Federal Spending per Representive in congress
Federal spending by state (total) divided by # of US Representatives
Categories:
Federal spending per representative
| Rank | Region | Federal spending by state (total) | ÷ | # of US Representatives | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alaska | 2,604,108.00 | ÷ | 1.00 | 2,604,108.00 |
| 2 | Wyoming | 2,334,042.00 | ÷ | 1.00 | 2,334,042.00 |
| 3 | Montana | 2,108,866.00 | ÷ | 1.00 | 2,108,866.00 |
| 4 | Mississippi | 7,483,659.00 | ÷ | 4.00 | 1,870,914.75 |
| 5 | New Mexico | 5,381,416.00 | ÷ | 3.00 | 1,793,805.33 |
| 6 | Louisiana | 12,457,325.00 | ÷ | 7.00 | 1,779,617.86 |
| 7 | New York | 44,453,782.00 | ÷ | 29.00 | 1,532,889.03 |
| 8 | South Dakota | 1,473,420.00 | ÷ | 1.00 | 1,473,420.00 |
| 9 | Vermont | 1,440,726.00 | ÷ | 1.00 | 1,440,726.00 |
| 10 | North Dakota | 1,402,244.00 | ÷ | 1.00 | 1,402,244.00 |
| 11 | Delaware | 1,363,248.00 | ÷ | 1.00 | 1,363,248.00 |
| 12 | Maine | 2,695,204.00 | ÷ | 2.00 | 1,347,602.00 |
| 13 | Idaho | 2,688,014.00 | ÷ | 2.00 | 1,344,007.00 |
| 14 | Arizona | 9,939,803.00 | ÷ | 8.00 | 1,242,475.38 |
| 15 | West Virginia | 3,557,356.00 | ÷ | 3.00 | 1,185,785.33 |
| 16 | Oklahoma | 5,922,100.00 | ÷ | 5.00 | 1,184,420.00 |
| 17 | Arkansas | 4,733,136.00 | ÷ | 4.00 | 1,183,284.00 |
| 18 | Kentucky | 6,866,588.00 | ÷ | 6.00 | 1,144,431.33 |
| 19 | Massachusetts | 11,402,443.00 | ÷ | 10.00 | 1,140,244.30 |
| 20 | Oregon | 5,498,456.00 | ÷ | 5.00 | 1,099,691.20 |
| 21 | Hawaii | 2,119,718.00 | ÷ | 2.00 | 1,059,859.00 |
| 22 | Connecticut | 5,278,569.00 | ÷ | 5.00 | 1,055,713.80 |
| 23 | Utah | 3,159,668.00 | ÷ | 3.00 | 1,053,222.67 |
| 24 | Tennessee | 9,200,978.00 | ÷ | 9.00 | 1,022,330.89 |
| 25 | Rhode Island | 2,037,330.00 | ÷ | 2.00 | 1,018,665.00 |
| 26 | California | 53,818,106.00 | ÷ | 53.00 | 1,015,435.96 |
| 27 | South Carolina | 6,034,593.00 | ÷ | 6.00 | 1,005,765.50 |
| 28 | Alabama | 6,994,478.00 | ÷ | 7.00 | 999,211.14 |
| 29 | North Carolina | 12,905,638.00 | ÷ | 13.00 | 992,741.38 |
| 30 | Pennsylvania | 18,831,865.00 | ÷ | 19.00 | 991,150.79 |
| 31 | Washington | 8,668,016.00 | ÷ | 9.00 | 963,112.89 |
| 32 | Texas | 30,579,994.00 | ÷ | 32.00 | 955,624.81 |
| 33 | Minnesota | 7,532,966.00 | ÷ | 8.00 | 941,620.75 |
| 34 | Maryland | 7,472,883.00 | ÷ | 8.00 | 934,110.38 |
| 35 | Missouri | 8,272,929.00 | ÷ | 9.00 | 919,214.33 |
| 36 | Indiana | 8,272,302.00 | ÷ | 9.00 | 919,144.67 |
| 37 | Michigan | 13,587,329.00 | ÷ | 15.00 | 905,821.93 |
| 38 | New Jersey | 11,579,543.00 | ÷ | 13.00 | 890,734.08 |
| 39 | Kansas | 3,514,429.00 | ÷ | 4.00 | 878,607.25 |
| 40 | Wisconsin | 6,999,599.00 | ÷ | 8.00 | 874,949.88 |
| 41 | Illinois | 16,266,650.00 | ÷ | 19.00 | 856,139.47 |
| 42 | Ohio | 15,229,949.00 | ÷ | 18.00 | 846,108.28 |
| 43 | New Hampshire | 1,691,952.00 | ÷ | 2.00 | 845,976.00 |
| 44 | Florida | 20,658,623.00 | ÷ | 25.00 | 826,344.92 |
| 45 | Georgia | 10,674,545.00 | ÷ | 13.00 | 821,118.85 |
| 46 | Nevada | 2,449,622.00 | ÷ | 3.00 | 816,540.67 |
| 47 | Nebraska | 2,439,146.00 | ÷ | 3.00 | 813,048.67 |
| 48 | Iowa | 4,014,269.00 | ÷ | 5.00 | 802,853.80 |
| 49 | Colorado | 5,320,782.00 | ÷ | 7.00 | 760,111.71 |
| 50 | Virginia | 7,723,690.00 | ÷ | 11.00 | 702,153.64 |
Ready? 1,570 Mashups and counting!
Create a Mashup
Not registered? It's cool.
Register Here
Not enough data? Suggest some more!
Suggest a Data Set
Need something more statistically rigorous?
Analyze This!
Related Mashups
Federal spending by state (total)
divided by
State Land Area (square miles)
nbucknor
20 weeks 2 days ago
Federal spending by state (total)
divided by
Population: Census 2008
nbucknor
22 weeks 6 days ago
Population: Census 2008
divided by
# of US Representatives
nbucknor
25 weeks 2 days ago
Federal spending by state (total)
divided by
Population: Census 2008
smileyrichariho
21 weeks 4 days ago
US Pollutant Releases and Transfers
divided by
# of US Representatives
rainbowuni
23 weeks 4 days ago
- 1 of 15
- ››
Comments
very interesting map, illustrative.
Using total federal spending is not the best measure as some federal spending is determined purely by legislative formula and representatives have no ability to influence this. Given that each state should get a baseline simply by virtue of the formulas, we would expect (as your mashup shows) that a low number of representatives will guarantee a high ranking for a state.
Hmmm, seems to show spending on our largest and most valuable National Parks and on areas recovering from one of the worst disasters in recent history. Seems about where it should be.
Ear tags funds are allocated in the annual federal legislature of each project or for specific purposes in the interests of their constituents.
Regards : payday loans
honeywell humidifier honeywell humidifier
best washing machines best washing machines
steam press iron steam press iron
affordable seo services affordable seo services
free ways to make money online free ways to make money online
cheap laptop batteries cheap laptop batteries
cheap wireless mouse cheap wireless mouse
get my ex back get my ex back
cold air intake systems cold air intake systems
cold air intake kits cold air intake kits
cheap payday loans cheap payday loans
payday loan information payday loan information
Post new comment