of Federal spending; Florida
has a larger percentage of residents over 65 years old than any other state, and it
correspondingly ranks 1st in Federal Medicare spending (60% above average) and
2nd in per capita receipts of Social Security benefits (one-third above average).
Defense spending in Florida has been more stable than in most states; it now
receives about one-fifth more than the average state, ranking 17th. Its receipts of
non-defense discretionary spending and assistance programs, by contrast, rank in
the bottom fifth of states, in the latter case in spite of a relatively high poverty
rate. Since its per capita income is slightly higher than average, its per capita Federal tax payments are about 10% higher than those of the average state, ranking
6th and leaving its overall balance of payments approximately neutral.
F
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
0
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
19
27
24
26
30
30
29
31
29
27
23
29
25
23
24
28
31
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from FL
$4,757
4,794
5,057
5,186
5,156
5,270
5,226
5,306
5,469
5,737
5,682
5,860
5,858
5,876
5,815
5,918
6,074
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in FL
$5,204
5,007
5,279
5,391
5,290
5,157
5,242
5,362
5,553
5,945
6,202
5,992
6,116
6,192
6,169
6,045
6,121
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$447
213
222
205
134
(113)
16
57
84
208
520
132
258
316
354
128
47
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
67
Georgia
GA
Real Per Capita Income $29,673
Cost of Living Index
0.92
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
15%
Residents 65 and Over
10%
Residents under 18
26%
Population: 7.8 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$(29)
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
GEORGIA, FY 1999
Federal Taxes
32
Per Capita
$5,523
$(228)
National National
Rank
Avg.
19
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
GEORGIA, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$1,322
10
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,626
27
1,693
Social Security
1,360
40
1,508
Medicare
666
30
761
Assistance programs
520
38
616
$5,493
28
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Rank
13
46
15
48
15
er capita Federal spending and taxes in Georgia continue to be nearly identical
to the national average, this year resulting in about a $30 per capita net balance of payments deficit, slightly smaller than the last two years. Georgia’s balance of payments has been within $300 per capita of being in balance in every
year since 1989. Defense is an important industry in Georgia, and Federal spending
on defense has been somewhat more stable in Georgia than in many states —
after declining by about one-third over the course of a couple of years in the late
1980s, it has now recovered to approximately the same level as in the early 1980s.
Georgia’s success in attracting Federal spending is concentrated in defense, where
it ranks 10th, with receipts nearly half again as large as those of the average state;
in all other areas of spending, it receives less than the average state — slightly
less in the case of non-defense discretionary spending, and between 10 and 16%
less in Social Security, Medicare, and Federal spending on assistance programs. Its
per capita income is near the national average, as are its Federal tax payments.
P
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
0
68
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
22
24
23
27
31
38
34
36
33
26
27
26
27
30
31
32
32
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from GA
$4,235
4,348
4,596
4,672
4,686
4,645
4,701
4,734
4,946
5,248
5,381
5,348
5,454
5,437
5,508
5,525
5,523
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in GA
$4,640
4,695
4,852
4,861
4,815
4,338
4,542
4,517
4,833
5,531
5,557
5,585
5,539
5,478
5,431
5,414
5,493
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$405
348
256
188
129
(307)
(159)
(218)
(113)
283
176
237
85
41
(77)
(111)
(29)
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
HI
Real Per Capita Income $22,870
Cost of Living Index
1.22
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
17%
Residents 65 and Over
14%
Residents under 18
24%
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
Rank
48
1
6
13
38
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$1,982
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
HAWAII, FY 1999
10
Per Capita
Federal Taxes
$3,955
$2,350
National National
Rank
Avg.
48
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
HAWAII, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$2,391
3
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,441
35
1,693
Social Security
1,107
48
1,508
Medicare
456
48
761
Assistance programs
541
35
616
$5,937
18
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Hawaii
Population: 1.2 million
s a result of a decade of steadily rising Federal spending and falling Federal tax
payments, Hawaii now has a $2,000 per capita balance of payments, 10th in the
nation. The decline of Hawaii’s balance of payments in the late 1980s was driven by
defense spending, which declined more than one-third, from over $3,000 per capita
in 1985 to less than $2,000 per capita in 1995; it has since recovered to about $2,400
per capita, still more than 20% below its peak, but nonetheless 3rd in the nation at
more than two and one-half times the average state. Hawaii is considerably less successful in other spending areas. It falls between 10 and 15% below the average state
in non-defense discretionary spending and in Federal assistance spending (in spite of
having a relatively high poverty rate). Anomalously, given that it has a relatively high
fraction of residents over 65 years of age, its per capita receipts of Social Security
benefits are one-quarter, and its receipts of Medicare benefits are two-fifths lower
than those of the average state. Its low per capita income (48th in the nation, 20%
below the average) produces Federal tax payments nearly 30% below those of the
average state; this results in its sizable per capita balance of payments surplus.
A
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
6
6
4
6
7
8
10
18
23
23
18
17
18
12
9
10
10
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from HI
$4,112
4,088
4,061
4,068
3,910
3,882
3,957
4,185
4,435
4,771
4,585
4,575
4,406
4,261
3,976
3,893
3,955
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in HI
$5,651
5,495
5,803
5,681
5,510
5,420
5,541
5,241
5,257
5,283
5,554
5,615
5,315
5,628
5,694
5,874
5,937
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$1,539
1,407
1,741
1,613
1,600
1,538
1,584
1,056
823
512
969
1,040
908
1,367
1,718
1,981
1,982
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
69
ID
Real Per Capita Income $24,650
Cost of Living Index
0.95
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
14%
Residents 65 and Over
11%
Residents under 18
28%
Idaho
Population: 1.3 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$829
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
IDAHO, FY 1999
Federal Taxes
21
Per Capita
$4,349
$1,038
National National
Rank
Avg.
41
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
IDAHO, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$1,166
15
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,616
28
1,693
Social Security
1,412
37
1,508
Medicare
505
47
761
Assistance programs
479
41
616
$5,178
35
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Rank
41
29
17
43
5
ith overall Federal spending receipts about 5% below that of the average
state, but Federal taxes more than one-fifth below average, Idaho continues
to have a substantial per capita balance of payments surplus. Its balance of payments has been in surplus in every year since our sample period began in 1983; it
peaked in the late 1980s as a result of increases in defense spending, then fell
from 1989 to 1993 as defense declined by more than 30%. Its surplus has now
been generally increasing since 1994, as defense spending climbed back to near its
peak and stabilized, bucking the national trend while most other states with substantial defense industries have seen marked declines. Per capita defense spending
in Idaho ranks 15th in the nation, about 30% above the average. Non-defense discretionary spending and Social Security are near national averages, but the state
ranks in the bottom fifth of states in Federal assistance spending (about one-fifth
below the average) and ranks 47th in Medicare spending, one-third below the average. Idaho’s low per capita income (41st in the nation) and correspondingly low
tax payments contribute to its persistent balance of payments surplus.
W
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
0
70
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
16
21
16
18
12
9
9
12
13
12
20
22
22
21
22
20
21
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from ID
$3,705
3,764
3,769
3,993
3,748
3,621
3,610
3,769
4,108
4,324
4,558
4,658
4,697
4,494
4,475
4,400
4,349
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in ID
$4,206
4,151
4,565
4,804
4,921
5,147
5,299
5,111
5,382
5,603
5,409
5,201
5,249
5,147
5,043
5,217
5,178
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$502
387
797
811
1,173
1,526
1,689
1,342
1,273
1,279
851
543
552
653
569
817
829
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
IL
Real Per Capita Income $31,195
Cost of Living Index
1.00
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
12%
Residents 65 and Over
12%
Residents under 18
26%
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
Rank
7
19
25
31
19
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$(1,669)
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
ILLINOIS, FY 1999
47
National National
Rank
Avg.
Per Capita
Federal Taxes
$(20,241)
$6,260
4
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
ILLINOIS, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$354
46
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,442
34
1,693
Social Security
1,501
29
1,508
Medicare
755
21
761
Assistance programs
540
36
616
$4,592
45
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Illinois
Population: 12.1 million
nly California has a higher total balance of payments deficit than Illinois’
$20.2 billion net outflow. Illinois has had a balance of payments deficit of
over $1,500 per capita in every year since 1984. It has ranked among the five
states with the highest balance of payments deficits in nearly every year since
1983. Illinois’ deficit is driven by significant departures from the average in both
spending and taxes. Illinois has the 6th lowest overall per capita receipts of Federal
spending, about 15% below the average. The state receives less than the national
average in every spending area, but its low overall receipts are driven principally by
very low receipts of defense funds. It ranks 5th from the bottom in per capita
receipts of defense spending, fully 60% below the average state. It falls 10 to 15%
below the average in receipts of both non-defense discretionary spending and in
Federal assistance programs. In Social Security and Medicare it receives close to the
national average. With its high per capita income, 7th in the nation (about 10%
above the average) and correspondingly high tax payments (nearly 15% above the
average), Illinois’ resulting balance of payments deficit is both large and durable.
O
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
0
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
47
49
49
49
48
48
48
46
48
47
46
47
48
48
48
45
47
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from IL
$5,489
5,244
5,517
5,585
5,455
5,433
5,525
5,726
5,957
6,245
6,337
6,305
6,388
6,315
6,321
6,225
6,260
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in IL
$4,159
3,579
3,800
3,919
3,900
3,935
3,969
4,138
4,350
4,593
4,726
4,705
4,701
4,626
4,605
4,690
4,592
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$(1,330)
(1,664)
(1,717)
(1,666)
(1,555)
(1,498)
(1,556)
(1,588)
(1,608)
(1,652)
(1,611)
(1,600)
(1,687)
(1,689)
(1,717)
(1,535)
(1,669)
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
71
Indiana
IN
Real Per Capita Income $27,083
Cost of Living Index
0.96
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
8%
Residents 65 and Over
13%
Residents under 18
26%
Population: 5.9 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$(399)
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
INDIANA, FY 1999
Federal Taxes
35
Per Capita
$5,085
$(2,373)
National National
Rank
Avg.
29
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
INDIANA, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$493
42
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,318
44
1,693
Social Security
1,663
17
1,508
Medicare
719
24
761
Assistance programs
492
40
616
$4,686
43
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Rank
31
24
49
26
23
ndiana has consistently had a moderate balance of payments deficit with
the Federal government, ranking between 40th and 35th in the nation since
1990. Its FY 1999 deficit of $400 per capita is slightly larger than last year’s,
though since 1995, the deficit has been on a generally decreasing trend. Indiana is unusual in being one of the few states with a notable deficit in total balance of payments that has tax payments significantly below average; its
FY 1999 taxes were about 7% lower than those of the average state, driven by
per capita income about 5% below the average. Its deficit arises because its
receipts of Federal spending fall below those of the average state by even more
– in FY 1999, by about 15%. Indiana takes in barely more than half of what
the average state receives in defense spending, ranking in the bottom 10 states.
It receives about one-fifth less than the average state in both non-defense discretionary and assistance spending. In both Social Security and Medicare, Indiana ranks slightly above the median states.
I
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
3000
High Spending
Low Taxes
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
72
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
42
38
39
39
41
42
41
38
39
40
39
40
40
40
38
36
35
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from IN
$4,497
4,401
4,595
4,649
4,472
4,448
4,461
4,553
4,737
5,035
5,210
5,161
5,294
5,294
5,154
5,066
5,085
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in IN
$3,710
3,865
4,139
4,174
3,970
3,912
4,001
4,075
4,337
4,431
4,723
4,490
4,506
4,570
4,659
4,693
4,686
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$(787)
(536)
(457)
(475)
(501)
(536)
(460)
(478)
(399)
(603)
(486)
(670)
(789)
(724)
(495)
(374)
(399)
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
IA
Real Per Capita Income $27,540
Cost of Living Index
0.93
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
9%
Residents 65 and Over
15%
Residents under 18
25%
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
Rank
26
34
45
5
33
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$750
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
IOWA, FY 1999
22
Per Capita
Federal Taxes
$5,071
$2,151
National National
Rank
Avg.
30
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
IOWA, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$325
47
$907
Non-defense discretionary
2,409
9
1,693
Social Security
1,837
5
1,508
Medicare
720
22
761
Assistance programs
529
37
616
$5,820
21
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Iowa
Population: 2.9 million
owa has had a generally rising balance of payments surplus with the Federal
government in the late 1990s, and a general trend toward a surplus since the
early 1980s. Its FY 1999 surplus of $750 per capita is the largest since our sample
period began in FY 1983. Iowa receives nearly two-thirds less per capita than the
average state in defense spending, ranking 4th from the bottom. By contrast, it
receives two-fifths more per capita in non-defense discretionary spending, in which
it ranks 9th, and one-fifth more in Social Security spending, ranking 5th. As a
result of its strong showing in these two areas (the largest spending areas), it
receives overall about 5% more than the average state in Federal funding. Iowa’s
per capita income is slightly less than average, resulting in tax payments nearly
10% below the average; in combination with its standing in spending, this results
in a balance of payments surplus of $750 per capita.
I
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
40
45
43
30
22
22
26
26
30
30
28
23
28
24
25
22
22
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from IA
$4,536
4,466
4,851
4,589
4,449
4,397
4,403
4,620
4,899
5,167
5,279
5,033
5,294
5,032
5,000
5,010
5,071
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in IA
$3,886
3,592
4,196
4,663
5,090
5,111
4,993
4,986
4,908
5,257
5,402
5,521
5,347
5,320
5,255
5,558
5,820
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$(651)
(874)
(655)
74
641
713
590
366
8
90
122
488
53
289
255
548
750
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
73
KS
Real Per Capita Income $28,534
Cost of Living Index
0.93
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
9%
Residents 65 and Over
13%
Residents under 18
26%
Kansas
Population: 2.7 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$373
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
KANSAS, FY 1999
Federal Taxes
25
Per Capita
$5,459
$990
National National
Rank
Avg.
20
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
KANSAS, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$898
25
$907
Non-defense discretionary
2,083
11
1,693
Social Security
1,646
19
1,508
Medicare
758
20
761
Assistance programs
447
43
616
$5,832
20
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Rank
20
35
46
18
16
hanges in the composition of the Federal budget have been dramatically
reflected in Kansas’ receipts of Federal funding. As home to a large defense
installation and having a small population, Kansas experienced a dramatic per
capita impact from nationwide reductions in defense spending; defense spending in
the state fell by about three-fifths in the 1980s. This decline was partially offset by
increases in farm subsidy programs, leaving Kansas’ balance of payments relatively
stable, generally with a modest surplus; in FY 1999, this amounted to about $400
per capita. Much of its recent increase in its balance with the Federal government is
due to increases in non-defense discretionary spending, where it now receives about
one-quarter more than the average state, ranking 11th. It is near the national average in defense and in Social Security and Medicare. It has a low poverty rate, and
correspondingly ranks low in receipt of Federal assistance program funds, receiving
about one-quarter less than the average. Overall, it receives slightly more than the
average in combined Federal spending; with per capita income and tax payments
nearly identical to the average, it winds up with a small balance of payments surplus.
C
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
0
74
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
29
19
19
22
26
28
27
27
28
28
29
27
29
31
30
26
25
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from KS
$5,201
5,145
5,268
5,226
5,099
4,873
4,892
4,984
5,461
5,661
5,801
5,650
5,651
5,476
5,429
5,397
5,459
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in KS
$5,029
5,567
5,633
5,652
5,434
5,372
5,253
5,302
5,598
5,814
5,879
5,882
5,697
5,437
5,389
5,584
5,832
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$(172)
421
365
427
335
499
360
318
137
153
78
232
46
(39)
(40)
187
373
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
KY
Real Per Capita Income $25,254
Cost of Living Index
0.92
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
15%
Residents 65 and Over
12%
Residents under 18
24%
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
Rank
36
45
12
28
41
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$1,595
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
KENTUCKY, FY 1999
14
Per Capita
Federal Taxes
$4,516
$6,317
National National
Rank
Avg.
39
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
KENTUCKY, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$970
21
Non-defense discretionary
1,702
24
1,693
Social Security
1,858
4
1,508
Medicare
800
16
761
Assistance programs
781
7
616
$6,111
15
$5,486
Total spending
$907
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Kentucky
Population: 4.0 million
fter rising steadily from FY 1993 to FY 1998, Kentucky’s balance of payments
dipped by nearly one-quarter in FY 1999. Nonetheless, Kentucky’s balance of
payments surplus is still nearly $1,600 per capita, ranking 14th. It receives about
10% more in total Federal spending than the average state, and in spite of this
year’s spending declines (in every area except Social Security) it still receives more
than the average state in every spending area. Though it ranks only slightly above
the average state in defense spending, Kentucky has experienced none of the
decline in defense funding seen in other states. Kentucky’s relatively large elderly
population makes it the nation’s 4th largest per capita recipient of Social Security
(about one-quarter higher than the average state), and its relatively high poverty
rate makes it the 7th highest per capita recipient of Federal assistance program
funding, more than one-quarter above the average state). Its correspondingly low
average income (about 10% below the average state) results in Federal tax payments nearly 20% below the average; together with its above-average receipt of
funding, this leads to its substantial balance of payments surplus.
A
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
3000
High Spending
Low Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
25
18
26
8
20
27
19
14
12
18
19
18
11
14
14
9
14
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from KY
$3,870
3,892
4,069
3,979
3,839
3,878
3,862
3,966
4,267
4,536
4,703
4,614
4,646
4,618
4,538
4,473
4,516
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in KY
$4,178
4,324
4,254
5,446
4,570
4,385
4,896
5,159
5,564
5,508
5,638
5,586
6,009
5,881
6,152
6,546
6,111
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$308
431
185
1,467
731
507
1,034
1,192
1,297
972
935
972
1,363
1,263
1,613
2,073
1,595
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
00
1500
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
75
LA
Real Per Capita Income $24,553
Cost of Living Index
0.93
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
16%
Residents 65 and Over
11%
Residents under 18
27%
Louisiana
Population: 4.4 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$1,576
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
LOUISIANA, FY 1999
Federal Taxes
15
Per Capita
$4,432
$6,892
National National
Rank
Avg.
40
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
LOUISIANA, FY 1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$788
28
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,815
20
1,693
Social Security
1,597
24
1,508
Medicare
1,001
3
761
807
4
616
$6,008
17
$5,486
Assistance programs
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Rank
42
38
8
40
7
ouisiana’s balance of payments has been on a generally increasing trend since
our sample period began in 1983; having begun with a balance of payments
deficit of nearly $650 per capita, it now has a balance of payments surplus of
nearly $1,600 per person. This trend has been driven by steady increases in Federal
spending (largely in Federal grants) and a generally flat trend in tax payments. The
state ranks 17th in overall per capita receipts of Federal spending, 10% above the
average. In spite of a small decline in FY 1999, Louisiana is still the 3rd highest
recipient of Medicare funds, about one-third above those of the average state. The
state has relatively low income and a high poverty rate, and ranks 4th in per capita
receipt of Federal assistance funds, taking in about one-third more than the average. Louisiana experienced the same general decline in defense spending from the
mid-1980s through the mid-1990s seen by many other states, though its defense
receipts have risen in the last several years; notwithstanding this increase, it still
receives about 15% less than average. Its income also drives its relatively low Federal tax payments; it ranks 40th, paying nearly one-fifth less than the average.
L
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
76
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
39
37
29
29
28
24
18
17
18
13
13
11
10
13
13
16
15
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from LA
$4,763
4,552
4,521
4,381
4,016
3,705
3,734
3,824
4,104
4,462
4,627
4,542
4,660
4,479
4,371
4,446
4,432
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in LA
$4,120
4,090
4,463
4,474
4,183
4,325
4,793
4,971
5,143
5,629
5,953
6,032
6,099
5,775
6,008
5,758
6,008
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$(643)
(462)
(58)
93
167
620
1,060
1,147
1,039
1,167
1,326
1,490
1,439
1,296
1,636
1,312
1,576
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
ME
Real Per Capita Income $23,793
Cost of Living Index
1.05
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
11%
Residents 65 and Over
14%
Residents under 18
23%
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
Rank
44
9
32
10
49
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$1,324
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
MAINE, FY 1999
Per Capita
Federal Taxes
$4,215
16
$1,660
National National
Rank
Avg.
45
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
MAINE, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$1,110
16
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,399
39
1,693
Social Security
1,589
25
1,508
Medicare
648
33
761
Assistance programs
794
5
616
$5,539
25
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Maine
Population: 1.3 million
aine continues to be the only Northeast state to have a substantial balance
of payments surplus, resulting from taxes about one-quarter less than the
average state (due to its having the 7th lowest per capita income in the nation)
and from high spending in defense and assistance programs. Declines in both these
areas in FY 1999 narrowed its balance of payments surplus by about one-fifth, but
it remains over $1,300 per capita, 16th in the nation. Despite the decline this
year, Maine still receives over one-fifth more in defense funding per capita than
the average state, and its relatively liberal state policies for assistance programs
result in its being the 5th highest per capita recipient of Federal funding for assistance, about 30% higher than the average, in spite of having a poverty rate slightly
below the national average. Maine has had a substantial per capita balance of
payments surplus since the early 1990s, when defense spending rebounded after a
nearly 60% decline between 1985 and 1989; since then, continuing volatility in
defense spending in the state has been offset by growth in Federal assistance
spending.
M
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
BO
00
-$
5
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
15
HI
10
+10%
P=
+$
ap
ita
rc
WY
OK
-$
BOP
Rank
13
11
8
17
16
26
28
23
17
8
9
12
12
17
15
14
16
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Federal
Spending in ME Taxes from ME
$4,321
$3,590
4,492
3,651
5,066
3,788
4,648
3,815
4,834
3,837
4,525
4,003
4,281
4,060
4,912
4,091
5,338
4,217
6,094
4,293
5,963
4,320
5,791
4,319
5,581
4,318
5,535
4,297
5,763
4,164
5,838
4,171
5,539
4,215
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$731
841
1,279
833
996
522
221
821
1,121
1,801
1,643
1,471
1,262
1,238
1,599
1,668
1,324
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
77
MD
Real Per Capita Income $33,018
Cost of Living Index
0.97
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
8%
Residents 65 and Over
12%
Residents under 18
25%
Maryland
Population: 5.2 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$1,770
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
MARYLAND, FY 1999
Federal Taxes
Per Capita
$6,564
12
$9,155
National National
Rank
Avg.
3
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
MARYLAND, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$1,895
5
$907
Non-defense discretionary
3,768
3
1,693
Social Security
1,322
44
1,508
Medicare
762
19
761
Assistance programs
587
27
616
$8,334
2
$5,486
Total spending
Rank
2
23
47
38
29
n FY 1999, Maryland’s surplus fell by almost 20%, the result of a modest decline
in spending and a modest increase in tax payments, and Maryland slipped out
of the top ten states in per capita balance of payments for the first time since
1993. Maryland remains one of the few states where high spending more than offsets above-average tax payments to produce a substantial surplus (now about
$1,800 per capita). Maryland continues to be a major recipient of both defense
and non-defense discretionary spending, at more than twice the average. It continues to rank 5th in per capita defense spending, and while it experienced a modest decline in non-defense discretionary spending this year, it still ranks in the top
five. Even with spending only equal to the average in Medicare, slightly below the
average in assistance programs, and about 10% below the average in Social Security, Maryland’s overall per capita receipt of Federal funds is still more than half
again what the average state receives. With its 2nd highest per capita income,
Maryland contributes one-fifth more per capita than taxpayers in the average state.
At $9.2 billion, Maryland’s total surplus is the second highest among the 50 states.
I
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
0
78
BO
00
-$
5
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
15
HI
10
+10%
P=
+$
ap
ita
rc
WY
OK
-$
BOP
Rank
5
5
6
10
6
11
14
13
11
10
12
9
7
9
8
8
12
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Federal
Spending in MD Taxes from MD
$7,161
$5,553
7,026
5,480
7,387
5,800
7,412
6,164
7,516
5,892
7,271
5,816
7,174
5,932
7,273
5,968
7,508
6,165
7,893
6,453
7,937
6,534
8,123
6,442
8,148
6,418
7,899
6,399
8,103
6,300
8,483
6,335
8,334
6,564
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$1,609
1,546
1,587
1,248
1,624
1,456
1,243
1,306
1,343
1,440
1,403
1,682
1,731
1,501
1,802
2,148
1,770
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
MA
Real Per Capita Income $31,292
Cost of Living Index
1.14
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
15%
Residents 65 and Over
14%
Residents under 18
24%
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
Rank
6
2
16
11
46
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$(895)
42
$(5,526)
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
National National
MASSACHUSETTS,FY1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Federal Taxes
$6,256
5
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
MASSACHUSETTS,FY1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$836
26
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,528
30
1,693
Social Security
1,415
36
1,508
Medicare
891
6
761
Assistance programs
691
13
616
$5,361
30
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Massachusetts
Population: 6.2 million
assachusetts’ balance of payments position with the Federal government has
been steadily declining since 1991, and generally declining since our sample
period began in 1983; that trend continued in FY 1999. In FY 1983, Massachusetts
had a modest balance of payments surplus; rising tax payments and declining Federal spending received by the state have now produced a per capita balance of
payments deficit of about $900. Massachusetts’ overall receipt of Federal funding
is very close to the national average, and it is not far from the average in any of
our spending areas. It is about 10% below average in both defense and nondefense discretionary spending, and about 5% below average in Social Security;
these are roughly counterbalanced by its receipt of a little over 15% more than the
average state in Medicare (in which it ranks 6th in the nation) and a little over
10% more than the average state in Federal assistance program funding. Its 6thhighest-in-the-nation per capita income makes it the 5th highest Federal taxpayer
on a per capita basis; its taxpayers contribute nearly 15% more than those of the
average state.
M
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
0
BO
00
-$
5
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
15
HI
10
+10%
P=
+$
ap
ita
rc
WY
OK
-$
BOP
Rank
21
17
22
25
27
35
31
30
27
31
31
33
37
39
40
40
42
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Federal
Spending in MA Taxes from MA
$5,371
$4,954
5,463
5,020
5,600
5,306
5,829
5,507
5,729
5,515
5,335
5,601
5,666
5,717
5,592
5,503
5,766
5,572
5,825
5,765
5,837
5,882
5,788
5,913
5,699
6,003
5,566
6,021
5,542
6,164
5,421
6,214
5,361
6,256
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$417
443
294
322
214
(266)
(50)
89
193
60
(45)
(125)
(304)
(454)
(622)
(793)
(895)
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
79
Michigan
MI
Real Per Capita Income $29,313
Cost of Living Index
0.95
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
11%
Residents 65 and Over
12%
Residents under 18
26%
Population: 9.9 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$(1,042)
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
MICHIGAN, FY 1999
Federal Taxes
44
Per Capita
$5,724
$(10,277)
National National
Rank
Avg.
16
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
MICHIGAN, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$265
50
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,197
46
1,693
Social Security
1,742
10
1,508
Medicare
824
13
761
Assistance programs
655
18
616
$4,682
44
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Rank
14
31
38
30
20
ichigan is consistently among the states with the highest per capita deficits,
the result of both lower-than-average receipts of Federal spending and higherthan-average tax payments. In recent years, its deficit has decreased gradually as
Federal spending has stayed approximately the same while taxes have fallen
slightly; the FY 1999 deficit is only slightly over $1,000 per capita, down from an
FY 1996 peak of over $1,400. Total Federal spending in Michigan is 15% below
that in the average state; only six states receive less. This is accounted for by large
departures from the average in defense and non-defense discretionary spending.
Michigan continues to rank last in per capita receipt of defense spending, receiving
70% less than the average state, and it ranks 5th from the bottom in non-defense
discretionary spending, with about one-third less than the average state. In Social
Security, in which Michigan ranks 10th, receipts are about 15% more than the
average state. Its receipts of Medicare and Federal assistance program funding are
slightly above average. Its relatively high per capita income leads to tax payments
modestly above the average state, leaving Michigan in the top third of states.
M
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
3000
High Spending
Low Taxes
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
80
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
45
47
47
47
49
47
46
45
45
44
44
42
43
46
44
44
44
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from MI
$4,824
4,797
4,974
5,336
5,438
5,250
5,268
5,325
5,529
5,805
5,969
5,908
6,201
6,057
6,015
5,834
5,724
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in MI
$3,815
3,774
3,944
4,043
3,880
3,801
3,974
4,255
4,420
4,850
4,843
4,857
4,789
4,639
4,628
4,602
4,682
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$(1,009)
(1,024)
(1,030)
(1,293)
(1,557)
(1,449)
(1,294)
(1,070)
(1,109)
(955)
(1,126)
(1,051)
(1,411)
(1,418)
(1,387)
(1,231)
(1,042)
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
MN
Real Per Capita Income $32,232
Cost of Living Index
0.95
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
10%
Residents 65 and Over
12%
Residents under 18
27%
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
Rank
3
30
42
33
13
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$(1,294)
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
MINNESOTA, FY 1999
Per Capita
Federal Taxes
$6,069
45
$(6,180)
National National
Rank
Avg.
7
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
MINNESOTA, FY 1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$432
43
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,713
23
1,693
Social Security
1,455
34
1,508
Medicare
595
38
761
Assistance programs
581
28
616
$4,775
41
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Minnesota
Population: 4.8 million
fter rising steadily since FY 1987, Minnesota’s balance of payments deficit with
the Federal government declined somewhat in FY 1999, to about $1,300 per
capita (still the 6th highest per capita deficit in the nation), as the result of a
modest increase in receipt of spending and a modest decrease in tax payments. Like
many of the Great Lakes states, Minnesota has consistently had a substantial balance of payments deficit, driven by significantly below-average spending and
above-average taxes. Its overall per capita receipts of Federal spending are 10th
lowest in the nation, nearly 15% below those of the average state. Minnesota
receives the average amount only in non-defense spending, and falls slightly below
the average in Social Security and in Federal funding for assistance programs. By
contrast, it receives only half of the average in defense spending, and about onefifth less than the average in Medicare. Minnesota’s high per capita income, nearly
15% above the average and third in the nation, results in tax payments more than
10% above the average. This appears to be a durable situation; Minnesota has been
in the top 12 per capita deficit states in every year since our study period began.
A
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
0
BO
00
-$
5
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
15
HI
10
+10%
P=
+$
ap
ita
rc
WY
OK
-$
BOP
Rank
41
42
44
41
39
40
43
41
42
45
45
44
47
45
45
47
45
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Federal
Spending in MN Taxes from MN
$4,177
$4,879
4,214
4,890
4,443
5,103
4,627
5,198
4,769
5,157
4,717
5,189
4,679
5,178
4,614
5,294
4,882
5,637
4,826
5,957
4,927
6,107
4,867
6,087
4,783
6,237
4,576
5,982
4,687
6,120
4,670
6,238
4,775
6,069
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$(702)
(676)
(660)
(571)
(388)
(472)
(499)
(680)
(755)
(1,131)
(1,180)
(1,220)
(1,454)
(1,407)
(1,433)
(1,568)
(1,294)
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
81
MS
Real Per Capita Income $22,689
Cost of Living Index
0.90
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
15%
Residents 65 and Over
12%
Residents under 18
27%
Mississippi
Population: 2.8 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$2,684
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
MISSISSIPPI, FY 1999
Federal Taxes
Per Capita
$3,905
7
$7,431
National National
Rank
Avg.
50
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
MISSISSIPPI, FY 1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$1,285
13
Non-defense discretionary
1,877
17
1,693
Social Security
1,776
9
1,508
Medicare
863
9
761
Assistance programs
788
6
616
$6,589
10
$5,486
Total spending
$907
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Rank
49
50
11
35
8
s a recipient of above-average Federal spending in every category, and as the
lowest per capita Federal taxpaying state (paying 29% less than the average), Mississippi has one of the largest per capita balance of payments surpluses
in the nation. Overall it ranks 10th in receipt of Federal spending, taking in onefifth more than the average. It is particularly successful in attracting defense
spending, of which it gets more than two-fifths more than the average state. Its
relatively high poverty rate results in Federal assistance program spending of
nearly 30% above the average, ranking 6th in the nation. It also ranks in the top
10 states in Social Security and Medicare spending, receiving 18 and 13% more
than the average state, respectively. Even in non-defense discretionary spending,
in which it is closest to the average, Mississippi receives more than 10% more
than the average state. Given its 49th-ranked per capita income, one-fifth below
the average, its low taxes combine with Mississippi’s success in every spending
area to produce a per capita balance of payments surplus of about $2,700, nearly
a new record for the state.
A
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
0
82
BO
00
-$
5
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
15
HI
10
+10%
P=
+$
ap
ita
rc
WY
OK
-$
BOP
Rank
4
2
5
4
4
3
4
3
2
2
2
2
4
2
5
6
7
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Federal
Spending in MS Taxes from MS
$5,403
$3,391
5,555
3,364
5,054
3,439
5,366
3,354
5,396
3,258
5,937
3,175
5,327
3,225
5,589
3,225
5,977
3,484
6,893
3,776
6,393
3,895
6,593
3,891
6,413
4,004
6,571
4,022
6,348
4,014
6,279
3,929
6,589
3,905
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$2,011
2,191
1,616
2,012
2,139
2,762
2,102
2,364
2,493
3,116
2,498
2,701
2,409
2,549
2,333
2,351
2,684
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
MO
Real Per Capita Income $28,201
Cost of Living Index
0.93
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
12%
Residents 65 and Over
14%
Residents under 18
26%
Rank
23
37
30
14
25
Missouri
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
issouri’s flows of Federal spending in FY 1999 are little changed from the year
before. Missouri’s taxes are virtually identical to the national average, while
its receipts of Federal spending are above the average in every category. Its resulting balance of payments surplus of about $1,200 per capita is virtually unchanged
from the last two years. It ranks 12th in defense spending, receiving more than
two-fifths more than the average. In non-defense spending, Social Security, and
Medicare, the state receives between 15 and 20% more than the average. Only in
assistance spending, where the state’s moderate poverty rate puts it near the
national average, is Federal spending in Missouri close to the average of other
states. Missouri’s longer-term history is dominated by its sharing in the national
trend in defense; always a major defense spending recipient, Missouri followed the
national trend in defense over the last two decades, and while it remains a major
host for defense activity, its per capita receipt of defense spending is now only a
little more than two-fifths what it was at its 1985 peak. Correspondingly, the
state’s balance of payments surplus is only about half of its 1985 peak.
Balance of Payments
$1,187
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
MISSOURI, FY 1999
Per Capita
Federal Taxes
$5,358
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
18
$6,490
National National
Rank
Avg.
22
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
MISSOURI, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$1,293
12
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,966
14
1,693
Social Security
1,776
8
1,508
Medicare
881
7
761
Assistance programs
629
20
616
$6,544
11
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Population: 5.5 million
M
PER CAPITA TAXES AND SPENDING COMPARED TO NATIONAL AVERAGES, FY 1999
+70%
3000
High Spending
Low Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
BO
00
-$
5
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
15
HI
10
+10%
P=
+$
ap
ita
rc
WY
OK
-$
BOP
Rank
3
4
3
7
11
13
8
8
8
17
10
6
9
5
17
17
18
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Federal
Spending in MO Taxes from MO
$6,557
$4,538
6,713
4,625
7,097
4,825
6,495
5,001
6,287
4,838
6,211
4,835
6,492
4,765
6,471
4,838
6,721
5,046
6,452
5,338
6,999
5,456
7,177
5,422
6,957
5,499
7,483
5,410
6,542
5,330
6,603
5,334
6,544
5,358
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$2,019
2,088
2,272
1,493
1,449
1,376
1,726
1,633
1,675
1,114
1,543
1,755
1,457
2,074
1,212
1,269
1,187
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
83
MT
Real Per Capita Income $23,381
Cost of Living Index
0.95
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
15%
Residents 65 and Over
13%
Residents under 18
25%
Montana
Population: 0.9 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$3,109
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
MONTANA, FY 1999
Federal Taxes
2
Per Capita
$4,279
$2,745
National National
Rank
Avg.
43
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
MONTANA, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$596
35
$907
Non-defense discretionary
3,939
1
1,693
Social Security
1,624
20
1,508
Medicare
630
35
761
Assistance programs
599
24
616
$7,389
6
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Rank
45
26
10
20
27
ontana continues to be one of the few states with a strong balance of payments surplus that has relatively low defense spending. Its surplus has been
rising steadily since 1994; FY 1999 again saw a new record surplus for the state,
now over $3,100 per capita and 2nd highest in the nation. Montana ranks 6th in
overall receipt of Federal funds, now about $7,400 per person, more than one-third
above the average. It ranks 35th, however, in defense spending, receiving about
one-third less than the average state. It is slightly above average in Social Security, and about one-fifth below the average in Medicare. Given its low per capita
income and high poverty rate, its average receipt of Federal funds for assistance
programs is mildly surprising. But the major departure from the experience of other
states is in the area of non-defense discretionary spending; Montana now ranks 1st
in the nation in this spending area, receiving nearly two and one-half times as
much as the average state. With tax payments more than 20% below average,
Montana’s success in attracting discretionary domestic spending generates a large
and durable balance of payments surplus.
M
PER CAPITA TAXES AND SPENDING COMPARED TO NATIONAL AVERAGES, FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
84
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
20
20
12
11
10
6
5
6
7
7
6
8
6
6
6
5
2
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from MT
$4,278
4,307
4,295
4,189
4,064
3,806
3,766
3,982
4,254
4,497
4,592
4,702
4,598
4,470
4,296
4,199
4,279
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in MT
$4,722
4,727
5,317
5,417
5,522
5,464
5,811
5,746
5,976
6,315
6,384
6,388
6,372
6,289
6,485
6,653
7,389
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$444
420
1,022
1,228
1,458
1,658
2,045
1,764
1,722
1,818
1,792
1,686
1,774
1,819
2,189
2,454
3,109
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
NE
Real Per Capita Income $29,237
Cost of Living Index
0.94
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
10%
Residents 65 and Over
14%
Residents under 18
27%
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
Rank
15
33
43
12
12
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$320
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
NEBRASKA, FY 1999
27
Per Capita
Federal Taxes
$5,304
$533
National National
Rank
Avg.
23
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
NEBRASKA, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$657
32
$907
Non-defense discretionary
2,177
10
1,693
Social Security
1,614
23
1,508
Medicare
629
36
761
Assistance programs
547
33
616
$5,624
23
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Nebraska
Population: 1.7 million
small increase in the non-defense discretionary area led to a modest increase in
Nebraska’s balance of payments surplus in FY 1999, raising it over $300 per
capita for the first time since FY 1993. Nebraska experienced a significant improvement of its balance of payments position in the late 1980s, when increases in farm
subsidies drove its surplus above $1,000 per capita, but its surplus eroded during the
1990s as its receipts from agricultural stabilization programs decreased, leading to
an approximately neutral position by FY 1994. Nebraska’s balance of payments has
been rising gradually in the last several years, largely from increases in non-defense
discretionary spending, in which Nebraska now ranks 10th, receiving about 30%
more than the average state. Its receipts of defense funding are about the same
amount below the average. It also ranks relatively low in Medicare (a little more
than 15% below average) and funding for assistance programs (about 10% below
average, driven by the state’s relatively low poverty rate). Its receipts of Social Security are slightly above average. With per capita income near the national average,
Nebraska’s Federal tax collections are a few percentage points below average.
A
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
3000
High Spending
Low Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
27
33
30
24
23
16
23
25
25
29
24
28
34
32
34
29
27
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from NE
$4,477
4,506
4,763
4,817
4,564
4,474
4,413
4,667
5,069
5,370
5,420
5,374
5,469
5,223
5,371
5,282
5,304
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in NE
$4,665
4,178
4,659
5,160
5,174
5,487
5,122
5,254
5,305
5,518
5,867
5,508
5,303
5,176
5,214
5,408
5,624
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$188
(329)
(104)
344
610
1,014
709
587
237
148
447
134
(166)
(46)
(157)
125
320
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
85
NV
Real Per Capita Income $30,110
Cost of Living Index
1.01
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
12%
Residents 65 and Over
11%
Residents under 18
27%
Nevada
Population: 1.8 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$(1,583)
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
NEVADA, FY 1999
Federal Taxes
46
Per Capita
$5,938
$(2,865)
National National
Rank
Avg.
9
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
NEVADA, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$944
22
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,172
48
1,693
Social Security
1,349
42
1,508
Medicare
561
42
761
Assistance programs
330
49
616
$4,355
48
$5,486
Total spending
Rank
9
16
31
41
9
evada remains the only state outside of the Northeast and Great Lakes regions
that consistently has a large balance of payments deficit. In FY 1999, its
deficit declined slightly from the record set in FY 1998, but it is still nearly $1,600
per capita, now 5th largest in the nation. Overall Federal spending is about onefifth below the national average (as it was last year), and it is below the national
average in every area except defense (where it is only slightly above the average).
Home to the fastest growing city in the country, and hence to a comparatively
young population, Nevada has low Social Security and Medicare receipts, ranking
42nd in both areas and receiving 11 and 26% less than the average, respectively.
It ranks even lower in non-defense discretionary spending (48th, receiving about
30% less than the national average) and assistance program funding (49th, receiving only slightly more than half of the national average). With per capita income
and, correspondingly, Federal taxes a little more than 5% above the national average and Federal spending persistently significantly below it, Nevada has a sizable
and durable balance of payments deficit.
N
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
25
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
0
86
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
35
30
32
21
35
41
39
43
41
43
43
46
45
43
47
48
46
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from NV
$5,371
5,141
5,339
5,279
5,157
5,112
5,168
5,422
5,377
5,764
5,865
6,019
6,171
6,021
6,023
6,213
5,938
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in NV
$4,886
4,954
5,074
5,784
4,969
4,628
4,786
4,431
4,718
4,812
4,789
4,662
4,751
4,973
4,398
4,410
4,355
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$(485)
(187)
(265)
505
(188)
(484)
(382)
(991)
(658)
(951)
(1,076)
(1,358)
(1,420)
(1,047)
(1,625)
(1,802)
(1,583)
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
NH
Real Per Capita Income $28,476
Cost of Living Index
1.09
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
11%
Residents 65 and Over
12%
Residents under 18
25%
Rank
22
8
37
36
28
New Hampshire
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
ith Federal spending significantly below the average of other states in every
spending area, leading to overall Federal spending more than one-quarter
below the average of other states, and Federal taxes more than 5% above the
national average, New Hampshire’s deficit set a new record for the state in FY 1999,
and is now approaching $1,800 per person, 3rd largest in the nation. Its deficit is
substantially larger than it was in the early 1980s, before rising incomes (and, correspondingly, Federal tax payments) combined with sharp decreases in defense
spending to transform an approximately neutral position into a significant deficit.
Defense spending in New Hampshire is now less than two-fifths of its FY 1984 peak,
and is about 40% below that of the average state. New Hampshire’s receipts are
also about 30% below the average state in non-defense discretionary, Medicare,
and assistance program funding. Only in Social Security funding does it come close
to the average, but even in this area still falls 10% below the national average. It
ranks around 40th in defense and Social Security, 44th in Medicare, 46th in assistance program funding, and 47th in non-defense discretionary spending.
Balance of Payments
$(1,787)
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
48
$(2,147)
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
National National
NEW HAMPSHIRE, FY1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Federal Taxes
$5,854
13
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
NEW HAMPSHIRE, FY1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$576
38
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,189
47
1,693
Social Security
1,358
41
1,508
Medicare
528
44
761
Assistance programs
415
46
616
$4,067
50
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Population: 1.2 million
W
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
3000
High Spending
Low Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
BO
00
-$
5
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
15
HI
10
+10%
P=
+$
ap
ita
rc
WY
OK
-$
BOP
Rank
31
29
38
46
46
49
49
47
46
46
47
45
46
47
46
46
48
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Federal
Spending in NH Taxes from NH
$4,415
$4,602
4,551
4,689
4,493
4,924
4,084
5,160
3,946
5,201
3,815
5,392
3,817
5,507
3,818
5,462
3,999
5,393
4,290
5,511
3,929
5,685
4,237
5,572
4,307
5,738
4,261
5,702
4,129
5,628
4,190
5,755
4,067
5,854
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$(188)
(138)
(431)
(1,076)
(1,255)
(1,577)
(1,690)
(1,644)
(1,394)
(1,221)
(1,756)
(1,335)
(1,430)
(1,441)
(1,498)
(1,565)
(1,787)
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
87
NJ
Real Per Capita Income $31,750
Cost of Living Index
1.14
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
11%
Residents 65 and Over
14%
Residents under 18
25%
New Jersey
Population: 8.1 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$(2,342)
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
NEW JERSEY, FY 1999
Federal Taxes
49
Per Capita
$6,705
$(19,076)
National National
Rank
Avg.
2
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
NEW JERSEY, FY 1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$504
41
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,097
50
1,693
Social Security
1,452
35
1,508
Medicare
765
18
761
Assistance programs
543
34
616
$4,362
47
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1998
Federal Spending Per Capita
Rank
4
3
34
15
36
ith overall per capita receipts of Federal funds ranking 47th in the nation,
one-fifth below the national average, and Federal tax payments ranking
2nd, one-fifth above the national average, New Jersey has one of the highest
deficits in the nation. Since FY 1993, its deficit has ranked 2nd, and in FY 1999 it
reached over $2,300 per capita, the highest value the state has seen since
FY 1990. Spending is significantly below the average in both defense funding
(44% below average) and non-defense discretionary receipts (about one-third
below the average, and last in the nation). In keeping with its relatively low
poverty rate, New Jersey also receives about 10% less than the national average
in Federal funding for assistance programs. Only in the Social Security and
Medicare areas does the state receive approximately the same amount as the
average state. New Jersey’s high per capita income, 4th in the nation and more
than 10% above the average, has persistently generated per capita Federal tax
payments among the highest in the nation. In FY 1999, New Jersey sent a total
of over $19 billion to Washington, the 3rd highest total in the nation.
W
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
3000
High Spending
Low Taxes
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
88
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from NJ
$5,716
5,795
6,032
6,230
6,244
6,352
6,512
6,534
6,561
6,821
6,848
6,601
6,652
6,514
6,514
6,517
6,705
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in NJ
$3,915
4,069
4,196
4,050
3,934
3,924
4,002
4,130
4,296
4,601
4,647
4,581
4,573
4,487
4,507
4,463
4,362
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$(1,801)
(1,726)
(1,836)
(2,181)
(2,310)
(2,429)
(2,510)
(2,404)
(2,265)
(2,220)
(2,202)
(2,021)
(2,079)
(2,027)
(2,006)
(2,054)
(2,342)
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
NM
Real Per Capita Income $22,591
Cost of Living Index
0.98
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
22%
Residents 65 and Over
11%
Residents under 18
28%
Rank
50
22
1
39
4
New Mexico
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
ew Mexico has ranked first in the nation in per capita balance of payments
surplus with the Federal government since FY 1984. This year, it continues to
rank 3rd in overall Federal spending receipts, now capturing nearly half again as
much as the average state, and continues to rank 47th in tax payments, more than
one-fourth below the average, and this generates a balance of payments surplus of
nearly $4,000 per capita, the largest since FY 1992 and FY 1993 (though still about
20% less than the state’s high of over $4,800 per capita in FY 1988). Defense is
funded at approximately three times the national average, and 2nd only to Virginia. New Mexico also receives nearly 60% more than the average state in nondefense discretionary spending. Its relatively young population leads to Social
Security payments slightly below the average and to Medicare funding nearly onethird below the average. With its lowest-in-the-nation per capita income and its
highest-in-the-nation poverty rate, the state receives one-fifth more than the average state in Federal funding for assistance programs. Its low per capita income
also drives its relatively low Federal tax burden.
Balance of Payments
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
$3,944
1
$6,862
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
National National
NEW MEXICO, FY 1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Federal Taxes
$4,048
47
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
NEW MEXICO, FY 1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$2,655
2
$907
Non-defense discretionary
2,678
8
1,693
Social Security
1,387
38
1,508
Medicare
530
43
761
Assistance programs
742
10
616
$7,992
3
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Population: 1.7 million
N
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
3000
High Spending
Low Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
BO
00
-$
5
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
15
HI
10
+10%
P=
+$
ap
ita
rc
WY
OK
-$
BOP
Rank
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Federal
Spending in NM Taxes from NM
$6,636
$3,949
7,095
3,948
7,178
4,001
7,380
3,950
7,475
3,808
8,424
3,618
7,426
3,570
7,534
3,629
7,720
3,834
8,129
4,094
8,303
4,189
7,873
4,164
7,885
4,233
7,725
4,225
7,677
4,074
7,811
4,032
7,992
4,048
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$2,687
3,147
3,177
3,430
3,667
4,806
3,856
3,906
3,885
4,035
4,114
3,708
3,651
3,501
3,603
3,778
3,944
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
00
1500
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
89
NY
Real Per Capita Income $29,997
Cost of Living Index
1.13
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
19%
Residents 65 and Over
13%
Residents under 18
24%
New York
Population: 18.2 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$(890)
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
NEW YORK, FY 1999
Federal Taxes
41
Per Capita
$5,834
$(16,189)
National National
Rank
Avg.
14
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
NEW YORK, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$305
48
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,370
41
1,693
Social Security
1,473
32
1,508
Medicare
812
15
761
Assistance programs
985
1
616
$4,944
37
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Rank
10
4
2
17
39
ew York’s total balance of payments deficit with the Federal government, now
$16.2 billion, remains the fourth largest in the nation. Its per capita deficit,
now about $900, has been relatively steady since 1986. New York’s persistent
deficit is the product of durable patterns of lower-than-average Federal spending
(overall receipts are now about 10% below the average), combined with relatively
high Federal taxes (about 6% above average, driven by the state’s relatively high
per capita income). In defense, New York receives only one-third as much as the
average, ranking behind all but two other states; in non-defense discretionary
spending, it again ranks in the bottom ten states, receiving about 20% less than
average. By contrast, New York’s receipts are about average in both Social Security
and Medicare. And, in sharp contrast, it receives three-fifths more than the average state, and ranks 1st, in Federal funding for assistance programs. In spite of its
high per capita income, New York persistently has a high poverty rate which,
together with state policy choices that drive its participation in Federal assistance
programs, results in substantial Federal spending in this program area.
N
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
3000
High Spending
Low Taxes
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
90
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
34
34
40
42
43
44
44
44
44
41
41
43
41
41
41
41
41
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from NY
$4,940
4,875
5,110
5,377
5,329
5,298
5,402
5,456
5,616
5,788
5,886
5,982
5,978
5,702
5,655
5,801
5,834
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in NY
$4,503
4,522
4,580
4,617
4,514
4,294
4,343
4,389
4,631
4,990
4,962
4,879
5,035
4,934
4,953
4,947
4,944
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$(438)
(353)
(530)
(760)
(815)
(1,005)
(1,059)
(1,068)
(986)
(798)
(924)
(1,103)
(943)
(767)
(702)
(854)
(890)
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
NC
Real Per Capita Income $28,490
Cost of Living Index
0.92
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
11%
Residents 65 and Over
12%
Residents under 18
25%
Rank
21
43
35
27
26
North Carolina
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
or the fourth year in a row, North Carolina in FY 1999 showed a small balance
of payments surplus with the Federal government (now about $150 per
capita), with both taxes and expenditures very little changed for the last few years.
North Carolina’s balance of payments have been on a generally rising trend since
the mid-1980s, the product of expenditures growing at a slightly faster pace than
taxes; overall, it now receives about 4% less than the average state but pays about
6% less than the average in taxes as a result of its middle ranking per capita
income. Being near the average in both spending and taxes leaves it with a nearly
neutral balance of flows with the Federal treasury, and North Carolina is near the
average not only in total spending, but in every spending area; its largest deviation is in non-defense discretionary spending, where it receives about 15% less
than the average; in all of the other spending areas, it is within about 10% of the
national average. North Carolina thus comes close to representing the Federal
spending and taxes of the “average” state, closely mirroring the national mix of
Federal spending.
Balance of Payments
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
$146
30
$1,115
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
National National
N. CAROLINA, FY 1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Federal Taxes
$5,141
27
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
N. CAROLINA, FY 1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$898
24
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,415
37
1,693
Social Security
1,666
16
1,508
Medicare
677
29
761
Assistance programs
631
19
616
$5,287
33
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Population: 7.7 million
F
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
30
32
36
37
38
32
36
34
34
33
33
32
32
29
27
30
30
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from NC
$3,948
4,065
4,324
4,424
4,369
4,376
4,457
4,465
4,785
4,977
5,109
5,083
5,108
5,191
5,190
5,172
5,141
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in NC
$3,763
3,789
3,979
4,076
4,130
4,187
4,245
4,286
4,652
4,977
4,956
4,984
5,066
5,245
5,244
5,238
5,287
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$(185)
(276)
(345)
(348)
(239)
(189)
(212)
(179)
(133)
(0)
(153)
(99)
(41)
54
53
66
146
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
91
ND
Real Per Capita Income $25,269
Cost of Living Index
0.93
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
13%
Residents 65 and Over
15%
Residents under 18
25%
North Dakota
Population: 0.6 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$3,043
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
N. DAKOTA, FY 1999
Federal Taxes
4
Per Capita
$4,647
$1,928
National National
Rank
Avg.
36
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
N. DAKOTA, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$1,005
20
$907
Non-defense discretionary
3,745
4
1,693
Social Security
1,624
22
1,508
Medicare
720
23
761
Assistance programs
596
25
616
$7,690
4
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Rank
35
36
22
6
31
ince the mid-1980s, North Dakota has consistently ranked as one of the states
with the highest per capita balance of payments surpluses. Its relatively low per
capita income (35th in the nation, about 10% below the average) generates
FY 1999 tax payments about 15% below average. By contrast, the state receives
about 40% more than the average in overall Federal funding. North Dakota’s success in attracting Federal funding is concentrated in the non-defense discretionary
area, where it now receives over $3,700 per capita, nearly two and one-quarter
times as much as the average state, ranking 4th. In the other spending areas, North
Dakota is a middle-ranking state, receiving within about 10% of the national average. While North Dakota is not a major center for defense spending (it ranks 20th,
and receives about 10% more than the average), defense spending in the state has
been considerably more stable than in other states; its defense spending in FY 1999
is down only about 10% from its mid-1980s peak. North Dakota’s ability to attract
a stable flow of defense spending is a major contributing factor to its having had a
consistently positive and substantial balance of payments surplus.
S
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
3000
High Spending
Low Taxes
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
92
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
14
15
7
3
3
4
2
4
4
3
4
3
5
7
3
4
4
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from ND
$4,646
4,910
4,784
4,547
4,317
4,186
3,949
4,165
4,443
4,720
5,035
4,741
5,041
4,689
4,641
4,544
4,647
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in ND
$5,318
5,466
6,211
6,571
6,946
6,506
6,751
6,332
6,822
7,088
7,248
7,352
6,911
6,353
7,285
7,112
7,690
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$672
556
1,426
2,024
2,628
2,320
2,802
2,167
2,380
2,368
2,213
2,611
1,870
1,664
2,644
2,568
3,043
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
OH
Real Per Capita Income $27,627
Cost of Living Index
0.98
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
11%
Residents 65 and Over
13%
Residents under 18
25%
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
Rank
24
21
36
19
30
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$(344)
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
OHIO, FY 1999
Per Capita
Federal Taxes
$5,171
34
$(3,873)
National National
Rank
Avg.
26
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
OHIO, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$514
40
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,275
45
1,693
Social Security
1,660
18
1,508
Medicare
786
17
761
Assistance programs
592
26
616
$4,827
40
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Ohio
Population: 11.3 million
hio’s deficit position with the Federal government has not changed substantially since the early 1980s. With its slightly below average per capita income,
Ohio’s Federal tax payments are about 5% below average; its Federal spending,
however, is more than 10% below average, leading to a modest but persistent balance of payments deficit, now about $350 per capita and showing only minor variations since 1986. The below-average spending is driven by defense, in which Ohio
ranks 40th, at about 45% below the average state, and by non-defense discretionary spending, where it ranks 45th, at about one-quarter below the national
average. Ohio’s slightly older-than-average population results in Social Security
payments about 10% higher than average. The level (between about $200 and
$500 per capita) and ranking (between 34th and 40th) of Ohio’s balance of payments has been remarkably stable for the last 15 years.
O
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
3000
High Spending
Low Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
BO
00
-$
5
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
15
HI
10
+10%
P=
+$
ap
ita
rc
WY
OK
-$
BOP
Rank
38
44
42
38
40
36
35
35
36
38
38
39
39
38
35
35
34
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Federal
Spending in OH Taxes from OH
$4,006
$4,618
3,792
4,544
4,118
4,723
4,481
4,892
4,266
4,756
4,409
4,699
4,528
4,720
4,582
4,768
4,766
4,986
4,849
5,272
4,961
5,443
4,907
5,420
5,057
5,495
4,909
5,318
4,830
5,242
4,834
5,202
4,827
5,171
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$(612)
(752)
(605)
(411)
(490)
(290)
(192)
(186)
(220)
(423)
(482)
(513)
(438)
(408)
(412)
(369)
(344)
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
93
OK
Real Per Capita Income $24,730
Cost of Living Index
0.92
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
12%
Residents 65 and Over
13%
Residents under 18
26%
Oklahoma
Population: 3.4 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$1,866
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
OKLAHOMA, FY 1999
Federal Taxes
11
Per Capita
$4,332
$6,266
National National
Rank
Avg.
42
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
OKLAHOMA, FY 1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$1,255
14
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,864
18
1,693
Social Security
1,685
13
1,508
Medicare
839
11
761
Assistance programs
554
32
616
$6,198
13
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Rank
40
42
25
16
18
klahoma’s balance of payments position has improved steadily and markedly
since the early 1980s. In FY 1983, Oklahoma had the 7th largest per capita
deficit. Since 1987, Oklahoma has had a balance of payments surplus, which is
now over $1,850 per person. Overall Federal spending has grown by about half in
real terms since 1983, while tax collections have decreased about 15% in the same
period. Defense spending in Oklahoma has persistently run counter to the national
trend, rising by more than one-half between FY 1983 and FY 1999 while the nation
as a whole declined significantly through the ’80s and ’90s; Oklahoma now ranks
14th in this area, nearly two-fifths above average. Non-defense discretionary spending, Social Security, and Medicare spending all exceed national averages by about
10%. Only in the area of assistance programs is Federal spending in Oklahoma
below average (by about 10%), in spite of its approximately average poverty rate
and low real per capita income (which is about 15% below the national average).
Oklahoma’s low income yields correspondingly low Federal tax collections, the 9th
lowest in the nation, more than 20% below the national average.
O
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
3000
High Spending
Low Taxes
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
94
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
44
39
34
32
25
19
20
19
19
16
16
16
13
10
12
13
11
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from OK
$5,067
4,873
4,884
4,830
4,566
4,151
4,126
4,216
4,473
4,713
4,744
4,673
4,600
4,458
4,249
4,261
4,332
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in OK
$4,170
4,323
4,568
4,805
4,925
5,073
5,093
5,244
5,506
5,865
5,842
5,807
5,832
5,860
5,891
6,016
6,198
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$(897)
(550)
(317)
(26)
359
922
967
1,028
1,032
1,153
1,098
1,135
1,233
1,403
1,642
1,755
1,866
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
OR
Real Per Capita Income $27,423
Cost of Living Index
0.99
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
12%
Residents 65 and Over
13%
Residents under 18
25%
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
Rank
27
20
28
23
34
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$(483)
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
OREGON, FY 1999
36
Per Capita
Federal Taxes
$5,235
$(1,601)
National National
Rank
Avg.
25
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
OREGON, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$354
45
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,564
29
1,693
Social Security
1,571
27
1,508
Medicare
601
37
761
Assistance programs
662
16
616
$4,752
42
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Oregon
Population: 3.3 million
regon has had a balance of payments deficit with the Federal government in
every year since our sample period began in FY 1983. Its balance of payments
situation has been remarkably stable, with deficits generally in the range of $300
to $500 per capita. Since 1991, it has ranked between 36th and 38th in every
year. Its FY 1999 deficit is about $500 per capita, driven by overall Federal funding
nearly 15% below the average and Federal taxes about 5% below average. Essentially all of its shortfall in receipt of Federal spending is a result of low defense
funding; in FY 1999, Oregon ranked 45th in defense, receiving only 40% as much
as the average state. Oregon also ranks relatively low in Medicare, receiving about
one-fifth less than the average. Its slightly below-average tax collections mirror its
per capita income of about 5% less than the national average.
O
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
36
36
35
36
37
29
33
32
37
37
37
37
38
37
36
37
36
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from OR
$4,497
4,420
4,498
4,571
4,472
4,483
4,476
4,628
4,953
5,216
5,198
5,196
5,307
5,235
5,192
5,227
5,235
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in OR
$4,011
4,022
4,162
4,292
4,239
4,421
4,321
4,602
4,626
4,820
4,859
4,908
4,871
4,829
4,780
4,786
4,752
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$(486)
(398)
(336)
(280)
(232)
(62)
(155)
(25)
(326)
(396)
(339)
(288)
(436)
(406)
(412)
(441)
(483)
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
95
PA
Real Per Capita Income $27,393
Cost of Living Index
1.05
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
12%
Residents 65 and Over
16%
Residents under 18
24%
Pennsylvania
Population: 12.0 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$256
28
$3,076
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
National National
PENNSYLVANIA, FY 1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Federal Taxes
$5,275
24
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
PENNSYLVANIA, FY 1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$563
39
Non-defense discretionary
1,450
33
1,693
Social Security
1,812
6
1,508
Medicare
1,022
2
761
684
14
616
$5,531
26
$5,486
Assistance programs
Total spending
$907
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Rank
28
10
23
2
45
ennsylvania has had an approximately neutral flow of funds position with the
Federal government in every year since our sample period began in FY 1983,
with minor variations and a slow trend toward a more positive balance of payments. In FY 1999, with overall spending nearly identical to the national average
and taxes about 4% below average, it had a surplus of about $250 per capita. In
individual spending areas, however, it differs markedly from national averages;
defense spending, in which the state ranks 39th, is about 40% below the national
average, while Pennsylvania ranks 6th for Social Security benefits (20% above
average) and 2nd for Medicare benefits (one-third above average), reflecting a
large elderly population (Pennsylvania has the 2nd highest percentage of people
over 65 in the nation). Its slightly below-average tax payments mirror its per capita
income of about 5% below the national average.
P
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
3000
High Spending
Low Taxes
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
96
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
28
31
31
35
34
34
37
37
35
32
32
31
26
28
26
25
28
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from PA
$4,682
4,581
4,672
4,839
4,681
4,655
4,700
4,843
5,045
5,290
5,384
5,394
5,399
5,316
5,257
5,256
5,275
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in PA
$4,548
4,313
4,489
4,583
4,495
4,394
4,445
4,621
4,853
5,295
5,321
5,324
5,565
5,420
5,424
5,474
5,531
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$(134)
(269)
(183)
(256)
(187)
(261)
(255)
(222)
(192)
5
(63)
(70)
166
104
167
218
256
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
RI
Real Per Capita Income $26,853
Cost of Living Index
1.11
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
16%
Residents 65 and Over
16%
Residents under 18
24%
Rank
32
7
7
3
42
Rhode Island
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
nlike most of its New England neighbors, Rhode Island has consistently had
balance of payments surpluses since 1990, and has been on a general trend
toward increasingly positive net flows since the mid-1980s. The FY 1999 surplus of
about $500 per capita is somewhat smaller than last year as a result of a small
decrease in Federal spending and a small increase in tax payments. The FY 1999
surplus comes from overall spending nearly identical to the national average combined with taxes about 10% below the average. In spite of its comparatively large
elderly population — only two states have a higher proportion of residents over 65
years of age — Social Security and Medicare receipts are only about 10% above
average. In both defense and non-defense discretionary spending, Rhode Island’s
receipts are below the national average (about 10% and about 15%, respectively).
By contrast, its receipts for assistance programs exceed the national average by
one-third, ranking 3rd in the nation, driven by the state’s relatively high poverty
rate. Rhode Island differs from its New England neighbors largely because of its
lower per capita income (and correspondingly low tax payments).
Balance of Payments
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
$528
23
$523
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
National National
RHODE ISLAND, FY 1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Federal Taxes
$4,976
31
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
RHODE ISLAND, FY 1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$824
27
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,409
38
1,693
Social Security
1,624
21
1,508
Medicare
828
12
761
Assistance programs
819
3
616
$5,504
27
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Population: 1.0 million
U
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
3000
High Spending
Low Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
26
26
27
33
29
31
32
29
26
24
25
24
23
22
20
21
23
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from RI
$4,425
4,490
4,652
4,767
4,652
4,769
4,830
4,832
4,913
5,008
5,174
5,241
5,267
5,103
4,932
4,880
4,976
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in RI
$4,664
4,728
4,649
4,733
4,799
4,616
4,676
4,973
5,122
5,483
5,497
5,546
5,762
5,534
5,581
5,634
5,504
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$240
238
(3)
(34)
147
(152)
(154)
141
209
475
323
304
495
431
649
754
528
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
97
SC
Real Per Capita Income $25,463
Cost of Living Index
0.92
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
12%
Residents 65 and Over
12%
Residents under 18
25%
South Carolina
Population: 3.9 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$1,265
17
$4,914
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
National National
S. CAROLINA, FY 1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Federal Taxes
$4,546
37
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
S. CAROLINA, FY 1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$1,438
6
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,346
42
1,693
Social Security
1,682
14
1,508
Medicare
665
31
761
Assistance programs
679
15
616
$5,810
22
$5,486
Total spending
Rank
34
41
24
34
35
outh Carolina’s balance of payments surplus has been relatively steady at
between about $1,000 and $1,300 per capita since FY 1992. With a relatively
low per capita income (more than 10% below the national average, ranking 34th),
taxes are 17% below average, while total spending is 6% above average. Defense
receipts are substantial, at about 60% above the national average and ranking 6th
in the nation; the nationwide decline in real defense spending, in which South Carolina participated (though somewhat less than many other states with large
defense industries) throughout the 1990s, was offset by increases in other areas
as taxes remained essentially constant in real terms. South Carolina’s receipts of
non-defense discretionary spending are about one-fifth below the national average. In spite of a roughly average elderly population, South Carolina ranks 14th in
Social Security receipts, a little more than 10% above the national average. By
contrast, it ranks 31st in Medicare, with receipts about 15% below average.
S
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
0
98
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
11
10
14
15
17
18
16
10
10
11
15
14
14
18
18
18
17
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from SC
$3,671
3,741
3,929
3,898
3,836
3,842
3,906
3,875
4,267
4,513
4,575
4,572
4,631
4,647
4,636
4,565
4,546
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in SC
$4,510
4,611
4,796
4,798
4,791
4,785
5,101
5,466
5,627
5,829
5,700
5,768
5,750
5,694
5,659
5,724
5,810
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$839
870
867
900
955
943
1,196
1,592
1,360
1,316
1,126
1,196
1,119
1,047
1,023
1,159
1,265
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
SD
Real Per Capita Income $27,282
Cost of Living Index
0.92
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
15%
Residents 65 and Over
14%
Residents under 18
27%
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
Rank
29
44
9
7
10
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$2,327
8
$1,706
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
National National
SOUTH DAKOTA, FY1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Federal Taxes
$4,949
32
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
SOUTH DAKOTA, FY1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$638
33
$907
Non-defense discretionary
3,720
5
1,693
Social Security
1,678
15
1,508
Medicare
682
28
761
Assistance programs
558
31
616
$7,276
7
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
South Dakota
Population: 0.7 million
outh Dakota’s balance of payments surplus increased for the fourth year in a
row in FY 1999, and now exceeds $2,300 per capita, moving the state into the
top ten for the first time since FY 1992. Total Federal spending of about $7,300 per
capita, fully one-third more than the average, puts the state 7th in the nation
overall. South Dakota’s below-average per capita income leads to Federal taxes
10% below those of the average state; together with its success in attracting Federal funding, this generates a substantial and durable surplus. The FY 1999
improvement in South Dakota’s balance of payments was generated by a sharp
increase in non-defense discretionary spending, in which the state now ranks 5th,
receiving more than double the national average. By contrast, South Dakota has
relatively low defense spending, ranking 33rd at about one-third less than the
average. Despite having a high poverty rate, the state receives about 10% less
than the average state in Federal funding for assistance programs. Its relatively
large elderly population results in Social Security payments about 10% above the
average, though its Medicare receipts are about 10% below the average.
S
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
9
7
10
5
5
5
3
7
9
9
11
13
17
15
11
12
8
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from SD
$3,818
3,833
4,052
3,898
3,798
3,770
3,743
4,031
4,427
4,732
4,928
4,986
5,227
4,806
4,753
4,665
4,949
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in SD
$4,833
4,986
5,155
5,630
5,863
5,720
5,976
5,713
6,016
6,203
6,465
6,445
6,280
6,055
6,412
6,503
7,276
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$1,015
1,153
1,103
1,732
2,065
1,950
2,234
1,682
1,590
1,471
1,538
1,458
1,053
1,248
1,659
1,838
2,327
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
99
TN
Real Per Capita Income $27,591
Cost of Living Index
0.93
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
13%
Residents 65 and Over
12%
Residents under 18
24%
Tennessee
Population: 5.5 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$961
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
TENNESSEE, FY 1999
Federal Taxes
19
Per Capita
$5,110
$5,270
National National
Rank
Avg.
28
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
TENNESSEE, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$686
31
$907
Non-defense discretionary
2,029
13
1,693
Social Security
1,722
11
1,508
Medicare
862
10
761
Assistance programs
771
9
616
$6,071
16
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Rank
25
39
21
29
37
ennessee has had a stable, moderately positive balance of payments surplus
since our study period began in FY 1983. With taxes 7% below average
(driven by per capita income, which falls short of the national average by 3%) and
spending 11% above average, in FY 1999 the surplus was nearly $1,000 per capita.
Only in the area of defense spending, where it ranks 31st and is about one-quarter
below average, does Tennessee fall short of national spending patterns. In nondefense discretionary spending — which includes agricultural subsidies — Tennessee is about 20% above the average, and in Social Security and Medicare it is
about 15% above average, ranking between 10th and 15th in the nation in all of
these areas. In spite of having a roughly average poverty rate, Tennessee also ranks
around 10th in receipt of Federal funds for assistance programs, collecting onequarter more than the average state.
T
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
100
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
10
14
20
14
19
25
25
24
21
19
21
20
20
19
19
19
19
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from TN
$4,009
4,165
4,290
4,348
4,245
4,293
4,340
4,442
4,652
4,950
5,145
5,219
5,219
5,208
5,224
5,176
5,110
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in TN
$4,880
4,869
4,627
5,341
4,981
4,886
4,971
5,141
5,654
5,842
5,906
5,918
5,961
5,903
6,000
6,176
6,071
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$871
704
336
994
736
593
631
700
1,002
891
762
699
742
695
776
1,000
961
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
TX
Real Per Capita Income $29,176
Cost of Living Index
0.91
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
15%
Residents 65 and Over
10%
Residents under 18
29%
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
Rank
17
48
13
46
3
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$(189)
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
TEXAS, FY 1999
33
Per Capita
Federal Taxes
$5,566
$(3,789)
National National
Rank
Avg.
18
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
TEXAS, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$1,037
19
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,801
21
1,693
Social Security
1,278
45
1,508
Medicare
686
26
761
Assistance programs
574
29
616
$5,377
29
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Texas
Population: 20.0 million
ince 1988, Texas has been very close to a neutral fiscal relationship with the
Federal government as Federal spending and tax collections have moved hand
in hand. As of FY 1999, Texas’ tax payments were about 1% above the national
average (reflecting its approximately average per capita income), with spending
about 2% below average and a resulting balance of payments deficit of about
$200 per capita. The one major area where Texas was above average in receipt to
Federal funds is defense; even here, it barely ranks in the top 20 and receives only
about 15% more than the national average. Its rapidly growing (and, hence, relatively young) population leaves per capita Social Security (in which the state ranks
45th) and Medicare payments 15% and 10% below average, respectively, and in
spite of a relatively high poverty rate, its receipts of funds for assistance programs
is also 7% below average.
S
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
48
48
46
45
42
33
30
33
31
34
34
34
33
33
32
33
33
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from TX
$5,480
5,274
5,416
5,480
5,109
4,801
4,754
4,854
5,062
5,405
5,504
5,422
5,401
5,357
5,344
5,479
5,566
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in TX
$4,148
4,156
4,451
4,604
4,446
4,552
4,751
4,754
5,009
5,225
5,336
5,254
5,347
5,268
5,203
5,226
5,377
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$(1,331)
(1,118)
(965)
(877)
(663)
(249)
(3)
(100)
(53)
(181)
(169)
(169)
(54)
(90)
(142)
(252)
(189)
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
101
UT
Real Per Capita Income $23,284
Cost of Living Index
1.00
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
9%
Residents 65 and Over
9%
Residents under 18
33%
Utah
Population: 2.1 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$230
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
UTAH, FY 1999
Federal Taxes
29
Per Capita
$4,094
$490
National National
Rank
Avg.
46
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
UTAH, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$725
Non-defense discretionary
30
$907
1,854
19
1,693
Social Security
989
49
1,508
Medicare
373
49
761
Assistance programs
385
47
616
$4,324
49
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Rank
46
18
44
49
1
tah’s net flow with the Federal government has fallen steadily since the peak in
FY 1987 and is now just a little above neutral; overall spending is about onefifth below average and taxes are about one-quarter below the national average,
producing an FY 1999 surplus of about $250 per person. Defense spending, which
has decreased 60% from about $1,700 per capita in 1987 to a little over $700 per
capita in 1999, is largely responsible for the downward shift. Utah remains next to
last in overall Federal spending. All expenditure areas except non-defense discretionary spending are below their national averages. Reflecting its very young population (Utah has the highest proportion of residents under 18 years of age and the
second lowest proportion of residents over 65 years of age), it is the 2nd lowest
recipient of Social Security and Medicare benefits (at two-thirds and one-half of the
national averages, respectively). The state has the 5th lowest real per capita income
(18% below the national average) and correspondingly low per capita Federal tax
collections; in spite of its low income, it has a low poverty rate and the 4th lowest
receipts for assistance programs (at about 40% below the average).
U
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
3000
High Spending
Low Taxes
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
102
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
12
8
13
9
8
7
11
11
15
20
22
21
21
26
28
31
29
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from UT
$3,661
3,683
3,727
3,615
3,413
3,305
3,297
3,339
3,552
3,893
3,976
3,967
4,032
4,151
4,240
4,243
4,094
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in UT
$4,405
4,824
4,694
5,005
4,987
4,874
4,860
4,842
4,711
4,743
4,674
4,532
4,766
4,343
4,286
4,252
4,324
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$744
1,141
968
1,389
1,574
1,568
1,563
1,503
1,160
850
698
565
734
192
46
9
230
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
00
1500
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
VT
Real Per Capita Income $24,984
Cost of Living Index
1.04
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
10%
Residents 65 and Over
12%
Residents under 18
23%
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
Rank
38
12
40
32
48
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$343
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
VERMONT, FY 1999
26
Per Capita
Federal Taxes
$4,719
$203
National National
Rank
Avg.
34
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
VERMONT, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$587
37
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,690
25
1,693
Social Security
1,491
30
1,508
Medicare
574
40
761
Assistance programs
719
11
616
$5,061
36
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Vermont
Population: 0.6 million
fter declining fairly steadily throughout the 1980s, Vermont’s balance of payments has been on a generally rising trend throughout the 1990s; from a slightly
better than neutral position last year, its surplus rose in FY 1999 to about $350 per
capita, about the same as it was in FY 1983 and the first time since FY 1983 that it
has been above $300 per capita. The trend is the result of a steady increase in
receipts of Federal expenditures starting in 1990, combined with roughly level tax
payments, with taxes now 14% and overall Federal spending 8% below the national
average. Vermont is below the national average for every spending category except
assistance programs. Defense spending in the state rose by more than 50% from
FY 1998 to FY 1999, but Vermont still ranks only 37th in receipts of defense spending, receiving about one-third less than the national average. It is the 11th lowest
recipient of Medicare benefits, one-quarter below average. In spite of its comparatively low poverty rate, Vermont ranks 11th in receipts of Federal funds for assistance
programs, 17% above average. Its comparatively low Federal tax payments mirror its
per capita income, a little more than 10% below the national average.
A
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
High Spending
Low Taxes
3000
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
0
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
24
25
25
34
36
39
38
40
38
36
35
36
30
27
29
27
26
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from VT
$3,839
3,817
3,887
4,052
4,119
4,209
4,291
4,516
4,619
4,730
4,786
4,796
4,784
4,676
4,639
4,660
4,719
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in VT
$4,193
4,098
4,077
3,903
3,911
3,853
3,995
3,894
4,220
4,451
4,502
4,526
4,803
4,826
4,678
4,827
5,061
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$354
281
190
(149)
(208)
(355)
(296)
(623)
(398)
(280)
(284)
(270)
18
150
39
167
343
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
103
VA
Real Per Capita Income $30,917
Cost of Living Index
0.95
Poverty Rate
12%
Residents 65 and Over
11%
Residents Under 18
24%
Virginia
Population: 6.9 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$3,069
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
VIRGINIA, FY 1999
Federal Taxes
3
Per Capita
$5,756
$21,094
National National
Rank
Avg.
15
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
VIRGINIA, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$3,685
1
$907
Non-defense discretionary
2,851
7
1,693
Social Security
1,382
39
1,508
588
39
761
320
50
616
$8,825
1
$5,486
Medicare
Assistance programs
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
Rank
8
27
29
44
43
irginia’s total surplus, now over $21 billion, was once again the highest in the
country, more than twice that of the second highest state (Maryland). Consistently high Federal spending drives Virginia’s balance. Virginia continues to rank
1st in overall per capita receipts of Federal funding (this year, more than 60%
above the average), a position it has held in all but two years since our sample
period began in FY 1983. Virginia continues to lead the nation in defense spending
by a wide margin, receiving more than four times the national average and about
40% more than the next highest defense recipient (New Mexico). It also receives
two-thirds more than the average in non-defense discretionary programs, ranking
7th. By contrast, it is the lowest recipient of funding for assistance programs,
receiving only about one-half of the national average, and the 2nd lowest recipient
of Federal grants to state and local governments (which includes Medicaid, the
largest component of assistance programs). Its relatively high 8th ranking per
capita income (8% above the national average) generates tax payments 5% above
average.
V
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
4000
High Spending
Low Taxes
3500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
AK
00
+$
1000
15
MT
+$
SD
104
P=
+$
rc
00
10
FL
TN
00
KS
00
NE
PA
GA
TX
WA CO
NC
00
RI
MA
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
15
SC
ME
00
ap
ita
BO
AR
KY
LA
20
BOP
Rank
1
3
2
2
2
2
6
2
3
4
3
4
2
3
2
2
3
HI
-$
Federal
Taxes from VA
$5,038
5,066
5,224
5,330
5,231
5,296
5,350
5,356
5,556
5,796
5,958
5,873
5,916
5,924
5,792
5,824
5,756
+10%
25
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in VA
$7,772
7,187
7,609
7,646
8,067
8,770
7,362
7,809
7,985
8,041
8,327
8,227
8,886
8,416
8,571
8,793
8,825
WY
OK
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$2,734
2,122
2,386
2,316
2,836
3,474
2,012
2,454
2,428
2,245
2,369
2,353
2,970
2,491
2,779
2,969
3,069
MO
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
AL
-$
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
WV
MS
-$
5
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
+20%
pe
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
0
0
50
500
0
+$
10
+30%
00
ND
20
+40%
1500
+$
25
2000
00
2500
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
3000
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
WA
Real Per Capita Income $29,100
Cost of Living Index
1.04
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
10%
Residents 65 and Over
11%
Residents under 18
26%
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
Rank
18
11
39
42
22
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$(533)
37
$(3,070)
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
National National
WASHINGTON, FY 1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Federal Taxes
$5,872
12
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
WASHINGTON, FY 1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$1,377
8
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,490
31
1,693
Social Security
1,325
43
1,508
Medicare
527
45
761
Assistance programs
619
22
616
$5,339
31
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Washington
Population: 5.8 million
ith small decreases in receipts of Federal funding in most spending areas and
a small increase in tax payments, in FY 1999, Washington’s balance of payments with the Federal government continued its general downward trend, begun
in 1985, reaching a deficit of over $530 per capita. The story of Washington’s balance of payments position is the story of the nation’s secular decline in real
defense spending. Defense spending has declined from a high of over $2,300 per
capita in 1983 to a low of about $1,150 in 1994; it has now increased slightly to
about $1,400 per capita. Largely as a consequence, Washington moved from 6th
to 31st place in overall spending between FY 1983 and FY 1999. Despite its decline,
defense spending is still more than 50% above the national average, 8th in the
country. With a relatively small elderly population, Washington ranks 43rd for
Social Security and 45th for Medicare, 12% and 31% below the national average,
respectively. Its total Federal spending is 3% below average, with taxes about 5%
above average (due to its above-average per capita income), resulting in a modest
balance of payments deficit.
W
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
3000
High Spending
Low Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
BO
00
-$
5
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
15
HI
10
+10%
P=
+$
ap
ita
rc
WY
OK
-$
BOP
Rank
15
22
15
19
21
21
24
28
32
35
40
38
31
34
33
34
37
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Federal
Spending in WA Taxes from WA
$5,865
$5,228
5,410
5,026
5,821
4,966
5,816
5,028
5,713
5,015
5,655
4,891
5,577
4,938
5,269
5,005
5,269
5,355
5,518
5,796
5,453
5,991
5,564
5,864
5,707
5,738
5,563
5,708
5,494
5,636
5,414
5,770
5,339
5,872
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$637
384
855
789
698
764
638
264
(86)
(278)
(538)
(300)
(31)
(145)
(143)
(355)
(533)
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
00
1500
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
105
WV
Real Per Capita Income $23,011
Cost of Living Index
0.91
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
15%
Residents 65 and Over
15%
Residents under 18
22%
West Virginia
Population: 1.8 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$2,808
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
W. VIRGINIA, FY 1999
Federal Taxes
Per Capita
$3,916
5
$5,074
National National
Rank
Avg.
49
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
W. VIRGINIA, FY 1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$419
44
Non-defense discretionary
2,036
12
1,693
Social Security
2,332
1
1,508
Medicare
968
4
761
Assistance programs
967
2
616
$6,724
8
$5,486
Total spending
$907
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Rank
47
49
14
4
50
est Virginia’s balance of payments position has significantly improved over
the past 15 years. Economic stagnation in the mid-1980s reduced Federal
tax collections, and high poverty and disability rates have resulted in increasing
social assistance payments. Starting from an approximately neutral position in
1983, West Virginia’s steadily rising receipts (now about one-quarter above the
average and 8th overall) combined with low Federal tax burdens (now nearly 30%
below average, the 2nd lowest) to produce a 5th-ranking balance of payments surplus of $2,800 per capita in FY 1999. West Virginia now ranks first for Social Security benefits (more than half again as high as the national average); fourth for
Medicare (27% above average), and second for assistance programs (57% above
average). West Virginia also ranks relatively high in non-defense discretionary
spending, 12th in the nation at about 20% above the average. Only in defense
does it rank below the average of other states, receiving less than half the average.
Its low per capita income (4th lowest at 19% below the national average) produces correspondingly low Federal tax payments.
W
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
3000
High Spending
Low Taxes
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
106
BO
00
-$
5
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
15
HI
10
+10%
P=
+$
ap
ita
rc
WY
OK
-$
BOP
Rank
23
23
18
20
18
15
13
9
5
6
5
5
3
4
4
3
5
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Federal
Spending in WV Taxes from WV
$4,420
$4,037
4,317
3,954
4,329
3,903
4,615
3,857
4,486
3,736
4,742
3,601
4,979
3,587
5,266
3,639
5,748
3,924
6,061
4,238
6,432
4,327
6,350
4,305
6,742
4,327
6,446
4,246
6,482
4,095
6,635
3,926
6,724
3,916
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$383
363
425
759
751
1,141
1,392
1,627
1,824
1,824
2,105
2,045
2,415
2,200
2,387
2,710
2,808
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
WI
Real Per Capita Income $28,790
Cost of Living Index
0.95
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
8%
Residents 65 and Over
13%
Residents under 18
26%
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
Rank
19
28
50
21
24
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$(887)
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
WISCONSIN, FY 1999
40
Per Capita
Federal Taxes
$5,409
$(4,659)
National National
Rank
Avg.
21
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
WISCONSIN, FY 1999 Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$284
49
$907
Non-defense discretionary
1,333
43
1,693
Social Security
1,688
12
1,508
Medicare
645
34
761
Assistance programs
571
30
616
$4,521
46
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Wisconsin
Population: 5.3 million
ike its neighboring Great Lakes states, Wisconsin is consistently a “donor”
state, with a large and stable deficit with the Federal government; in FY 1999,
it was again about $900 per capita. Wisconsin has ranked among the bottom five
in Federal spending since 1991; this year it is 5th, 18% below the national average. Wisconsin ranked second to last in defense spending, receiving a little less
than one-third as much as the average state. Its receipts in non-defense discretionary programs are 20% below average, and Medicare receipts are 15% below
average. It has one of the lowest poverty rates in the country, but nonetheless
receives only about 5% below the average funding for assistance programs. Only in
Social Security are its receipts higher than average, by a little over 10%, ranking
12th. Wisconsin’s per capita income is very close to the national average, and correspondingly its Federal tax collections are about average. Among states with
roughly average taxes, Wisconsin has one of the largest balance of payments
deficits; only New Hampshire has a larger deficit driven by below-average receipts
of Federal funds.
L
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
3000
High Spending
Low Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
P=
+$
-$
5
rc
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
00
ap
ita
BO
HI
10
+10%
15
BOP
Rank
43
43
45
43
44
43
42
42
43
42
42
41
42
44
42
42
40
WY
OK
-$
Federal
Taxes from WI
$4,573
4,473
4,661
4,735
4,685
4,680
4,719
4,894
5,081
5,419
5,533
5,514
5,581
5,440
5,408
5,383
5,409
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Spending in WI
$3,756
3,742
3,781
3,950
3,862
3,988
4,247
4,179
4,275
4,537
4,588
4,559
4,432
4,328
4,455
4,497
4,521
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$(818)
(731)
(880)
(785)
(823)
(692)
(472)
(715)
(806)
(882)
(945)
(956)
(1,149)
(1,112)
(953)
(886)
(887)
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
107
WY
Real Per Capita Income $27,102
Cost of Living Index
0.96
1998 Adj Poverty Rate
14%
Residents 65 and Over
12%
Residents under 18
26%
Wyoming
Population: 0.5 million
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
National
Total
FY 1999
Per Capita Rank (millions)
Balance of Payments
$386
FEDERAL TAXES FROM
WYOMING, FY 1999
Federal Taxes
Per Capita
$5,951
24
$185
National National
Rank
Avg.
8
$5,486
FEDERAL SPENDING IN
National National
WYOMING, FY 1999
Per Capita Rank
Avg.
Defense
(incl. veterans' benefits)
$769
29
$907
Non-defense discretionary
3,062
6
1,693
Social Security
1,472
33
1,508
Medicare
574
41
761
Assistance programs
461
42
616
$6,338
12
$5,486
Total spending
HISTORICAL TRENDS 1983–1999
Federal Spending Per Capita
Rank
30
25
20
37
14
yoming experienced a structural shift in its fiscal relations with the Federal
government when intergovernmental grants from the Minerals Management
Service rose sharply in the early 1980s, moving the state from a significant balance
of payments deficit to a modest surplus, which in FY 1999 increased by about $150
per capita to around $400. Overall Federal spending is a little more than 15%
above average, exclusively because of spending on non-defense discretionary programs, in which spending is 81% higher than average and which accounts for
nearly all of the increase in Federal spending in the state this year; in every other
spending area, Wyoming’s receipts from the Federal government are below average.
Defense spending in Wyoming is 15% below average (but has not shared in the
secular decline of the industry). In spite of having a somewhat smaller elderly population than average, Wyoming’s receipts of Social Security benefits is about average, but in both Medicare and funding for assistance programs it falls about 25%
short of average and Wyoming ranks about 10th from the bottom.
W
PERPER
CAPITA
CAPITA
TAXES
TAXES
ANDAND
SPENDING
SPENDING
COMPARED
COMPARED
TO NATIONAL
TO NATIONAL
AVERAGES,
AVERAGES,
FY 1999
FY 1999
+70%
3000
High Spending
Low Taxes
2500
High Spending
High Taxes
VA
+60%
2000
MD
30
00
+50%
+$
NM
00
1500
00
AK
00
+$
SD
+$
10
+30%
108
BO
00
-$
5
00
KS
00
NE
PA
WA CO
00
GA
TX
NC
MA
25
RI
-$
VT
-10%
NY
DE MN
CA
OH
OR
IN
MI
IL
WI
-20%
CT
30
ID
00
IA
AZ
-$
SC
ME
FL
TN
00
AR
KY
LA
15
HI
10
+10%
P=
+$
ap
ita
rc
WY
OK
-$
BOP
Rank
49
41
33
40
32
17
22
22
24
25
30
25
24
25
21
24
24
MO
20
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Federal
Federal
Spending in WY Taxes from WY
$4,095
$5,885
4,838
5,444
4,906
5,200
4,639
5,164
4,725
4,770
5,282
4,292
5,098
4,294
5,441
4,605
5,429
5,063
5,722
5,389
5,705
5,676
5,807
5,543
5,930
5,636
5,761
5,511
5,897
5,280
6,083
5,840
6,338
5,951
AL
-$
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Balance of
Payments
$(1,790)
(606)
(294)
(525)
(44)
990
804
836
366
333
29
264
294
249
617
243
386
WV
MS
-$
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PER CAPITA (1999 Dollars)
+20%
pe
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
DEFENSE SPENDING*
GRANTS
0
50
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
FISCAL YEARS
+$
0
15
MT
00
ND
20
+40%
500
+$
25
1000
FEDERAL SPENDING IN EACH STATE
1999 DOLLARS
Nat’l. Avg.
$28,518
1.00
14%
13%
26%
NV
UT
Low Spending
Low Taxes
NJ
Low Spending
High Taxes
NH
-30%
-30%
-20%
-10%
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
FEDERAL TAX COLLECTIONS FROM EACH STATE
All figures have been adjusted for cost of living variations between the states (1999 dollars).
National averages include Washington, DC.
Please refer to Appendix B for methodology.
*Defense spending in this study includes military retirement starting
in FY 1996 and all veterans’ benefits starting in FY 1998.
Appendix A
Data Sources
A. Expenditure Data Sources
Data on expenditures in FY 1999 are
from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, annual
report Consolidated Federal Funds
Report: 1999, which substitutes for
the Federal Expenditures by State
report, now discontinued.1 With the
enactment of Public Law 97-326,
providing for the establishment of a
new system to collect data on the
geographic distribution of Federal
funds, the Bureau of the Census in
the Department of Commerce developed a system to collect and release
geographic data beginning with FY
1981. However, due to the methodological changes introduced by the
Census in the 1998 CFFR report, we
are only able to conduct our analysis using 17 years of Census data
with some measure of confidence
that year-to-year comparisons are
meaningful and reliable indicators of
prevailing trends.
The dollar amounts reported by
the Census Bureau in the CFFR
report can represent either actual
expenditures or obligations. As a general guide, the grants and procurement data in the CFFR report
represent obligated funds, while the
salaries, wages and direct payments
show actual expenditures. The Census reports are especially useful
because of their clear presentation of
expenditures for major Federal programs by state, and their aggregation
of expenditures into the categories of
grants, procurement, salaries and
wages, retirement and disability, and
other direct payments.
The system developed by the
Census Bureau reports all Federal
spending, except amounts that are
intentionally excluded from the
CFFR or for which data could not
be obtained. Excluded amounts
include items that could not be geographically distributed, such as interest on Federal government debt,
travel expenses when not provided
under contract, and international
payments and foreign aid. For some
agencies, data for selected object categories could not be obtained,
including procurement actions of
the judicial and legislative sectors of
the Federal government and expenditures other than salaries for certain
government corporations. The
Bureau notes that comparison of the
Federal budget amount with the data
reported in the CFFR can be misleading, since the Federal budget
amounts differ from the CFFR in
accounting concepts and the treatment of intergovernmental transfers.
Interested readers should see the
CFFR for additional information on
report coverage, methodology, data
sources, and spending categories.
B. Regional Tax Data
We continue to rely on data describing the incidence of Federal taxes
published by the Tax Foundation
and supplied by the staff of the
Foundation to the researchers. Data
for earlier years were included in Spe-
cial Reports or supplied by the staff
of the Foundation.
For many years, the Tax Foundation has estimated the geographic
origins of Federal taxes. These calculations require adjustments to the tax
collection data presented by the
Internal Revenue Service. The most
important adjustments in calculating
tax burdens are in the allocations of
income, payroll, and corporate
income taxes. The Tax Foundation
allocates income taxes on the basis of
taxpayers’ places of residence and
makes other adjustments in measuring the incidence of other types
of taxes.
C. Personal Income Data
Estimates of personal income for
1983 through 1999 are from the
U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Economic Analysis, and
were taken from the Bureau’s website, at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/
regional/spi/recent.htm. Personal
income for 1987 through 1997 in
previous reports are from “Table J.3.
Per Capita Personal Income and Per
Capita Disposable Personal Income
for States and Regions,” Survey of
Current Business, published also by
the U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Table
3 of the Survey of Current Business,
April 1994, and personal income figures for 1984 through 1986 are from
Table 1 of the Survey of Current Business, August 1990. All personal
income figures are divided by the
109
APPENDIX A: DATA SOURCES
state’s population figures for 1983
through 1999 to derive the per
capita figures.
D. State Cost of Living Indexes
All state tax, spending, and income
data were deflated by a state cost of
living index (COL index) which had
originally been created by Herman
(Dutch) Leonard and Monica Friar
for a study comparing state and local
spending across states. The state
COL index, with National Average
1999 = 1.00, was constructed in
three steps. First, an annual CPI for
selected metropolitan areas (MSAs),
4 overall regions, and 4 non-metropolitan regions was constructed with
urban United States = 1.00 for each
year (i.e., 1979 urban U.S. = 1.00,
1980 urban U.S. = 1.00, etc.). These
indexes were then adjusted so that
only 1999 urban U.S. = 1.00.
Finally, a state CPI was constructed
as a population-weighted average of
the MSA and regional CPIs.
The annual CPI for each MSA
was based on the 1981 urban family
budgets, which shows the relative
cost of living in 25 metropolitan statistical areas and in the non-metropolitan areas of four regions, with
U.S. urban average cost = 100. The
source of this data is “Table 5.
Indexes of comparative costs based
on an intermediate budget for a 4person family” from Autumn, 1981
Urban Family Budgets and Comparative Indexes for Selected Urban Areas,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.
Department of Labor. A regional
metropolitan figure was constructed
110
by taking the weighted average of the
individual MSA figures in each
region. Autumn, 1981 was the last
release of this data.
Annual growth rates of the MSA
and regional CPIs were then applied
successively (and regressively) to the
1981 family budget. Sources of the
growth rates are the “All items” component of “Table 17A. Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Selected areas,” “Table 12A.
Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers: Regions,” and “Table
14A. Consumer Price Index for All
Urban Consumers: Cross-classification of region and population sizes,”
CPI Detailed Report, January, U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. These data are available annually (although table numbers vary from year to year). The
16-year series was then converted so
that National Average 1999 = 1.00.
A cost of living index for each
state for each year was then constructed by taking a weighted average of the CPIs of the component
MSAs, the overall urban regions, and
the regions of “size class D” (which
corresponds to areas of fewer than
50,000 people). The MSA’s own
index was used for the proportion of
the state’s population in that specific
metropolitan area. The regional CPI
index was used for the remaining
metropolitan population and the
“size class D” CPI index was used for
the non-metropolitan population.
The source of the 1990 urban population data is Appendix B, “Metropolitan Statistical Areas and their
Components,” 1993 County and
City Extra: Annual Metro, City and
County Data Book, Bernan Press,
Lanham, MD.
E. State Population Figures
State population figures and estimates of the number of residents
over 65 and under 18 years old
were taken from the U.S. Bureau
of the Census website, at
http://www.census.gov/population/
www/estimates/statepop.html.
F. State Poverty Rates
The poverty rates for 1998, adjusted
for state cost of living differences and
using income measures net of state
transfer payments, were generated by
Assistant Professor Jon Haveman of
the Krannert School of Management, Purdue University, using the
Census Bureau’s March, Current
Population Report series tapes, the
same tapes used to generate the official poverty rate. The income distributions of each state were adjusted
by the state cost of living indexes and
then the number of people with
incomes below the official poverty
threshold were calculated.
1 This data series is continued in a new publication,
The Federal Aid to States, which is one of two
publications that now comprise the Census Bureau’s
Consolidated Federal Funds Report series.
Appendix B
Methodology
Calculating the Balance of Payments
1. Adjustments to Expenditures
The calculations of Federal expenditures allocated to states are based on
the reconciliation of two sources of
data, the Consolidated Federal Funds
Report, published by the Census
Bureau, and the Budget of the United
States Government, published by the
Office of Management and Budget.
While the Census Bureau does
attempt to reconcile their data with
the Federal budget, the two are not
completely comparable. Over the
past seven years, the Census measure
of expenditures distributed domestically has accounted for about fourfifths of total Federal outlays
published by the Office of Management and Budget. Some areas of the
budget, like foreign aid and some
military spending, are spent overseas,
so are not included in the Census
data. No consistent methodology has
been established to distribute other
areas of spending such as net interest, deposit insurance or undistributed (by program) offsetting receipts.
Finally, the amounts shown in
the report for defense expenditures
include all spending by the Department of Defense plus Department of
Energy spending on defense-related
activities and military retirement,
disability payments, and other veterans’ benefits.
2. Adjustments to Receipts
The next step in measuring a state’s
net flow of funds is to determine the
distribution of tax payments by state.
Since the tax collections data published by the IRS show which states
collect the taxes rather than those
states that bear the burden of Federal
taxes, this report continues to use, as
it has in past years, state-by-state tax
estimates published by the nonprofit and non-partisan Tax Foundation. The Tax Foundation figures
correspond exactly to the “taxes”
portion of Federal receipts published
in the U.S. budget and include individual and corporate income taxes,
social insurance taxes, excise taxes,
estate and gift taxes, and customs
duties. The Tax Foundation figures
do not include “miscellaneous
receipts,” which is largely the deposit
of earnings by the Federal Reserve
System, nor do they include contributions to their retirement by Federal employees.
Another difficulty in determining a state’s balance of payments
position with the Federal government is the treatment of the Federal
surplus or deficit. Even when focusing on domestic spending, there is a
discrepancy between outlays and
taxes raised. Between FY 1987 and
FY 1991 and again in FY 1994
through FY 1999, there were surpluses; the total taxes raised were
greater than allocable domestic
spending. Early versions of this
report treated the “domestic deficit”
or the “domestic surplus” as a free
resource and did not attempt to balance total expenditures with tax pay-
ments nor to estimate by state the
financing of the deficit. Although
not likely to substantially affect the
states’ balance of payments positions
relative to each other, not measuring
the impact of the domestic deficit
(surplus) does increase (decrease)
each state’s absolute flow of funds.
So we have made the underlying economic assumption that all domestic
spending must be paid for today. We
have proportionately increased or
decreased each state’s taxes so that
total taxes paid by the states is equal
to the total allocable domestic
expenditures.
3. Cost of Living Adjustments
It is apparent that the nominal
wealth of a state (in terms of average
per capita income) is a key factor in
the balance of payments equation
through its influence on Federal tax
burdens and the distribution of the
means-tested portion of allocable
Federal expenditures. However, Federal tax policy does not take into
account discrepancies in cost of living across states nor do Federal programs (with the notable exceptions
of some entitlement programs such
as Medicare and Medicaid) adjust
the level of outlays to regional cost
of living differences. The real level of
services provided by a given level of
nominal spending will vary depending on the costs of providing those
services in a state. Residents in
higher-cost states can expect to
receive fewer real services from a
111
APPENDIX B: METHODOLOGY
given nominal level of Federal
spending. In addition, changes in
costs over time will affect the real
level of services even within a state
over time.
We attempt to analyze the
impact of differential costs of living
on the states’ balance of payments
positions using a state cost of living
index, which we developed for a previous study comparing state and local
spending across states. Those indexes
have been updated to reflect cost differences in 1999. The index measures
the relative changes in costs across
states and across time for the past 17
years using annual regional and
selected area CPIs applied to family
budget data. (For a more detailed
explanation of this data adjustment,
see Appendix A.) Each state’s (and
the District of Columbia’s) spending
and taxes have been divided by its
cost of living index. Except where
otherwise noted, all state spending
and tax figures will be reported in
cost-adjusted 1999 dollars.
4. Calculating the Balance
of Payments
Each state’s balance of payments was
then calculated by subtracting total
Federal tax payments per capita from
total Federal expenditures (with the
adjustments as indicated above)
per capita.
112
Appendix C: Fiscal Year 1999 Data
TABLE C-1
Balance of Payments, FY 1999
(adjusted by state COL Index)
State Per Capita
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
DC
$2,091
2,777
904
1,633
(685)
(620)
(2,840)
(1,025)
47
(29)
1,982
829
(1,669)
(399)
750
373
1,595
1,576
1,324
1,770
(895)
(1,042)
(1,294)
2,684
1,187
3,109
320
(1,583)
(1,787)
(2,342)
3,944
(890)
146
3,043
(344)
1,866
(483)
256
528
1,265
2,327
961
(189)
230
343
3,069
(533)
2,808
(887)
386
42,514
Total
Rank
(in millions)
9
6
20
13
39
38
50
43
31
32
10
21
47
35
22
25
14
15
16
12
42
44
45
7
18
2
27
46
48
49
1
41
30
4
34
11
36
28
23
17
8
19
33
29
26
3
37
5
40
24
$9,139
1,720
4,319
4,166
(22,688)
(2,514)
(9,320)
(772)
707
(228)
2,350
1,038
(20,241)
(2,373)
2,151
990
6,317
6,892
1,660
9,155
(5,526)
(10,277)
(6,180)
7,431
6,490
2,745
533
(2,865)
(2,147)
(19,076)
6,862
(16,189)
1,115
1,928
(3,873)
6,266
(1,601)
3,076
523
4,914
1,706
5,270
(3,789)
490
203
21,094
(3,070)
5,074
(4,659)
185
22,065
TABLE C-2
State Cost of Living
Indexes (Nat’l. Avg. 1999 = 1)
TABLE C-3
Federal Spending, Taxes, and Balance of Payments Per Capita,
FY 1999 (adjusted by state COL Index)
State
State
Spending
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
DC
$6,610
7,649
5,617
5,871
4,909
5,303
5,224
4,851
6,121
5,493
5,937
5,178
4,592
4,686
5,820
5,832
6,111
6,008
5,539
8,334
5,361
4,682
4,775
6,589
6,544
7,389
5,624
4,355
4,067
4,362
7,992
4,944
5,287
7,690
4,827
6,198
4,752
5,531
5,504
5,810
7,276
6,071
5,377
4,324
5,061
8,825
5,339
6,724
4,521
6,338
49,965
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
DC
COL 99
Rank
0.927
1.114
1.004
0.910
1.021
1.011
1.122
1.030
0.943
0.917
1.217
0.951
1.003
0.963
0.934
0.933
0.917
0.928
1.049
0.974
1.142
0.950
0.950
0.904
0.929
0.954
0.938
1.008
1.085
1.137
0.977
1.132
0.920
0.931
0.980
0.922
0.989
1.047
1.107
0.923
0.920
0.927
0.909
1.003
1.036
0.954
1.041
0.908
0.952
0.959
1.042
40
6
17
47
14
15
5
13
32
46
1
29
19
24
34
35
45
38
9
23
2
31
30
50
37
26
33
16
8
3
22
4
43
36
21
42
20
10
7
41
44
39
48
18
12
27
11
49
28
25
Rank
9
5
24
19
38
32
34
39
14
28
18
35
45
43
21
20
15
17
25
2
30
44
41
10
11
6
23
48
50
47
3
37
33
4
40
13
42
26
27
22
7
16
29
49
36
1
31
8
46
12
Taxes
$4,519
4,872
4,713
4,238
5,593
5,923
8,064
5,876
6,074
5,523
3,955
4,349
6,260
5,085
5,071
5,459
4,516
4,432
4,215
6,564
6,256
5,724
6,069
3,905
5,358
4,279
5,304
5,938
5,854
6,705
4,048
5,834
5,141
4,647
5,171
4,332
5,235
5,275
4,976
4,546
4,949
5,110
5,566
4,094
4,719
5,756
5,872
3,916
5,409
5,951
7,451
Rank
38
33
35
44
17
10
1
11
6
19
48
41
4
29
30
20
39
40
45
3
5
16
7
50
22
43
23
9
13
2
47
14
27
36
26
42
25
24
31
37
32
28
18
46
34
15
12
49
21
8
Balance of
Payments
$2,091
2,777
904
1,633
(685)
(620)
(2,840)
(1,025)
47
(29)
1,982
829
(1,669)
(399)
750
373
1,595
1,576
1,324
1,770
(895)
(1,042)
(1,294)
2,684
1,187
3,109
320
(1,583)
(1,787)
(2,342)
3,944
(890)
146
3,043
(344)
1,866
(483)
256
528
1,265
2,327
961
(189)
230
343
3,069
(533)
2,808
(887)
386
42,514
Rank
9
6
20
13
39
38
50
43
31
32
10
21
47
35
22
25
14
15
16
12
42
44
45
7
18
2
27
46
48
49
1
41
30
4
34
11
36
28
23
17
8
19
33
29
26
3
37
5
40
24
113
APPENDIX C
TABLE C-4
Per Capita Spending by Program by State, FY 1999
(adjusted by state COL index)
State
Defense
(inc. veterans’ benefits)
Spending
Rank
Non-defense
Discretionary
Spending Rank
Social Security
Spending
Rank
Medicare
Spending
Rank
Assistance
Programs
Spending Rank
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
$1,320
2,194
1,361
595
943
1,408
1,046
615
1,058
1,322
2,391
1,166
11
4
9
36
23
7
18
34
17
10
3
15
$1,964
3,786
1,689
1,772
1,439
1,884
1,156
1,458
1,392
1,626
1,441
1,616
15
2
26
22
36
16
49
32
40
27
35
28
$1,802
657
1,474
1,932
1,195
1,143
1,543
1,578
2,025
1,360
1,107
1,412
7
50
31
3
46
47
28
26
2
40
48
37
$917
234
657
870
708
513
817
685
1,200
666
456
505
5
50
32
8
25
46
14
27
1
30
48
47
$607
779
435
703
624
355
661
514
445
520
541
479
23
8
45
12
21
48
17
39
44
38
35
41
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
354
493
325
898
970
788
1,110
1,895
836
265
432
1,285
1,293
596
657
944
576
504
2,655
305
898
46
42
47
25
21
28
16
5
26
50
43
13
12
35
32
22
38
41
2
48
24
1,442
1,318
2,409
2,083
1,702
1,815
1,399
3,768
1,528
1,197
1,713
1,877
1,966
3,939
2,177
1,172
1,189
1,097
2,678
1,370
1,415
34
44
9
11
24
20
39
3
30
46
23
17
14
1
10
48
47
50
8
41
37
1,501
1,663
1,837
1,646
1,858
1,597
1,589
1,322
1,415
1,742
1,455
1,776
1,776
1,624
1,614
1,349
1,358
1,452
1,387
1,473
1,666
29
17
5
19
4
24
25
44
36
10
34
9
8
20
23
42
41
35
38
32
16
755
719
720
758
800
1,001
648
762
891
824
595
863
881
630
629
561
528
765
530
812
677
21
24
22
20
16
3
33
19
6
13
38
9
7
35
36
42
44
18
43
15
29
540
492
529
447
781
807
794
587
691
655
581
788
629
599
547
330
415
543
742
985
631
36
40
37
43
7
4
5
27
13
18
28
6
20
24
33
49
46
34
10
1
19
ND
OH
OK
OR
1,005
514
1,255
354
20
40
14
45
3,745
1,275
1,864
1,564
4
45
18
29
1,624
1,660
1,685
1,571
22
18
13
27
720
786
839
601
23
17
11
37
596
592
554
662
25
26
32
16
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
DC
563
824
1,438
638
686
1,037
725
587
3,685
1,377
419
284
769
6,295
39
27
6
33
31
19
30
37
1
8
44
49
29
1,450
1,409
1,346
3,720
2,029
1,801
1,854
1,690
2,851
1,490
2,036
1,333
3,062
39,471
33
38
42
5
13
21
19
25
7
31
12
43
6
1,812
1,624
1,682
1,678
1,722
1,278
989
1,491
1,382
1,325
2,332
1,688
1,472
1,242
6
21
14
15
11
45
49
30
39
43
1
12
33
1,022
828
665
682
862
686
373
574
588
527
968
645
574
1,083
2
12
31
28
10
26
49
40
39
45
4
34
41
684
819
679
558
771
574
385
719
320
619
967
571
461
1,875
14
3
15
31
9
29
47
11
50
22
2
30
42
114
APPENDIX C
TABLE C-5
Per Capita Taxes and Spending by Program Area, FY 1999
(nominal 1999 dollars, unadjusted by state COL index)
Taxes
Total
Spending
State
Defense
(inc. veterans’
benefits)
Non-defense
Discretionary
Social
Security
Medicare
Assistance
Programs
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
$4,189
5,428
4,734
3,857
5,708
5,990
9,049
6,053
5,727
5,062
4,814
4,137
$6,127
8,521
5,642
5,343
5,010
5,364
5,862
4,997
5,772
5,035
7,228
4,925
$1,224
2,444
1,367
541
962
1,424
1,174
634
998
1,212
2,911
1,109
$1,821
4,218
1,697
1,612
1,469
1,906
1,298
1,502
1,313
1,490
1,754
1,537
$1,670
731
1,481
1,758
1,220
1,156
1,732
1,626
1,910
1,246
1,348
1,343
$850
260
660
791
722
519
916
705
1,132
610
555
480
$563
867
437
640
637
359
742
530
420
476
659
456
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
6,277
4,899
4,737
5,095
4,142
4,114
4,422
6,395
7,144
5,437
5,766
3,529
4,975
4,084
4,978
5,986
6,353
7,625
3,953
6,602
4,732
4,604
4,514
5,437
5,443
5,604
5,577
5,811
8,119
6,122
4,448
4,537
5,955
6,077
7,052
5,278
4,390
4,414
4,961
7,805
5,595
4,866
355
475
304
838
889
731
1,164
1,846
954
252
410
1,161
1,201
569
617
951
625
573
2,593
345
826
1,446
1,270
2,250
1,944
1,561
1,685
1,467
3,671
1,745
1,137
1,627
1,696
1,825
3,760
2,043
1,181
1,291
1,248
2,616
1,550
1,302
1,505
1,602
1,716
1,536
1,704
1,482
1,667
1,288
1,615
1,655
1,382
1,605
1,649
1,550
1,515
1,359
1,474
1,652
1,355
1,667
1,533
757
693
673
707
733
930
680
742
1,018
782
565
780
818
601
590
565
573
870
518
918
623
541
474
494
417
717
749
833
572
789
622
552
713
584
572
513
333
451
618
724
1,115
581
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
DC
4,325
5,069
3,994
5,180
5,522
5,507
4,195
4,554
4,738
5,060
4,107
4,890
5,489
6,113
3,554
5,150
5,710
7,768
7,157
4,732
5,714
4,702
5,790
6,092
5,361
6,696
5,629
4,889
4,338
5,245
8,416
5,558
6,103
4,305
6,081
52,088
935
503
1,157
350
589
912
1,327
587
636
943
727
609
3,514
1,434
381
271
737
6,562
3,486
1,249
1,719
1,548
1,517
1,560
1,242
3,423
1,881
1,638
1,859
1,751
2,718
1,551
1,848
1,270
2,938
41,147
1,512
1,627
1,554
1,554
1,897
1,798
1,552
1,545
1,597
1,161
992
1,545
1,318
1,379
2,117
1,608
1,412
1,295
670
771
773
594
1,070
916
613
628
800
624
374
595
561
549
879
614
550
1,129
555
581
511
655
716
906
627
513
715
522
386
745
305
645
878
543
443
1,955
115
APPENDIX C
TABLE C-6
17-Year Cumulative History FY 1983–99
TABLE C-7
State Demographic Information, FY 1999
(adjusted by state COL Index, 1999 dollars)
Cumulative
BOP
State
($ in billions)
(*adjusted by state COL Index, 1999 dollars)
Rank
Per Capita
Cumulative
BOP
Rank
State
Per Capita
Income*
Rank
1998 Poverty
Rate*
Rank
Population
65 and Older
Rank
Population
under 18
Rank
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
$111
12
49
49
(127)
5
(91)
(16)
43
7
26
4
23
12
13
46
29
44
36
15
27
17
$25,481
19,276
10,316
19,259
(3,830)
1,144
(27,753)
(21,371)
2,820
889
21,812
9
12
22
14
36
30
49
47
27
31
11
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
$24,754
25,606
25,194
24,300
29,217
31,322
34,902
29,783
29,718
29,673
22,870
24,650
39
33
37
43
16
5
1
11
12
13
48
41
14.0%
12.0%
17.7%
17.6%
17.8%
8.3%
11.3%
10.3%
14.0%
14.5%
17.0%
14.2%
19
27
4
5
3
48
33
41
18
15
6
17
13.0%
5.6%
13.2%
14.2%
11.0%
10.1%
14.3%
13.0%
18.1%
9.8%
13.7%
11.3%
25
50
22
9
45
47
8
24
1
48
13
43
24.4%
31.8%
27.9%
25.9%
26.9%
26.3%
25.2%
24.2%
23.6%
26.4%
24.4%
28.0%
40
2
6
21
11
17
32
44
47
15
38
5
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
16
(320)
(51)
8
9
69
61
24
127
(10)
(192)
(73)
107
141
24
7
(21)
(24)
(284)
100
(252)
(13)
22
50
40
26
25
7
10
19
3
33
47
42
5
2
18
28
38
39
49
6
48
34
13,077
(26,361)
(8,655)
2,887
3,454
17,336
13,967
19,270
24,498
(1,557)
(19,486)
(15,206)
38,493
25,859
27,423
4,001
(11,752)
(19,657)
(34,850)
57,403
(13,865)
(1,725)
19
48
40
26
25
15
17
13
10
34
45
44
3
8
6
24
41
46
50
1
43
35
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
31,195
27,083
27,540
28,534
25,254
24,553
23,793
33,018
31,292
29,313
32,232
22,689
28,201
23,381
29,237
30,110
28,476
31,750
22,591
29,997
28,490
7
31
26
20
36
42
44
2
6
14
3
49
23
45
15
9
22
4
50
10
21
12.1%
8.2%
9.4%
9.1%
15.0%
15.8%
11.4%
8.5%
14.5%
10.6%
9.9%
15.1%
11.7%
15.2%
9.6%
11.6%
10.7%
11.2%
21.9%
19.4%
10.9%
25
49
45
46
12
8
32
47
16
38
42
11
30
10
43
31
37
34
1
2
35
12.3%
12.5%
14.9%
13.3%
12.5%
11.5%
14.0%
11.5%
13.9%
12.4%
12.3%
12.1%
13.6%
13.3%
13.7%
11.5%
12.0%
13.6%
11.5%
13.4%
12.5%
31
26
5
18
28
40
10
38
11
30
33
35
14
20
12
41
36
15
39
17
27
26.2%
25.7%
25.1%
26.3%
24.4%
27.2%
23.2%
25.3%
23.8%
26.0%
26.6%
27.2%
25.6%
25.4%
26.6%
27.2%
25.3%
24.6%
28.5%
24.4%
25.4%
19
23
33
16
41
7
49
29
46
20
13
8
25
27
12
9
28
36
4
39
26
ND
OH
OK
OR
23
(78)
45
(17)
20
43
14
37
36,915
(6,972)
13,432
(5,106)
4
39
18
37
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
25,269
27,627
24,730
27,423
27,393
35
24
40
27
28
12.9%
10.9%
12.1%
11.9%
12.5%
22
36
25
28
23
14.6%
13.3%
13.4%
13.1%
15.8%
6
19
16
23
2
25.3%
25.3%
26.3%
25.0%
23.8%
31
30
18
34
45
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
(14)
5
67
19
67
(111)
26
(1)
276
9
50
(72)
1
35
30
8
21
9
45
16
32
1
24
11
41
31
(1,192)
4,654
17,310
26,028
12,145
(5,543)
12,227
(1,379)
40,098
1,597
27,696
(13,735)
2,517
32
23
16
7
21
38
20
33
2
29
5
42
28
RI
26,853
SC
25,463
SD
27,282
TN
27,591
TX
29,176
UT
23,284
VT
24,984
VA
30,917
WA
29,100
WV
23,011
WI
28,790
WY
27,102
DC
36,670
US Avg. 28,518
32
34
29
25
17
46
38
8
18
47
19
30
16.0%
12.3%
15.4%
13.0%
15.0%
9.5%
10.3%
11.7%
10.4%
14.8%
7.7%
13.8%
23.3%
13.6%
7
24
9
21
13
44
40
29
39
14
50
20
15.6%
12.2%
14.4%
12.4%
10.1%
8.7%
12.3%
11.3%
11.4%
15.1%
13.2%
11.6%
13.9%
12.7%
3
34
7
29
46
49
32
44
42
4
21
37
24.3%
24.6%
27.0%
24.5%
28.5%
33.2%
23.5%
24.2%
25.8%
22.3%
25.7%
26.4%
18.4%
25.7%
42
35
10
37
3
1
48
43
22
50
24
14
116
Appendix D: Federal Balance of Payments,
Taxes, and Spending, FY 1983–1999*
YEAR
STATE
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
DC
BOP
$2,091
2,777
904
1,633
(685)
(620)
(2,840)
(1,025)
47
(29)
1,982
829
(1,669)
(399)
750
373
1,595
1,576
1,324
1,770
(895)
(1,042)
(1,294)
2,684
1,187
3,109
320
(1,583)
(1,787)
(2,342)
3,944
(890)
146
3,043
(344)
1,866
(483)
256
528
1,265
2,327
961
(189)
230
343
3,069
(533)
2,808
(887)
386
42,514
RANK
SPENDING
RANK
TAXES
RANK
YEAR
STATE
BOP
RANK
SPENDING
RANK
TAXES
RANK
9
6
20
13
39
38
50
43
31
32
10
21
47
35
22
25
14
15
16
12
42
44
45
7
18
2
27
46
48
49
1
41
30
4
34
11
36
28
23
17
8
19
33
29
26
3
37
5
40
24
$6,610
7,649
5,617
5,871
4,909
5,303
5,224
4,851
6,121
5,493
5,937
5,178
4,592
4,686
5,820
5,832
6,111
6,008
5,539
8,334
5,361
4,682
4,775
6,589
6,544
7,389
5,624
4,355
4,067
4,362
7,992
4,944
5,287
7,690
4,827
6,198
4,752
5,531
5,504
5,810
7,276
6,071
5,377
4,324
5,061
8,825
5,339
6,724
4,521
6,338
49,965
9
5
24
19
38
32
34
39
14
28
18
35
45
43
21
20
15
17
25
2
30
44
41
10
11
6
23
48
50
47
3
37
33
4
40
13
42
26
27
22
7
16
29
49
36
1
31
8
46
12
$4,519
4,872
4,713
4,238
5,593
5,923
8,064
5,876
6,074
5,523
3,955
4,349
6,260
5,085
5,071
5,459
4,516
4,432
4,215
6,564
6,256
5,724
6,069
3,905
5,358
4,279
5,304
5,938
5,854
6,705
4,048
5,834
5,141
4,647
5,171
4,332
5,235
5,275
4,976
4,546
4,949
5,110
5,566
4,094
4,719
5,756
5,872
3,916
5,409
5,951
7,451
38
33
35
44
17
10
1
11
6
19
48
41
4
29
30
20
39
40
45
3
5
16
7
50
22
43
23
9
13
2
47
14
27
36
26
42
25
24
31
37
32
28
18
46
34
15
12
49
21
8
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
DC
$1,863
2,155
493
1,534
(600)
(444)
(2,432)
(1,050)
128
(111)
1,981
817
(1,535)
(374)
548
187
2,073
1,312
1,668
2,148
(793)
(1,231)
(1,568)
2,351
1,269
2,454
125
(1,802)
(1,565)
(2,054)
3,778
(854)
66
2,568
(369)
1,755
(441)
218
754
1,159
1,838
1,000
(252)
9
167
2,969
(355)
2,710
(886)
243
37,804
11
7
23
15
39
38
50
43
28
32
10
20
45
36
22
26
9
16
14
8
40
44
47
6
17
5
29
48
46
49
1
41
30
4
35
13
37
25
21
18
12
19
33
31
27
2
34
3
42
24
$6,394
7,040
5,267
5,746
4,988
5,374
5,394
4,739
6,045
5,414
5,874
5,217
4,690
4,693
5,558
5,584
6,546
5,758
5,838
8,483
5,421
4,602
4,670
6,279
6,603
6,653
5,408
4,410
4,190
4,463
7,811
4,947
5,238
7,112
4,834
6,016
4,786
5,474
5,634
5,724
6,503
6,176
5,226
4,252
4,827
8,793
5,414
6,635
4,497
6,083
44,997
11
5
32
20
36
31
30
41
15
28
17
35
43
42
24
23
9
19
18
2
26
45
44
12
8
6
29
48
50
47
3
37
33
4
38
16
40
25
22
21
10
13
34
49
39
1
27
7
46
14
$4,531
4,886
4,774
4,212
5,588
5,818
7,826
5,790
5,918
5,525
3,893
4,400
6,225
5,066
5,010
5,397
4,473
4,446
4,171
6,335
6,214
5,834
6,238
3,929
5,334
4,199
5,282
6,213
5,755
6,517
4,032
5,801
5,172
4,544
5,202
4,261
5,227
5,256
4,880
4,565
4,665
5,176
5,479
4,243
4,660
5,824
5,770
3,926
5,383
5,840
7,193
38
31
33
44
17
12
1
14
8
18
50
41
5
29
30
20
39
40
46
3
6
10
4
48
22
45
23
7
16
2
47
13
28
37
26
42
25
24
32
36
34
27
19
43
35
11
15
49
21
9
*1999 dollars, adjusted by state COL Index
117
APPENDIX D: FEDERAL BALANCE OF PAYMENTS, TAXES, AND SPENDING, FY 1983–1999*
YEAR
STATE
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
DC
BOP
$1,717
1,969
387
1,348
(463)
(530)
(2,438)
(1,025)
354
(77)
1,718
569
(1,717)
(495)
255
(40)
1,613
1,636
1,599
1,802
(622)
(1,387)
(1,433)
2,333
1,212
2,189
(157)
(1,625)
(1,498)
(2,006)
3,603
(702)
53
2,644
(412)
1,642
(412)
167
649
1,023
1,659
776
(142)
46
39
2,779
(143)
2,387
(953)
617
36,318
RANK
SPENDING
RANK
TAXES
RANK
YEAR
STATE
10
7
23
16
37
39
50
43
24
31
9
22
48
38
25
30
14
13
15
8
40
44
45
5
17
6
34
47
46
49
1
41
27
3
35
12
36
26
20
18
11
19
32
28
29
2
33
4
42
21
$6,372
7,012
5,086
5,689
5,052
5,229
5,115
4,758
6,169
5,431
5,694
5,043
4,605
4,659
5,255
5,389
6,152
6,008
5,763
8,103
5,542
4,628
4,687
6,348
6,542
6,485
5,214
4,398
4,129
4,507
7,677
4,953
5,244
7,285
4,830
5,891
4,780
5,424
5,581
5,659
6,412
6,000
5,203
4,286
4,678
8,571
5,494
6,482
4,455
5,897
43,373
10
5
34
20
35
30
33
40
12
25
19
36
45
43
28
27
13
14
18
2
23
44
41
11
6
7
31
48
50
46
3
37
29
4
38
17
39
26
22
21
9
15
32
49
42
1
24
8
47
16
$4,655
5,043
4,699
4,341
5,515
5,759
7,553
5,783
5,815
5,508
3,976
4,475
6,321
5,154
5,000
5,429
4,538
4,371
4,164
6,300
6,164
6,015
6,120
4,014
5,330
4,296
5,371
6,023
5,628
6,514
4,074
5,655
5,190
4,641
5,242
4,249
5,192
5,257
4,932
4,636
4,753
5,224
5,344
4,240
4,639
5,792
5,636
4,095
5,408
5,280
7,055
35
30
34
42
16
12
1
11
9
17
50
40
3
29
31
18
39
41
46
4
5
8
6
49
22
43
20
7
15
2
48
13
28
36
25
44
27
24
32
38
33
26
21
45
37
10
14
47
19
23
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
DC
*1999 dollars, adjusted by state COL Index
118
BOP
$1,566
1,399
685
1,241
(387)
(201)
(2,056)
(1,016)
316
41
1,367
653
(1,689)
(724)
289
(39)
1,263
1,296
1,238
1,501
(454)
(1,418)
(1,407)
2,549
2,074
1,819
(46)
(1,047)
(1,441)
(2,027)
3,501
(767)
54
1,664
(408)
1,403
(406)
104
431
1,047
1,248
695
(90)
192
150
2,491
(145)
2,200
(1,112)
249
34,657
RANK
SPENDING
RANK
TAXES
RANK
8
11
20
16
36
35
50
42
23
30
12
21
48
40
24
31
14
13
17
9
39
46
45
2
5
6
32
43
47
49
1
41
29
7
38
10
37
28
22
18
15
19
33
26
27
3
34
4
44
25
$6,291
6,733
5,275
5,651
5,143
5,582
5,236
4,819
6,192
5,478
5,628
5,147
4,626
4,570
5,320
5,437
5,881
5,775
5,535
7,899
5,566
4,639
4,576
6,571
7,483
6,289
5,176
4,973
4,261
4,487
7,725
4,934
5,245
6,353
4,909
5,860
4,829
5,420
5,534
5,694
6,055
5,903
5,268
4,343
4,826
8,416
5,563
6,446
4,328
5,761
42,163
9
5
30
19
36
21
33
42
11
26
20
35
44
46
29
27
14
16
24
2
22
43
45
6
4
10
34
37
50
47
3
38
32
8
39
15
40
28
25
18
12
13
31
48
41
1
23
7
49
17
$4,725
5,334
4,590
4,410
5,529
5,783
7,292
5,835
5,876
5,437
4,261
4,494
6,315
5,294
5,032
5,476
4,618
4,479
4,297
6,399
6,021
6,057
5,982
4,022
5,410
4,470
5,223
6,021
5,702
6,514
4,225
5,702
5,191
4,689
5,318
4,458
5,235
5,316
5,103
4,647
4,806
5,208
5,357
4,151
4,676
5,924
5,708
4,246
5,440
5,511
7,505
34
23
39
44
16
12
1
11
10
20
46
40
4
26
32
18
38
41
45
3
6
5
8
50
21
42
28
6
14
2
48
14
30
35
24
43
27
25
31
37
33
29
22
49
36
9
13
47
19
17
APPENDIX D: FEDERAL BALANCE OF PAYMENTS, TAXES, AND SPENDING, FY 1983–1999*
YEAR
STATE
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
DC
BOP
$1,629
1,063
853
1,057
(255)
(233)
(2,466)
(1,415)
258
85
908
552
(1,687)
(789)
53
46
1,363
1,439
1,262
1,731
(304)
(1,411)
(1,454)
2,409
1,457
1,774
(166)
(1,420)
(1,430)
(2,079)
3,651
(943)
(41)
1,870
(438)
1,233
(436)
166
495
1,119
1,053
742
(54)
734
18
2,970
(31)
2,415
(1,149)
294
33,259
RANK
SPENDING
RANK
TAXES
RANK
YEAR
STATE
BOP
RANK
SPENDING
RANK
TAXES
RANK
8
15
19
16
36
35
50
44
25
27
18
22
48
40
28
29
11
10
12
7
37
43
47
4
9
6
34
45
46
49
1
41
32
5
39
13
38
26
23
14
17
20
33
21
30
2
31
3
42
24
$6,312
6,716
5,423
5,703
5,229
5,603
5,196
4,869
6,116
5,539
5,315
5,249
4,701
4,506
5,347
5,697
6,009
6,099
5,581
8,148
5,699
4,789
4,783
6,413
6,957
6,372
5,303
4,751
4,307
4,573
7,885
5,035
5,066
6,911
5,057
5,832
4,871
5,565
5,762
5,750
6,280
5,961
5,347
4,766
4,803
8,886
5,707
6,742
4,432
5,930
41,035
10
7
28
21
34
24
35
40
12
27
31
33
46
48
29
23
14
13
25
2
22
42
43
8
4
9
32
45
50
47
3
38
36
5
37
17
39
26
18
19
11
15
30
44
41
1
20
6
49
16
$4,682
5,653
4,570
4,645
5,484
5,836
7,662
6,284
5,858
5,454
4,406
4,697
6,388
5,294
5,294
5,651
4,646
4,660
4,318
6,418
6,003
6,201
6,237
4,004
5,499
4,598
5,469
6,171
5,738
6,652
4,233
5,978
5,108
5,041
5,495
4,600
5,307
5,399
5,267
4,631
5,227
5,219
5,401
4,032
4,784
5,916
5,738
4,327
5,581
5,636
7,776
37
16
44
40
22
13
1
5
12
24
45
36
4
28
28
17
39
38
47
3
9
7
6
50
20
43
23
8
14
2
48
10
33
34
21
42
27
26
30
41
31
32
25
49
35
11
14
46
19
18
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
DC
$1,722
1,660
748
1,178
(184)
101
(2,554)
(1,740)
132
237
1,040
543
(1,600)
(670)
488
232
972
1,490
1,471
1,682
(125)
(1,051)
(1,220)
2,701
1,755
1,686
134
(1,358)
(1,335)
(2,021)
3,708
(1,103)
(99)
2,611
(513)
1,135
(288)
(70)
304
1,196
1,458
699
(169)
565
(270)
2,353
(300)
2,045
(956)
264
33,548
7
10
19
15
35
30
50
48
29
26
17
22
47
40
23
27
18
11
12
9
33
42
44
2
6
8
28
46
45
49
1
43
32
3
39
16
37
31
24
14
13
20
34
21
36
4
38
5
41
25
$6,379
7,359
5,186
5,734
5,362
5,912
4,986
4,593
5,992
5,585
5,615
5,201
4,705
4,490
5,521
5,882
5,586
6,032
5,791
8,123
5,788
4,857
4,867
6,593
7,177
6,388
5,508
4,662
4,237
4,581
7,873
4,879
4,984
7,352
4,907
5,807
4,908
5,324
5,546
5,768
6,445
5,918
5,254
4,532
4,526
8,227
5,564
6,350
4,559
5,807
41,190
10
4
34
22
30
15
35
44
13
25
23
33
42
49
28
16
24
12
19
2
20
41
40
7
6
9
29
43
50
45
3
39
36
5
38
17
37
31
27
21
8
14
32
47
48
1
26
11
46
18
$4,657
5,699
4,438
4,556
5,546
5,811
7,540
6,333
5,860
5,348
4,575
4,658
6,305
5,161
5,033
5,650
4,614
4,542
4,319
6,442
5,913
5,908
6,087
3,891
5,422
4,702
5,374
6,019
5,572
6,601
4,164
5,982
5,083
4,741
5,420
4,673
5,196
5,394
5,241
4,572
4,986
5,219
5,422
3,967
4,796
5,873
5,864
4,305
5,514
5,543
7,642
39
15
45
43
18
14
1
4
13
26
41
38
5
30
32
16
40
44
46
3
9
10
6
50
21
36
25
7
17
2
48
8
31
35
23
37
29
24
27
42
33
28
21
49
34
11
12
47
20
19
*1999 dollars, adjusted by state COL Index
119
APPENDIX D: FEDERAL BALANCE OF PAYMENTS, TAXES, AND SPENDING, FY 1983–1999*
YEAR
STATE
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
DC
BOP
$1,651
1,665
987
1,141
(308)
259
(2,203)
(1,981)
520
176
969
851
(1,611)
(486)
122
78
935
1,326
1,643
1,403
(45)
(1,126)
(1,180)
2,498
1,543
1,792
447
(1,076)
(1,756)
(2,202)
4,114
(924)
(153)
2,213
(482)
1,098
(339)
(63)
323
1,126
1,538
762
(169)
698
(284)
2,369
(538)
2,105
(945)
29
31,506
RANK
SPENDING
RANK
TAXES
RANK
YEAR
STATE
8
7
17
14
36
26
50
48
23
27
18
20
46
39
28
29
19
13
9
12
31
44
45
2
10
6
24
43
47
49
1
41
33
4
38
16
37
32
25
15
11
21
34
22
35
3
40
5
42
30
$6,338
7,806
5,438
5,741
5,325
6,075
5,161
4,582
6,202
5,557
5,554
5,409
4,726
4,723
5,402
5,879
5,638
5,953
5,963
7,937
5,837
4,843
4,927
6,393
6,999
6,384
5,867
4,789
3,929
4,647
8,303
4,962
4,956
7,248
4,961
5,842
4,859
5,321
5,497
5,700
6,465
5,906
5,336
4,674
4,502
8,327
5,453
6,432
4,588
5,705
38,682
11
4
29
21
33
13
35
48
12
25
26
30
43
44
31
17
24
15
14
3
20
41
39
9
6
10
18
42
50
46
2
36
38
5
37
19
40
34
27
23
7
16
32
45
49
1
28
8
47
22
$4,687
6,142
4,451
4,600
5,633
5,816
7,365
6,563
5,682
5,381
4,585
4,558
6,337
5,210
5,279
5,801
4,703
4,627
4,320
6,534
5,882
5,969
6,107
3,895
5,456
4,592
5,420
5,865
5,685
6,848
4,189
5,886
5,109
5,035
5,443
4,744
5,198
5,384
5,174
4,575
4,928
5,145
5,504
3,976
4,786
5,958
5,991
4,327
5,533
5,676
7,176
38
6
45
40
19
14
1
3
17
26
42
44
5
28
27
15
37
39
47
4
12
9
7
50
22
41
24
13
16
2
48
11
32
33
23
36
29
25
30
43
34
31
21
49
35
10
8
46
20
18
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
DC
*1999 dollars, adjusted by state COL Index
120
BOP
$1,877
1,160
747
1,163
(466)
579
(2,169)
(2,069)
208
283
512
1,279
(1,652)
(603)
90
153
972
1,167
1,801
1,440
60
(955)
(1,131)
3,116
1,114
1,818
148
(951)
(1,221)
(2,220)
4,035
(798)
(0)
2,368
(423)
1,153
(396)
5
475
1,316
1,471
891
(181)
850
(280)
2,245
(278)
1,824
(882)
333
31,903
RANK
SPENDING
RANK
TAXES
RANK
5
15
21
14
39
22
49
48
27
26
23
12
47
40
30
28
18
13
8
10
31
44
45
2
17
7
29
43
46
50
1
41
33
3
38
16
37
32
24
11
9
19
34
20
36
4
35
6
42
25
$6,408
7,301
5,187
5,576
5,245
6,138
5,151
4,557
5,945
5,531
5,283
5,603
4,593
4,431
5,257
5,814
5,508
5,629
6,094
7,893
5,825
4,850
4,826
6,893
6,452
6,315
5,518
4,812
4,290
4,601
8,129
4,990
4,977
7,088
4,849
5,865
4,820
5,295
5,483
5,829
6,203
5,842
5,225
4,743
4,451
8,041
5,518
6,061
4,537
5,722
38,651
8
4
34
23
32
11
35
46
14
24
30
22
45
49
31
19
27
21
12
3
18
38
40
6
7
9
26
42
50
44
1
36
37
5
39
15
41
29
28
17
10
16
33
43
48
2
25
13
47
20
$4,531
6,141
4,439
4,413
5,711
5,558
7,320
6,626
5,737
5,248
4,771
4,324
6,245
5,035
5,167
5,661
4,536
4,462
4,293
6,453
5,765
5,805
5,957
3,776
5,338
4,497
5,370
5,764
5,511
6,821
4,094
5,788
4,977
4,720
5,272
4,713
5,216
5,290
5,008
4,513
4,732
4,950
5,405
3,893
4,730
5,796
5,796
4,238
5,419
5,389
6,748
39
6
43
44
15
17
1
3
14
26
33
45
5
29
28
16
38
42
46
4
12
8
7
50
23
41
22
13
18
2
48
11
31
36
25
37
27
24
30
40
34
32
20
49
35
9
9
47
19
21
APPENDIX D: FEDERAL BALANCE OF PAYMENTS, TAXES, AND SPENDING, FY 1983–1999*
YEAR
STATE
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
DC
BOP
$1,823
1,257
866
1,125
(576)
1,022
(1,585)
(1,975)
84
(113)
823
1,273
(1,608)
(399)
8
137
1,297
1,039
1,121
1,343
193
(1,109)
(755)
2,493
1,675
1,722
237
(658)
(1,394)
(2,265)
3,885
(986)
(133)
2,380
(220)
1,032
(326)
(192)
209
1,360
1,590
1,002
(53)
1,160
(398)
2,428
(86)
1,824
(806)
366
31,320
RANK
SPENDING
RANK
TAXES
RANK
YEAR
STATE
BOP
RANK
SPENDING
RANK
TAXES
RANK
6
14
22
16
40
20
47
49
29
33
23
13
48
39
30
28
12
18
17
11
27
45
42
2
8
7
25
41
46
50
1
44
34
4
36
19
37
35
26
10
9
21
31
15
38
3
32
5
43
24
$6,034
7,085
5,105
5,221
4,996
6,269
5,470
4,265
5,553
4,833
5,257
5,382
4,350
4,337
4,908
5,598
5,564
5,143
5,338
7,508
5,766
4,420
4,882
5,977
6,721
5,976
5,305
4,718
3,999
4,296
7,720
4,631
4,652
6,822
4,766
5,506
4,626
4,853
5,122
5,627
6,016
5,654
5,009
4,711
4,220
7,985
5,269
5,748
4,275
5,429
37,671
8
4
30
27
32
7
20
48
18
36
26
22
44
45
33
16
17
28
23
3
12
43
34
10
6
11
24
38
50
46
2
41
40
5
37
19
42
35
29
15
9
14
31
39
49
1
25
13
47
21
$4,211
5,828
4,239
4,096
5,572
5,247
7,055
6,240
5,469
4,946
4,435
4,108
5,957
4,737
4,899
5,461
4,267
4,104
4,217
6,165
5,572
5,529
5,637
3,484
5,046
4,254
5,069
5,377
5,393
6,561
3,834
5,616
4,785
4,443
4,986
4,473
4,953
5,045
4,913
4,267
4,427
4,652
5,062
3,552
4,619
5,556
5,355
3,924
5,081
5,063
6,352
43
6
41
46
10
18
1
3
13
27
36
44
5
31
29
14
38
45
42
4
9
12
7
50
23
40
20
16
15
2
48
8
30
35
25
34
26
24
28
38
37
32
22
49
33
11
17
47
19
21
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
DC
$1,948
1,025
1,163
1,163
(481)
960
(1,898)
(1,861)
57
(218)
1,056
1,342
(1,588)
(478)
366
318
1,192
1,147
821
1,306
89
(1,070)
(680)
2,364
1,633
1,764
587
(991)
(1,644)
(2,404)
3,906
(1,068)
(179)
2,167
(186)
1,028
(25)
(222)
141
1,592
1,682
700
(100)
1,503
(623)
2,454
264
1,627
(715)
836
28,482
5
20
15
16
39
21
49
48
31
36
18
12
46
38
26
27
14
17
23
13
30
45
41
3
8
6
25
43
47
50
1
44
34
4
35
19
32
37
29
10
7
24
33
11
40
2
28
9
42
22
$5,888
6,699
5,283
4,986
4,864
5,932
5,109
4,069
5,362
4,517
5,241
5,111
4,138
4,075
4,986
5,302
5,159
4,971
4,912
7,273
5,592
4,255
4,614
5,589
6,471
5,746
5,254
4,431
3,818
4,130
7,534
4,389
4,286
6,332
4,582
5,244
4,602
4,621
4,973
5,466
5,713
5,141
4,754
4,842
3,894
7,809
5,269
5,266
4,179
5,441
34,622
8
4
17
27
32
7
26
48
15
39
22
25
45
47
28
16
23
30
31
3
11
43
36
12
5
9
20
40
50
46
2
41
42
6
38
21
37
35
29
13
10
24
34
33
49
1
18
19
44
14
$3,940
5,674
4,120
3,824
5,344
4,972
7,007
5,930
5,306
4,734
4,185
3,769
5,726
4,553
4,620
4,984
3,966
3,824
4,091
5,968
5,503
5,325
5,294
3,225
4,838
3,982
4,667
5,422
5,462
6,534
3,629
5,456
4,465
4,165
4,768
4,216
4,628
4,843
4,832
3,875
4,031
4,442
4,854
3,339
4,516
5,356
5,005
3,639
4,894
4,605
6,139
42
6
37
45
12
18
1
4
14
25
35
46
5
30
28
17
41
44
38
3
7
13
15
50
22
40
26
10
8
2
48
9
32
36
24
34
27
21
23
43
39
33
20
49
31
11
16
47
19
29
*1999 dollars, adjusted by state COL Index
121
APPENDIX D: FEDERAL BALANCE OF PAYMENTS, TAXES, AND SPENDING, FY 1983–1999*
YEAR
STATE
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
DC
BOP
$1,454
1,767
871
1,210
(403)
1,078
(1,249)
(1,510)
16
(159)
1,584
1,689
(1,556)
(460)
590
360
1,034
1,060
221
1,243
(50)
(1,294)
(499)
2,102
1,726
2,045
709
(382)
(1,690)
(2,510)
3,856
(1,059)
(212)
2,802
(192)
967
(155)
(255)
(154)
1,196
2,234
631
(3)
1,563
(296)
2,012
638
1,392
(472)
804
27,277
RANK
SPENDING
RANK
TAXES
RANK
YEAR
STATE
BOP
RANK
SPENDING
RANK
TAXES
RANK
12
7
21
15
40
17
45
47
29
34
10
9
48
41
26
27
19
18
28
14
31
46
43
4
8
5
23
39
49
50
1
44
36
2
35
20
33
37
32
16
3
25
30
11
38
6
24
13
42
22
$5,316
7,151
5,125
4,917
4,876
5,916
5,880
4,149
5,242
4,542
5,541
5,299
3,969
4,001
4,993
5,253
4,896
4,793
4,281
7,174
5,666
3,974
4,679
5,327
6,492
5,811
5,122
4,786
3,817
4,002
7,426
4,343
4,245
6,751
4,528
5,093
4,321
4,445
4,676
5,101
5,976
4,971
4,751
4,860
3,995
7,362
5,577
4,979
4,247
5,098
33,681
15
4
19
27
29
8
9
44
18
36
13
16
49
46
24
17
28
31
41
3
11
48
34
14
6
10
20
32
50
45
1
39
43
5
37
23
40
38
35
21
7
26
33
30
47
2
12
25
42
22
$3,862
5,384
4,254
3,707
5,279
4,838
7,130
5,659
5,226
4,701
3,957
3,610
5,525
4,461
4,403
4,892
3,862
3,734
4,060
5,932
5,717
5,268
5,178
3,225
4,765
3,766
4,413
5,168
5,507
6,512
3,570
5,402
4,457
3,949
4,720
4,126
4,476
4,700
4,830
3,906
3,743
4,340
4,754
3,297
4,291
5,350
4,938
3,587
4,719
4,294
6,404
40
9
34
45
11
18
1
5
13
24
37
46
6
27
30
17
41
44
36
3
4
12
14
50
20
42
29
15
7
2
48
8
28
38
22
35
26
25
19
39
43
31
21
49
33
10
16
47
23
32
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
DC
$1,511
1,439
709
1,212
(297)
799
(1,332)
(1,289)
(113)
(307)
1,538
1,526
(1,498)
(536)
713
499
507
620
522
1,456
(266)
(1,449)
(472)
2,762
1,376
1,658
1,014
(484)
(1,577)
(2,429)
4,806
(1,005)
(189)
2,320
(290)
922
(62)
(261)
(152)
943
1,950
593
(249)
1,568
(355)
3,474
764
1,141
(692)
990
26,590
10
12
23
14
37
20
46
45
30
38
8
9
48
42
22
28
27
24
26
11
35
47
40
3
13
6
16
41
49
50
1
44
32
4
36
19
29
34
31
18
5
25
33
7
39
2
21
15
43
17
$5,321
6,682
5,022
4,823
4,997
5,647
5,475
4,283
5,157
4,338
5,420
5,147
3,935
3,912
5,111
5,372
4,385
4,325
4,525
7,271
5,335
3,801
4,717
5,937
6,211
5,464
5,487
4,628
3,815
3,924
8,424
4,294
4,187
6,506
4,409
5,073
4,421
4,394
4,616
4,785
5,720
4,886
4,552
4,874
3,853
8,770
5,655
4,742
3,988
5,282
33,047
17
4
23
27
24
10
12
42
19
39
14
20
45
47
21
15
38
40
34
3
16
50
30
7
6
13
11
31
49
46
2
41
43
5
36
22
35
37
32
28
8
25
33
26
48
1
9
29
44
18
$3,810
5,242
4,313
3,611
5,294
4,847
6,808
5,572
5,270
4,645
3,882
3,621
5,433
4,448
4,397
4,873
3,878
3,705
4,003
5,816
5,601
5,250
5,189
3,175
4,835
3,806
4,474
5,112
5,392
6,352
3,618
5,298
4,376
4,186
4,699
4,151
4,483
4,655
4,769
3,842
3,770
4,293
4,801
3,305
4,209
5,296
4,891
3,601
4,680
4,292
6,457
41
13
31
47
10
18
1
5
11
25
38
45
6
28
29
17
39
44
37
3
4
12
14
50
19
42
27
15
7
2
46
8
30
35
22
36
26
24
21
40
43
32
20
49
34
9
16
48
23
33
*1999 dollars, adjusted by state COL Index
122
APPENDIX D: FEDERAL BALANCE OF PAYMENTS, TAXES, AND SPENDING, FY 1983–1999*
YEAR
STATE
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
DC
BOP
$1,506
1,064
1,032
1,160
(121)
529
(1,067)
(1,443)
134
129
1,600
1,173
(1,555)
(501)
641
335
731
167
996
1,624
214
(1,557)
(388)
2,139
1,449
1,458
610
(188)
(1,255)
(2,310)
3,667
(815)
(239)
2,628
(490)
359
(232)
(187)
147
955
2,065
736
(663)
1,574
(208)
2,836
698
751
(823)
(44)
25,866
RANK
SPENDING
RANK
TAXES
RANK
YEAR
STATE
9
14
15
13
33
24
45
47
30
31
7
12
48
41
22
26
20
28
16
6
27
49
39
4
11
10
23
35
46
50
1
43
38
3
40
25
37
34
29
17
5
19
42
8
36
2
21
18
44
32
$5,376
6,692
5,397
4,899
5,214
5,543
5,666
3,971
5,290
4,815
5,510
4,921
3,900
3,970
5,090
5,434
4,570
4,183
4,834
7,516
5,729
3,880
4,769
5,396
6,287
5,522
5,174
4,969
3,946
3,934
7,475
4,514
4,130
6,946
4,266
4,925
4,239
4,495
4,799
4,791
5,863
4,981
4,446
4,987
3,911
8,067
5,713
4,486
3,862
4,725
32,438
17
5
15
27
19
11
10
43
18
29
13
26
48
44
21
14
34
41
28
2
8
49
32
16
6
12
20
24
45
46
3
35
42
4
39
25
40
36
30
31
7
23
38
22
47
1
9
37
50
33
$3,870
5,627
4,364
3,739
5,335
5,014
6,733
5,414
5,156
4,686
3,910
3,748
5,455
4,472
4,449
5,099
3,839
4,016
3,837
5,892
5,515
5,438
5,157
3,258
4,838
4,064
4,564
5,157
5,201
6,244
3,808
5,329
4,369
4,317
4,756
4,566
4,472
4,681
4,652
3,836
3,798
4,245
5,109
3,413
4,119
5,231
5,015
3,736
4,685
4,770
6,572
40
4
33
47
9
19
1
8
15
23
39
46
6
30
31
17
41
38
42
3
5
7
14
50
20
37
28
13
12
2
44
10
32
34
22
27
29
25
26
43
45
35
16
49
36
11
18
48
24
21
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
DC
BOP
$1,196
357
843
1,186
125
25
(821)
(1,532)
205
188
1,613
811
(1,666)
(475)
74
427
1,467
93
833
1,248
322
(1,293)
(571)
2,012
1,493
1,228
344
505
(1,076)
(2,181)
3,430
(760)
(348)
2,024
(411)
(26)
(280)
(256)
(34)
900
1,732
994
(877)
1,389
(149)
2,316
789
759
(785)
(525)
26,905
RANK
SPENDING
RANK
TAXES
RANK
12
23
16
13
28
31
44
48
26
27
6
18
49
39
30
22
8
29
17
10
25
47
41
4
7
11
24
21
46
50
1
42
37
3
38
32
36
35
33
15
5
14
45
9
34
2
19
20
43
40
$5,212
6,362
5,313
4,972
5,567
5,285
5,899
4,172
5,391
4,861
5,681
4,804
3,919
4,174
4,663
5,652
5,446
4,474
4,648
7,412
5,829
4,043
4,627
5,366
6,495
5,417
5,160
5,784
4,084
4,050
7,380
4,617
4,076
6,571
4,481
4,805
4,292
4,583
4,733
4,798
5,630
5,341
4,604
5,005
3,903
7,646
5,816
4,615
3,950
4,639
33,497
22
6
20
25
14
21
7
43
17
26
11
28
49
42
31
12
15
40
32
2
8
47
34
18
5
16
23
10
44
46
3
35
45
4
39
27
41
38
30
29
13
19
37
24
50
1
9
36
48
33
$4,017
6,005
4,470
3,787
5,441
5,260
6,721
5,704
5,186
4,672
4,068
3,993
5,585
4,649
4,589
5,226
3,979
4,381
3,815
6,164
5,507
5,336
5,198
3,354
5,001
4,189
4,817
5,279
5,160
6,230
3,950
5,377
4,424
4,547
4,892
4,830
4,571
4,839
4,767
3,898
3,898
4,348
5,480
3,615
4,052
5,330
5,028
3,857
4,735
5,164
6,592
40
4
33
48
9
14
1
5
17
28
38
41
6
29
30
15
42
35
47
3
7
11
16
50
21
37
25
13
19
2
43
10
34
32
22
24
31
23
26
44
45
36
8
49
39
12
20
46
27
18
*1999 dollars, adjusted by state COL Index
123
APPENDIX D: FEDERAL BALANCE OF PAYMENTS, TAXES, AND SPENDING, FY 1983–1999*
YEAR
STATE
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
DC
BOP
$1,152
(29)
508
1,039
313
(552)
(356)
(1,144)
222
256
1,741
797
(1,717)
(457)
(655)
365
185
(58)
1,279
1,587
294
(1,030)
(660)
1,616
2,272
1,022
(104)
(265)
(431)
(1,836)
3,177
(530)
(345)
1,426
(605)
(317)
(336)
(183)
(3)
867
1,103
336
(965)
968
190
2,386
855
425
(880)
(294)
26,376
RANK
SPENDING
RANK
TAXES
RANK
YEAR
STATE
BOP
RANK
SPENDING
RANK
TAXES
RANK
9
28
17
11
21
41
37
48
24
23
4
16
49
39
43
19
26
29
8
6
22
47
44
5
3
12
30
32
38
50
1
40
36
7
42
34
35
31
27
14
10
20
46
13
25
2
15
18
45
33
$5,096
6,093
4,834
4,866
5,672
4,650
6,092
4,109
5,279
4,852
5,803
4,565
3,800
4,139
4,196
5,633
4,254
4,463
5,066
7,387
5,600
3,944
4,443
5,054
7,097
5,317
4,659
5,074
4,493
4,196
7,178
4,580
3,979
6,211
4,118
4,568
4,162
4,489
4,649
4,796
5,155
4,627
4,451
4,694
4,077
7,609
5,821
4,329
3,781
4,906
32,746
16
6
23
21
10
27
7
45
14
22
9
32
49
43
41
11
39
35
18
2
12
48
37
19
4
13
26
17
33
40
3
30
47
5
44
31
42
34
28
24
15
29
36
25
46
1
8
38
50
20
$3,944
6,122
4,326
3,827
5,359
5,201
6,448
5,252
5,057
4,596
4,061
3,769
5,517
4,595
4,851
5,268
4,069
4,521
3,788
5,800
5,306
4,974
5,103
3,439
4,825
4,295
4,763
5,339
4,924
6,032
4,001
5,110
4,324
4,784
4,723
4,884
4,498
4,672
4,652
3,929
4,052
4,290
5,416
3,727
3,887
5,224
4,966
3,903
4,661
5,200
6,370
42
2
34
46
7
13
1
11
17
30
39
48
5
31
22
10
38
32
47
4
9
18
16
50
23
36
25
8
20
3
41
15
35
24
26
21
33
27
29
43
40
37
6
49
45
12
19
44
28
14
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
DC
$1,043
(388)
709
812
454
(565)
(29)
(1,017)
213
348
1,407
387
(1,664)
(536)
(874)
421
431
(462)
841
1,546
443
(1,024)
(676)
2,191
2,088
420
(329)
(187)
(138)
(1,726)
3,147
(353)
(276)
556
(752)
(550)
(398)
(269)
238
870
1,153
704
(1,118)
1,141
281
2,122
384
363
(731)
(606)
26,726
9
35
13
12
16
40
28
46
27
24
6
21
49
38
45
19
18
37
11
5
17
47
42
2
4
20
33
30
29
50
1
34
32
15
44
39
36
31
26
10
7
14
48
8
25
3
22
23
43
41
$4,871
5,952
4,878
4,468
5,684
4,568
6,082
4,205
5,007
4,695
5,495
4,151
3,579
3,865
3,592
5,567
4,324
4,090
4,492
7,026
5,463
3,774
4,214
5,555
6,713
4,727
4,178
4,954
4,551
4,069
7,095
4,522
3,789
5,466
3,792
4,323
4,022
4,313
4,728
4,611
4,986
4,869
4,156
4,824
4,098
7,187
5,410
4,317
3,742
4,838
32,975
18
6
17
30
7
26
5
36
14
24
10
39
50
44
49
8
31
41
29
3
12
47
35
9
4
23
37
16
27
42
2
28
46
11
45
32
43
34
22
25
15
19
38
21
40
1
13
33
48
20
$3,828
6,340
4,169
3,656
5,229
5,133
6,112
5,222
4,794
4,348
4,088
3,764
5,244
4,401
4,466
5,145
3,892
4,552
3,651
5,480
5,020
4,797
4,890
3,364
4,625
4,307
4,506
5,141
4,689
5,795
3,948
4,875
4,065
4,910
4,544
4,873
4,420
4,581
4,490
3,741
3,833
4,165
5,274
3,683
3,817
5,066
5,026
3,954
4,473
5,444
6,249
43
1
35
48
8
12
2
9
21
33
37
45
7
32
30
10
41
25
49
4
15
20
17
50
23
34
27
11
22
3
40
18
38
16
26
19
31
24
28
46
42
36
6
47
44
13
14
39
29
5
*1999 dollars, adjusted by state COL Index
124
APPENDIX D: FEDERAL BALANCE OF PAYMENTS, TAXES, AND SPENDING, FY 1983–1999*
YEAR
STATE
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
DC
BOP
$1,062
(304)
461
1,149
471
(585)
(321)
(1,277)
447
405
1,539
502
(1,330)
(787)
(651)
(172)
308
(643)
731
1,609
417
(1,009)
(702)
2,011
2,019
444
188
(485)
(188)
(1,801)
2,687
(438)
(185)
672
(612)
(897)
(486)
(134)
240
839
1,015
871
(1,331)
744
354
2,734
637
383
(818)
(1,790)
24,175
RANK
SPENDING
RANK
TAXES
RANK
8
32
18
7
17
37
33
46
19
22
6
16
47
42
40
29
25
39
13
5
21
45
41
4
3
20
27
35
31
50
2
34
30
14
38
44
36
28
26
11
9
10
48
12
24
1
15
23
43
49
$4,782
5,819
4,710
4,674
5,763
4,662
5,891
4,112
5,204
4,640
5,651
4,206
4,159
3,710
3,886
5,029
4,178
4,120
4,321
7,161
5,371
3,815
4,177
5,403
6,557
4,722
4,665
4,886
4,415
3,915
6,636
4,503
3,763
5,318
4,006
4,170
4,011
4,548
4,664
4,510
4,833
4,880
4,148
4,405
4,193
7,772
5,865
4,420
3,756
4,095
30,433
18
7
20
21
8
24
5
41
13
25
9
33
38
50
46
14
35
40
32
2
11
47
36
10
4
19
22
15
30
45
3
28
48
12
44
37
43
26
23
27
17
16
39
31
34
1
6
29
49
42
$3,720
6,122
4,250
3,525
5,292
5,247
6,212
5,388
4,757
4,235
4,112
3,705
5,489
4,497
4,536
5,201
3,870
4,763
3,590
5,553
4,954
4,824
4,879
3,391
4,538
4,278
4,477
5,371
4,602
5,716
3,949
4,940
3,948
4,646
4,618
5,067
4,497
4,682
4,425
3,671
3,818
4,009
5,480
3,661
3,839
5,038
5,228
4,037
4,573
5,885
6,258
44
2
34
49
10
11
1
8
21
35
36
45
6
29
28
13
41
20
48
5
16
19
18
50
27
33
31
9
25
4
39
17
40
23
24
14
29
22
32
46
43
38
7
47
42
15
12
37
26
3
*1999 dollars, adjusted by state COL Index
125