Review of Federal Funding to Florida - Office of Economic ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Office of Economic and Demographic Research Procurement Contract Obligations Total Procurement Contract Obligations Fiscal Years: 1998 to 2009 Annual % Change Department of Nondefense FY Defense Agencies 2009 18,530,929,000 11.5% 14,284,963,000 4,245,966,000 2008 16,624,628,000 5.5% 12,228,148,000 4,396,480,000 2007 15,757,395,000 6.3% 11,926,104,000 3,831,291,000 2006 14,829,719,000 3.7% 10,801,789,000 4,027,930,000 2005 14,295,825,000 24.9% 10,378,135,000 3,917,690,000 2004 11,447,152,000 5.0% 8,385,036,000 3,062,116,000 2003 10,898,984,000 11.7% 7,998,672,000 2,900,312,000 2002 9,757,199,000 10.1% 6,826,049,000 2,931,150,000 2001 8,859,262,000 3.1% 6,615,391,000 2,243,871,000 2000 8,594,347,000 -0.5% 6,585,902,000 2,008,445,000 1999 8,639,271,000 21.2% 6,764,215,000 1,875,056,000 1998 7,128,139,000 - 5,442,777,000 1,685,362,000 5. Salaries and Wages Federal salary and wage payments represented the smallest category of direct expenditure to states. Such payments to states totaled $273 billion, or $892 per capita, and represented 9 percent of total direct expenditures. These payments to Florida totaled $12.2 billion, or $659 per capita, and represented 7 percent of direct expenditures to the state. As illustrated in Table 1-6 on pages 20-21, Florida had the 7 th largest expenditure of all states, the 4 th largest expenditure of the most populous states, and the 5 th largest expenditure of the southern states. On a per capita basis, Florida ranked 35 th among all states, 3 rd among the most populous states, and 15 th among the southern states. This category includes salary and wage payments made by the Department of Defense and nondefense agencies. In Florida, the payments made by nondefense agencies accounted for 60 percent of total salary and wage payments. Salary and wage expenditures to Florida are summarized below. Salary and Wage Expenditures Fiscal Years: 1998 to 2009 Total Annual Salary & Wage % Department of Expenditures Change Defense Nondefense Agencies FY 2009 12,215,459,000 6.4% 4,863,455,000 7,352,004,000 2008 11,485,822,000 -2.7% 3,966,373,000 7,519,449,000 2007 11,799,512,000 4.7% 4,479,815,000 7,319,697,000 2006 11,268,890,000 5.7% 4,504,771,000 6,764,119,000 2005 10,661,715,000 2.6% 4,290,334,000 6,371,381,000 2004 10,394,686,000 6.7% 4,389,685,000 6,005,001,000 2003 9,745,937,000 7.8% 4,270,616,000 5,475,321,000 2002 9,037,620,000 7.4% 3,776,439,000 5,261,181,000 2001 8,414,686,000 3.4% 3,459,163,000 4,955,523,000 2000 8,135,023,000 3.8% 3,359,824,000 4,775,199,000 1999 7,834,920,000 1.8% 3,421,695,000 4,413,225,000 1998 7,695,969,000 - 3,447,180,000 4,248,789,000 8 Review of Federal Funding to Florida in Fiscal Year 2009
Office of Economic and Demographic Research 6. Summary One way to assess how individual states are doing in their fiscal relationship with the federal government is to calculate each state’s proportional share for each direct expenditure category. If the state’s share for each expenditure category is roughly equivalent to the state’s share of the national population, then one measure of equality has been satisfied. The shares for each state are summarized in Table 1-7 on pages 22-23. The first column lists each state’s share of the July 1, 2009 national population. The next column lists each state’s share of total federal direct expenditure with subsequent columns listing the states’ shares for each of the five components of federal spending. Based on the percentages listed, Vermont is the best example of a state that reflects an average performance with a 0.2 percent share of the national population and identical shares for four of the five separate components of federal spending. Florida recorded 6.1 percent of the national population but only 5.6 percent of total direct expenditures. At 7.2 and 6.7 percent, the state’s proportional shares for direct payments for retirement/disability and other direct payments, respectively, were well above the 6.1 percent average. However, the state’s proportional shares for each of the remaining components were well below the 6.1 percent average with 4.4 percent for grant obligations, 3.5 percent for procurement contract obligations, and 4.5 percent for salary and wage expenditures. This type of analysis may be useful with respect to grant funding since many grant formulas rely on national population, or some variation of it, to distribute funds. Interestingly, among the fifty states, New York had the largest positive percentage difference between its share of the grant obligations (i.e., 8.6 percent) and its share of national population (i.e., 6.4 percent). Florida had the largest negative percentage difference between its share of the grant obligations (i.e., 4.4 percent) and its share of national population (i.e., 6.1 percent). E. Other Financial Assistance The three categories of other financial assistance are: 1) face value of insurance coverages, 2) dollar volume of guaranteed loans, and 3) dollar volume of direct loans. Other financial assistance to Florida totaled $498 billion, or $26,839 per capita. Florida’s share constituted 27 percent of such assistance to all states. The state ranked first among the fifty states in both total and per capita assistance due to the significant face value of flood insurance coverage provided to Florida. 1. Face Value of Insurance Coverage The face value of insurance coverage represented the largest category of other financial assistance to states. Such assistance to states totaled $1.29 trillion, or $4,194 per capita, and represented 70 percent of other financial assistance provided to all states. Such coverage in Florida totaled $473 billion, or $25,501 per capita, and represented 95 percent of other financial assistance provided to the state by the federal government. Florida had the largest face value of insurance coverage of the Review of Federal Funding to Florida in Fiscal Year 2009 9
Page 1: Review of Federal Funding to Florid
Page 4 and 5: Office of Economic and Demographic
Page 72 and 73:
Office of Economic and Demographic
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
show all

Review of Federal Funding to Florida - Office of Economic ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?