Defense Spending: Trends and Geographical Distribution of Prime Contract Awards and Compensation (Letter Report, 08/12/98, GAO/NSIAD-98-195)
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed: (1) the overall
trends and geographical distribution of Department of Defense (DOD)
spending between 1988 and 1997; and (2) defense spending in conjunction
with each state's population and income tax contributions.
GAO noted that: (1) the award of DOD prime contracts in the United
States declined from $164 billion to $107 billion from 1988-1997; (2)
there were large declines in equipment and research prime contracts,
while service prime contracts have become a more significant portion of
total prime contracts; (3) meanwhile, DOD compensation decreased from
$111 billion to $97 billion; (4) four states--California, Virginia,
Texas, and Florida--accounted for $81 billion, or about 40 percent, of
DOD prime contract awards and DOD compensation in 1997; (5) over the
period 1988-1997, changes in the prime contract awards have occurred
throughout the 50 states, and California has experienced the largest
decrease; (6) states with the largest decreases had major reductions in
prime contracts for equipment; (7) in some states, gains in prime
contracts for services lessened the impact of significant decreases in
equipment prime contracts; (8) defense dollars are generally associated
with employment and other economic benefits to the states; therefore,
Congress and other decisionmakers are also often interested in measuring
defense spending against state population and income tax contributions;
(9) large variances occur within these measures; and (10) for example,
DOD prime contract awards and DOD compensation per dollar of personal
tax contributions in 1996 ranged from $.78 per dollar in Hawaii to $.04
per dollar in several states.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: NSIAD-98-195
TITLE: Defense Spending: Trends and Geographical Distribution of
Prime Contract Awards and Compensation
DATE: 08/12/98
SUBJECT: Defense procurement
Defense budgets
Defense economic analysis
Budget outlays
Intergovernmental fiscal relations
Budget obligations
Equipment contracts
Service contracts
IDENTIFIER: California
Florida
Virginia
Texas
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** <info@www.gao.gov> **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations,
House of Representatives
August 1998
DEFENSE SPENDING - TRENDS AND
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PRIME
CONTRACT AWARDS AND COMPENSATION
GAO/NSIAD-98-195
Defense Spending
(707283)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
DOD - Department of Defense
IRS - Internal Revenue Service
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-278783
August 12, 1998
The Honorable David R. Obey
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Obey:
The Department of Defense (DOD) spends over $200 billion annually for
contracts and compensation across the country. These dollars,
entering each state's economy, are generally associated with
employment and other economic benefits. As you requested, we
reviewed (1) the overall trends and geographical distribution of
defense spending between 1988 and 1997 and (2) defense spending in
conjunction with each state's population and income tax
contributions.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
During fiscal year 1997, the federal government spent about $1.4
trillion on various programs in the United States. These funds, in
part, procured products and services, paid salaries and wages to
federal employees, provide public assistance, and fund federal
retirement programs and social security. DOD prime contracts and
compensation discussed in this report accounted for about $204
billion, or about 14 percent, of the federal expenditures.
Defense spending data are available to users in and outside the
government and are regularly used in policy formulation and
evaluation. DOD contractors have used federal government data in
support of their work for DOD on the economic impacts of base
realignment and closure actions. Federal expenditure data have also
been used to provide information to communities, businesses, and
individuals adjusting to the effects of defense downsizing and other
changing economic conditions. Researchers at private companies,
universities, and state government offices also use these data in a
wide array of research projects and publications.
Defense spending covered in this report includes DOD prime contract
awards and DOD compensation. Compensation includes civilian pay,
military active duty pay, reserve and national guard pay, and retired
military pay. National totals for DOD contracts and compensation are
considered to be accurate. However, when these numbers are broken
down for individual states, the numbers are often viewed as less
reliable.
We recently reported\1 that, due to certain key limitations, federal
government sources do not provide data for determining the full and
complete economic magnitude of federal expenditures in states. Most
importantly, DOD's contract database does not include data on the
location of subcontracts, making it difficult to measure contract
activity within a state. A substantial portion of prime contracts
could be subcontracted out-of-state. In contrast, contractors within
the state could be awarded subcontracts by out-of-state prime
contractors, yet these subcontracts would not be recognized within
the state's total.
However, existing data are not without value, nor should the
government necessarily strive for increased data collection that
could actually entail more costs than benefits. Those who rely on
federal data need to be alert to their drawbacks and exercise
discretion when using them. See appendix I for details of our scope
and methodolgy.
--------------------
\1 Defense Spending and Employment: Information Limitations Impede
Thorough Assessments (GAO/NSIAD-98-57, Jan. 14, 1998).
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
The award of DOD prime contracts in the United States declined from
$164 billion to $107 billion from 1988-97. There were large declines
in equipment and research prime contracts, while service prime
contracts have become a more significant portion of total prime
contracts. Meanwhile, DOD compensation decreased from $111 billion
to $97 billion. Data were adjusted for inflation and shown in
constant 1997 dollars.
Four states--California, Virginia, Texas, and Florida-- accounted for
$81 billion, or about 40 percent, of DOD prime contract awards and
DOD compensation in 1997. Over the period 1988-97, changes in the
prime contract awards have occurred throughout the 50 states;
California has experienced the largest decrease. States with the
largest decreases had major reductions in prime contracts for
equipment. In some states, gains in prime contracts for services
lessened the impact of significant decreases in equipment prime
contracts.
Defense dollars are generally associated with employment and other
economic benefits to the states; therefore, Congress and other
decisionmakers are also often interested in measuring defense
spending against state population and income tax contributions.
Large variances occur within these measures. For example, DOD prime
contract awards and DOD compensation per dollar of personal tax
contributions in 1996 ranged from $0.78 per dollar in Hawaii to $0.04
per dollar in several states.
DEFENSE PRIME CONTRACT AWARDS
AND DOD COMPENSATION BETWEEN
1988 AND 1997
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
DOD prime contract awards and DOD compensation in the United States
have declined significantly\2 since 1988. Despite some fluctuations
during the decade, DOD compensation decreased from $111 billion to
$97 billion. Meanwhile, DOD prime contract awards decreased from
$164 billion to $107 billion. (See fig. 1.)
Figure 1: DOD Prime Contract
Awards and DOD Compensation in
the United States (1988-97)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: Our analysis of DOD data.
--------------------
\2 The DOD prime contracts amounts shown in this report represent the
amounts that could be designated for specific states. For example,
during 1997, prime contracts amounted to $128.4 billion, but only
$106.6 billion was allocable to specific states.
EQUIPMENT, SERVICE, AND
RESEARCH PRIME CONTRACTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1
DOD has three broad categories for its contracts: research,
development, test, and evaluation (research); other services and
construction; and supplies and equipment. Figure 2 shows that both
equipment and research prime contracts experienced decreases, while
service prime contracts remained nearly constant. Equipment prime
contracts dropped 53 percent, from $95 billion to $45 billion.
Figure 2: Equipment, Service,
and Research Prime Contracts
(1988-97)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: Our analysis of DOD data.
One discernible trend not readily apparent in the preceding figure is
that service prime contracts have become a more significant portion
of DOD prime contracts over the decade. Figure 3 shows the changes
in the percent-to-total for the three types of contracts between 1988
and 1997. Equipment prime contracts decreased by 16 percentage
points, research prime contracts remained nearly constant, and
service prime contracts increased by 16 percentage points.
Figure 3: Percentages for
Equipment, Services, and
Research Prime Contracts
(1988-97)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: Our analysis of DOD data.
GROWTH IN DOD PRIME CONTRACT
AWARDS FOR SELECTED SERVICE
INDUSTRIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2
In 1997, service prime contracts totaled about $42 billion, of which
36 percent was associated with the selected large service industries
described in figure 4. Engineering and architectural services
represented the largest service industry by a wide margin.
Figure 4: Growth in DOD Prime
Contract Awards for Selected
Service Industries (1988-97)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(1) Engineering and Architecture
(2) Computers and Data Processing
(3) Management and Public Relations
(4) Residential Building Construction
Source: Our analysis of DOD data.
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF
DOD PRIME CONTRACT AWARDS
AND DOD COMPENSATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3
Figure 5 shows that DOD prime contract awards amounts and DOD
compensation for 1997 were concentrated within a few states. For
1997, DOD prime contract awards and DOD compensation in the United
States amounted to $204 billion. Four states--California, Virginia,
Texas, and Florida-- accounted for $81 billion, or about 40 percent,
of the total. For the other years between 1988 and 1997, DOD prime
contract awards and DOD compensation were similarly concentrated
within a few states. For example, in 1988 the same four states
accounted for 39 percent of the total, and, again in 1992, they
accounted for 39 percent of the total.
Figure 5: DOD Prime Contract
Awards and DOD Compensation
(1997)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: Our analysis of DOD
data.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
STATES WITH LARGE INCREASE
AND DECREASES IN DOD PRIME
CONTRACT AWARDS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.4
The five states with the largest increases in DOD prime contract
awards and the five with the largest decreases\3 are shown in figure
6. (See app. II for state listing with additional data.) During
this period, nearly all states experienced reductions in equipment
prime contracts. The states with the largest decreases in prime
contracts all had sizable reductions in equipment.
Figure 6: States With the
Largest Increases and Decreases
in DOD Prime Contract Awards
(1988-97)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: Our analysis of DOD data.
Equipment reductions in some states were offset to some degree by
increases in service prime contracts. Figure 7 provides data on the
five states with the largest increases in service prime contracts.
(See app. III for state listing with additional data.)
Figure 7: States With Largest
Increases in Service Prime
Contract Awards (1988-97)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: Our analysis of DOD data.
--------------------
\3 The states with the largest increases and decreases were
determined by measuring the differences in 5-year averages for each
state (the average for 1993-97 less the average for 1988-92).
OTHER INDICATORS OF DEFENSE
SPENDING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.5
DOD prime contracts, which account for the majority of defense
spending, may be awarded based on a number of factors such as
contract price, contractors' past performance, and company expertise
and technical superiority. Thus, defense amounts awarded for prime
contracts in each state would not be expected to be proportional with
statistical indicators such as state population or state income tax
contributions. Because defense dollars are generally associated with
employment and other economic benefits to the states, however,
Congress and other decisionmakers are often interested in measuring
defense spending against population and income tax data.
Figure 8 shows, for each state, the per capita amount of DOD prime
contract awards and DOD compensation for 1997. (See app. IV for
state listing with additional data.) Per capita amounts ranged from
$5,137 in Washington, D.C., to $187 in Wisconsin, while the national
average was at $762.
Figure 8: Per Capita Amounts
for DOD Prime Contract Awards
and DOD Compensation (1997)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: Our analysis of DOD
and Department of Commerce
data.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
The amounts of DOD prime contract awards and DOD compensation per
dollar of personal tax contributions for each state are shown in
figure 9. (See app. V for state listing with additional data.)
These amounts ranged from $0.78 per dollar in Hawaii to $0.04 per
dollar in several states, while the national average was at $0.16.
Figure 9: DOD Prime Contract
Awards and DOD Compensation Per
Dollar of Personal Tax
Contributions (1996)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Internal Revenue Service data on tax contributions were not
available for 1997 at the conclusion of our review.
Source: Our analysis of DOD
and Internal Revenue Service
data.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of
Defense or his designee. On June 30, 1998, the Office of the
Director of Defense Procurement indicated that DOD has no comments on
the report.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
We are providing copies of this report to other interested
congressional committees and members. Copies will also be made
available to others upon request.
Please contact me at (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any
questions concerning this letter report. Major contributors to this
report were Ralph Dawn, Kendall Graffam, and John Ting.
Sincerely yours,
David E. Cooper
Associate Director
Defense Acquisitions Issues
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I
In conducting our work, we analyzed data on Department of Defense
(DOD) prime contract awards and compensation during fiscal year 1997
as well as the trends between 1988 and 1997. As requested, we
analyzed the data on a national basis as well as on a state-by-state
basis. In this report, we provide data for the 50 states and the
District of Columbia on defense spending, population, per capita
defense spending, and tax contributions. The data were adjusted for
inflation and shown in constant 1997 dollars to show real growth and
declines between 1988 and 1997. Specific values for each of the
states are presented in appendixes II, III, IV, and V.
DOD reports information on its prime contract awards and its
compensation, by state, in the Atlas/Data Abstract for the United
States and Selected Areas. The prime contract amounts shown in this
report represent the amounts that could be designated for the
specific states.\1 The ultimate source of data on prime contract
awards comes from the computerization of information contained in the
DD Form 350 (Individual Contracting Action Report). Because of
reliability concerns, data on DOD grants was excluded from our
analysis.
Population data were obtained from the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Department of Commerce. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data were
extracted from its yearly publication Internal Revenue Service Data
Book. IRS personal tax contributions were used in our analysis and
derived by subtracting corporation income tax contributions from
total revenue collections for the states. Our analysis was hampered
because data on IRS contributions were not available for 1997 at the
conclusion of our review. We, therefore, used 1996 IRS data for our
analysis.
In our analysis of DOD prime contract awards, we found that large
variations occurred on a year-to-year basis. For a specific state,
large increases in contracts in one year were often followed by large
decreases in contracts for the next year or vice versa. As a result,
the states with the largest increases and decreases were determined
by measuring the differences in 5-year averages for each state (the
average for 1993-97 less the average for 1988-92).
We prepared some computer-generated reports from the DD Form 350
database to assist in our analysis. In addition to the use of the
Federal Supply Class or Service Codes, we used the commercial
Standard Industrial Classification of Establishments to assess the
growth in specific service industries.
In our 1997 report, we identified some key limitations on the use of
the DOD data because certain data are not reported. Concerning the
accuracy of the numbers that are reported, DOD does perform some
reviews and edit checks of the data, but it does not perform full
scale reliability assessments to ensure that the data are reliable.
We did not systematically verify the accuracy of DOD's data or
conduct a reliability assessment of the database.
Our work was conducted between November 1997 and June 1998 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
--------------------
\1 For example, during 1997, DOD prime contract awards amounted to
$128.4 billion but only $106.6 billion was allocable to the states
because of work located outside the United States ($6.8 billion),
contracts with values under a $25,000 reporting threshold ($11.7
billion), and expenditures not assigned to a specific state ($3.3
billion).
TRENDS IN DOD PRIME CONTRACT
AWARDS (1988-97)
========================================================== Appendix II
(Dollars in millions)
Increases
1988-92 1993-97 or
5-year 5-year (decreases
State and District of Columbia average average )
---------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Alabama $2,152 $1,929 ($223)
Alaska 567 612 45
Arizona 3,239 2,488 (750)
Arkansas 497 288 (209)
California 28,233 21,084 (7,149)
Colorado 3,448 2,402 (1,046)
Connecticut 5,670 2,771 (2,899)
Delaware 181 119 (61)
D.C. 1,848 1,442 (406)
Florida 5,993 6,457 464
Georgia 2,635 4,094 1,459
Hawaii 710 832 122
Idaho 78 106 28
Illinois 1,744 1,313 (431)
Indiana 2,091 1,589 (503)
Iowa 577 400 (177)
Kansas 1,098 740 (357)
Kentucky 527 886 359
Louisiana 1,749 1,587 (162)
Maine 970 941 (29)
Maryland 5,000 4,344 (656)
Massachusetts 8,915 5,339 (3,576)
Michigan 1,636 1,377 (259)
Minnesota 2,155 1,218 (937)
Mississippi 2,275 1,741 (534)
Missouri 6,756 6,163 (593)
Montana 89 94 4
Nebraska 306 310 4
Nevada 268 265 (3)
New Hampshire 533 464 (69)
New Jersey 4,160 2,959 (1,200)
New Mexico 812 695 (116)
New York 8,098 3,881 (4,216)
N. Carolina 1,599 1,309 (290)
N. Dakota 152 137 (15)
Ohio 5,423 3,021 (2,403)
Oklahoma 806 761 (45)
Oregon 370 167 (203)
Pennsylvania 3,622 3,228 (395)
Rhode Island 547 380 (168)
S. Carolina 855 974 119
S. Dakota 87 104 17
Tennessee 1,640 1,158 (482)
Texas 11,172 8,879 (2,293)
Utah 1,016 499 (517)
Vermont 121 135 13
Virginia 9,093 10,075 982
Washington 2,917 2,284 (634)
West Virginia 206 180 (26)
Wisconsin 1,157 684 (474)
Wyoming 75 72 (2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers are rounded.
Source: Our analysis of DOD data.
TRENDS IN DOD SERVICE AND
EQUIPMENT PRIME CONTRACTS
(1988-97)
========================================================= Appendix III
(Dollars in million)
Services Equipment
------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
St
at
e
an
d
Di
st
ri
ct
of
Co
lu Increase
mb Average Average Increase Average Average or
ia 1988-92 1993-97 (decrease) 1988-92 1993-97 (decrease)
-- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Al $819 $862 $43 $795 $459 ($336)
a
b
a
m
a
Al 455 506 52 112 103 (9)
a
s
k
a
Ar 446 572 126 2,401 1,592 (809)
i
z
o
n
a
Ar 196 149 (47) 296 121 (175)
k
a
n
s
a
s
Ca 6,335 6,736 401 14,170 9,899 (4,272)
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Co 566 712 146 394 272 (122)
l
o
r
a
d
o
Co 807 483 (324) 4,631 1,952 (2,679)
n
n
e
c
t
i
c
u
t
De 61 76 15 104 37 (68)
l
a
w
a
r
e
D. 1,239 882 (357) 528 431 (97)
C.
Fl 1,835 2,207 372 3,077 2,645 (432)
o
r
i
d
a
Ge 804 943 139 1,408 1,319 (89)
o
r
g
i
a
Ha 589 735 146 104 78 (26)
w
a
i
i
Id 47 71 24 28 26 (3)
a
h
o
Il 558 540 (18) 1,036 683 (352)
l
i
n
o
i
s
In 411 386 (25) 1,571 1,092 (480)
d
i
a
n
a
Io 109 123 14 357 197 (161)
wa
Ka 600 347 (253) 445 382 (63)
n
s
a
s
Ke 317 667 350 207 216 9
n
t
u
c
k
y
Lo 610 556 (55) 1,133 1,018 (116)
u
i
s
i
a
n
a
Ma 136 93 (43) 827 841 13
i
n
e
Ma 2,026 2,284 258 1,872 1,248 (623)
r
y
l
a
n
d
Ma 1,171 1,083 (87) 5,344 2,420 (2,924)
s
s
a
c
h
u
s
e
t
t
s
Mi 270 232 (38) 1,029 971 (58)
c
h
i
g
a
n
Mi 224 184 (39) 1,548 775 (773)
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
Mi 620 486 (134) 1,647 1,215 (433)
s
s
i
s
s
i
p
p
i
Mi 1,192 1,012 (181) 4,975 4,094 (881)
s
s
o
u
r
i
Mo 50 52 2 39 40 2
n
t
a
n
a
Ne 157 185 28 136 109 (26)
b
r
a
s
k
a
Ne 225 227 2 28 32 4
v
a
d
a
Ne 105 90 (15) 329 255 (75)
w
H
a
m
p
s
h
i
r
e
Ne 1,371 1,544 173 2,187 1,021 (1,167)
w
J
e
r
s
e
y
Ne 431 377 (55) 157 117 (40)
w
M
e
x
i
c
o
Ne 1,760 1,374 (385) 4,775 1,852 (2,923)
w
Y
o
r
k
N. 650 786 136 694 441 (254)
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
N. 86 109 23 65 26 (39)
D
a
k
o
t
a
Oh 696 809 114 3,891 1,662 (2,229)
io
Ok 507 546 39 259 202 (57)
l
a
h
o
m
a
Or 150 71 (79) 196 78 (118)
e
g
o
n
Pe 558 1,047 490 2,069 1,352 (716)
n
n
s
y
l
v
a
n
i
a
Rh 194 216 22 322 120 (202)
o
d
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
S. 528 792 264 283 149 (134)
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
S. 52 52 0 35 52 17
D
a
k
o
t
a
Te 835 576 (259) 608 324 (283)
n
n
e
s
s
e
e
Te 2,540 2,738 198 7,316 4,612 (2,703)
x
a
s
Ut 297 250 (48) 569 165 (405)
ah
Ve 9 9 (1) 96 100 4
r
m
o
n
t
Vi 4,783 6,039 1,256 3,397 2,656 (741)
r
g
i
n
i
a
W. 110 135 25 68 37 (31)
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a
Wa 849 966 117 1,325 949 (376)
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
Wi 123 132 9 969 539 (430)
s
c
o
n
s
i
n
Wy 26 42 16 48 30 (18)
o
m
i
n
g
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers are rounded.
Source: Our analysis of DOD data.
PER CAPITA AMOUNTS FOR DOD PRIME
CONTRACT AWARDS AND DOD
COMPENSATION (1997)
========================================================== Appendix IV
DOD
amount Popula Per
s tion capita
(milli (milli amount
State and District of Columbia ons) ons) s
---------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ------
Alabama $4,256 4.3 $986
Alaska 1,467 0.6 2,410
Arizona 3,895 4.6 855
Arkansas 956 2.5 379
California 30,873 32.3 957
Colorado 4,167 3.9 1,070
Connecticut 3,138 3.3 960
Delaware 405 0.7 554
D.C. 2,717 0.5 5,137
Florida 13,304 14.7 908
Georgia 8,040 7.5 1,074
Hawaii 3,183 1.2 2,681
Idaho 492 1.2 406
Illinois 3,321 11.9 279
Indiana 2,587 5.9 441
Iowa 688 2.9 241
Kansas 1,624 2.6 626
Kentucky 2,634 3.9 674
Louisiana 3,042 4.4 699
Maine 1,490 1.2 1,200
Maryland 7,235 5.1 1,420
Massachusetts 5,776 6.1 944
Michigan 1,906 9.8 195
Minnesota 1,498 4.7 320
Mississippi 2,708 2.7 992
Missouri 6,173 5.4 1,143
Montana 337 0.9 383
Nebraska 952 1.7 575
Nevada 984 1.7 587
New Hampshire 660 1.2 562
New Jersey 4,605 8.1 572
New Mexico 1,640 1.7 948
New York 4,853 18.1 268
N. Carolina 5,172 7.4 697
N. Dakota 497 0.6 776
Ohio 4,932 11.2 441
Oklahoma 2,836 3.3 855
Oregon 685 3.2 211
Pennsylvania 5,252 12.0 437
Rhode Island 756 1.0 766
S. Carolina 3,046 3.8 810
S. Dakota 319 0.7 433
Tennessee 2,136 5.4 398
Texas 15,481 19.4 796
Utah 1,335 2.1 648
Vermont 185 0.6 314
Virginia 21,732 6.7 3,227
Washington 6,230 5.6 1,111
West Virginia 425 1.8 234
Wisconsin 969 5.2 187
Wyoming 263 0.5 547
United States 203,85 267.6 762
7
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers are rounded.
Source: Our analysis of DOD and Department of Commerce data.
DOD PRIME CONTRACT AWARDS AND DOD
COMPENSATION PER DOLLAR OF
PERSONAL TAX CONTRIBUTIONS (1996)
=========================================================== Appendix V
DOD Personal DOD
amount tax amounts/
s contributio tax
(milli ns contributio
State and District of Columbia ons) (millions) ns
------------------------------------ ------ ----------- -----------
Alabama $4,021 $13,367 $0.30
Alaska 1,444 2,438 0.59
Arizona 4,775 14,294 0.33
Arkansas 980 10,014 0.10
California 30,561 145,113 0.21
Colorado 4,202 21,075 0.20
Connecticut 3,251 24,903 0.13
Delaware 433 5,182 0.08
D.C. 2,719
Florida 12,532 60,135 0.21
Georgia 8,298 35,204 0.24
Hawaii 3,259 4,169 0.78
Idaho 479 4,418 0.11
Illinois 3,244 74,815 0.04
Indiana 2,574 23,242 0.11
Iowa 615 10,014 0.06
Kansas 1,842 12,054 0.15
Kentucky 2,597 12,806 0.20
Louisiana 2,411 13,632 0.18
Maine 1,322 3,700 0.36
Maryland 7,402
Massachusetts 5,518 37,298 0.15
Michigan 2,005 53,587 0.04
Minnesota 1,354 35,331 0.04
Mississippi 3,213 6,737 0.48
Missouri 8,723 27,189 0.32
Montana 388 2,248 0.17
Nebraska 1,033 8,524 0.12
Nevada 1,062 7,286 0.15
New Hampshire 808 4,918 0.16
New Jersey 3,983 56,951 0.07
New Mexico 1,844 4,592 0.40
New York 5,189 117,309 0.04
N. Carolina 5,681 26,818 0.21
N. Dakota 545 1,995 0.27
Ohio 5,069 56,985 0.09
Oklahoma 2,943 14,762 0.20
Oregon 684 13,216 0.05
Pennsylvania 5,906 60,359 0.10
Rhode Island 771 4,403 0.18
S. Carolina 3,275 12,447 0.26
S. Dakota 368 2,319 0.16
Tennessee 2,209 23,877 0.09
Texas 17,202 88,174 0.20
Utah 1,310 7,263 0.18
Vermont 315 1,981 0.16
Virginia 20,919 28,197 0.74
Washington 6,195 26,328 0.24
West Virginia 441 4,216 0.10
Wisconsin 964 23,259 0.04
Wyoming 324 1,771 0.18
Combined-Maryland & D.C. 39,372 0.26
United States 209,20 1,290,288 0.16
2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers are rounded.
Source: Our analysis of DOD and IRS data.
*** End of document. ***
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
