You are on page 1of 78

ON OUR WAY TO

AVERAGE
RANKING MINNESOTA’S
ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE
Jeff Van Wychen
Minnesota 2020 Fellow
January 2010
Table of Contents___
Executive Summary 1

Introduction 6

Revenue and Expenditures Per $1,000 of


Personal Income 11

Revenue and Expenditures Per Capita 16

Summarizing Revenue &


Expenditure Trends 21

State Performance 25

Conclusion 45

Endnotes 48

Appendix A - Revenue & Expenditures 51

Appendix B - State Performance 63


Executive Summary___________________
Since 2002, Minnesota’s state and local government revenues and expenditures have declined significantly in
comparison to other states. The corresponding decline in public investment has coincided with a decline in
Minnesota’s economic performance and quality of life. Once a national leader in areas such as education and
employment, Minnesota is now lagging.

Minnesota leads the nation in terms of the decline in non-federal general revenue from 2002 to 2007,
both on a real per capita basis and per $1,000 of personal income. In fact, on all categories of revenue and
expenditures on both a per capita basis and per $1,000 of personal income, Minnesota ranks among the top
ten states in terms of the decline (or least growth) from 2002 to 2007. This is true for no other state.

This report updates a 50 state analysis of revenue, expenditure, and performance trends published in June
2008.1 It looks at where Minnesota ranks nationally on 13 key wellness indicators ranging from job and
income growth to road conditions. The report finds that to date, the economic experiment undertaken by the
advocates of “less government” and “no new taxes” has been a failure.

The baseline year for this study is 2002. In that year, Minnesota implemented a series of changes in the state-
local fiscal relationship, including a restructuring of the property tax system and a complete state takeover of
general education funding; 2002 was also the last year prior to the implementation of a “no new tax” agenda
in Minnesota.

On Our Way to Average 1


Minnesota Leads the Nation in Revenue Decline
No state has cut government revenue and spending more than Minnesota since 2002. The following analysis
focuses on state and local government revenue and expenditures per $1,000 of personal income.

On taxes and state and local general revenue (non-federal), also known as “own-source” revenue, Minnesota
has dropped from approximately nine percent above the national average in 2002 to less than two percent
above in 2007. The four broadest categories of government finances—general revenue, total revenue, general
expenditures, and total expenditures—are better measures of the total size of government in Minnesota
relative to other states. On each of these measures, Minnesota dropped below the national average, indicating
that we are no longer an “above average” state.

Minnesota’s rank among the 50 states in the various categories of state and local government finances per
$1,000 of personal income has also fallen significantly from 2002 to 2007. Minnesota’s rank on taxes per
$1,000 of personal income fell from 6th in 2002 to 16th in 2007, while total general revenue (non-federal) fell
from 12th to 22nd. On each of the four broadest categories of government finances, Minnesota’s rank has
dropped from eight to 15 places from 2002 to 2007; Minnesota’s rank on each of the four broadest measures
is 29th or below in 2007.

The Minnesota Department of Revenue concludes that taxes per capita are not particularly helpful in
identifying high tax and low tax states because they do not account for the higher cost of labor and cost of
living and the lower level of federal assistance in high personal income states.2 Nonetheless, because per
capita rankings are frequently called for, they are included in this report. Even on a per capita basis, Minnesota
is only modestly above the U.S. average based on 2007 data. For example, 2007 total revenue and spending
per capita in Minnesota are just 2.3 and 2.5 percent respectively above the national average.

2 On Our Way to Average


The decline in Minnesota revenue and spending versus the national average since 2002 is striking, both on a
per capita basis and per $1,000 of personal income. In all instances, the decline is much larger (or the growth
is much smaller) in Minnesota than in the nation as a whole.

A 2008 Revenue Department analysis concluded that Minnesota is “just about average” in terms of its
combined state and local tax burden.3 The above analysis shows that this is true for other categories of
revenues and expenditures as well. It is clear that “no new tax” leadership has reduced public investment in
Minnesota to the point where we are not a high tax, “big government” state. The more important question,
however, is how the shrinkage in government and decline in public investment has impacted Minnesota’s
economic performance and quality of life.

Minnesota Falls Behind on Key Economic Indicators


In the past, Minnesotans have demonstrated an ability to identify critical public investments and fund them
in a way that promotes long-term prosperity. State Economist Tom Stinson observed that 50 years ago, far-
sighted leaders invested in education and infrastructure and by doing so paved the way for a half century of
prosperity during which Minnesota surged ahead the nation.

The principal objective of the “no new tax” policy is to freeze or shrink the level of public revenue. If this had
been the agenda of state leaders a half-century ago, the progress cited by Stinson would not have occurred.
The primary goal of state policymakers should not be to fixate upon a particular level of public revenue, but to
identify which public investments are in the long-term interest of the state and find a way to pay for them. Any
ideology that interferes with this objective must be abandoned.

The analysis of the 13 performance factors begins in 2002 and terminates in 2007, 2008, or 2009, depending
on the most recent data available for that specific indicator. The period since 2002 corresponds with the time
frame of the revenue and expenditure data examined in this report; it also corresponds with the ascendance of
the “no new tax” agenda in Minnesota.

In general, Minnesota’s performance relative to other states deteriorated since 2002. Some key findings:

• Minnesota’s performance relative to the national average in terms of unemployment rates and
employment growth (since 2001) has deteriorated.

• Somewhat smaller—but still significant—deterioration was observed on the three income and pay
measures.

• On all three education indicators—pupil-teacher ratio, students at or above “basic” level in math and
reading, and per capita state and local spending on education—Minnesota’s performance declined relative
to other states.

• Minnesota’s position in terms of road miles in poor or mediocre condition fell sharply relative to the rest
of the nation; the miles of roads in poor or mediocre condition in Minnesota more than doubled from
2002 to 2007.

• On the other four factors examined in this report (homeownership rates, health insurance coverage,
bridge deficiency percentage, and poverty rates) there was no evidence of a statistically significant decline
in Minnesota’s performance relative to other states. Nor was there evidence of improvement.

The following graph shows Minnesota’s ranking on each performance indicator in 2002 and the most recent
year data were available. A ranking of “1” denotes the best performance among the 50 states.

On Our Way to Average 3


On 12 of the 13 measures, Minnesota’s ranking declined from 2002 to 2007, although in some instances the
drop in ranking was slight. For the remaining factor, Minnesota’s rank remained the same. In no instance did
Minnesota’s rank improve.

Minnesota is by no means an economic basket case; however, Minnesota’s performance relative to other
states is headed in the wrong direction. The decline in Minnesota’s performance has coincided with a decline
in public investment.

Of course, correlation does not equal causation. However, competing explanations do not explain the full
extent to which Minnesota’s economic performance has deteriorated since 2002. The trends highlighted in
this report leave “no new tax” proponents with a difficult question to answer: why did the reduction in the size
of government in Minnesota not produce the relative improvement in Minnesota’s economic performance that
was predicted? To this point, the economic experiment undertaken by the advocates of “less government”
and “no new taxes” has been a failure.

Proponents of sustained public investment have long argued that the failure to maintain critical public
investments would lead to deterioration in Minnesota’s economic performance relative to the national
average. This is precisely what has occurred.

Nothing in this report should be construed as an endorsement of untargeted and undisciplined public
spending. The state’s general fund budget deficit is projected to be $1.2 billion in the current biennium and
$7.4 billion in the next.4 In addition, a recent district court ruling threatens to cancel Governor Pawlenty’s July

4 On Our Way to Average


2009 unallotment, potentially adding $2.7 billion to the deficit. Spending reductions and reforms will have
to be part of the solution to the state’s ongoing budget morass. However, in light of the substantial reduction
in Minnesota public revenue since 2002, it is wrongheaded to insist that the budget solutions be restricted
entirely to the expenditure side of the ledger.

The Consequences of Public Disinvestment


The shrinkage in government that has occurred in Minnesota since 2002 has jeopardized critical public
investments. The state’s roads have deteriorated and pupil-teacher ratios in public schools have increased.
In addition, per pupil current spending in Minnesota elementary and secondary public schools has dropped
below the national average.5

Minnesota’s continued strong economic performance relative to the rest of the nation is not predestined;
Minnesota’s position in comparison to other states can and has deteriorated. This deterioration corresponds
with shrinkage in Minnesota’s public investment. Minnesota’s ability to restore a bright economic future lies
not in a slavish devotion to cutting public revenue, but upon our ability to identify the state’s long-term needs
and fund them appropriately.

On Our Way to Average 5


Introduction__________________________
Debate over the size of government in Minnesota is strewn with bombastic claims about “spending run amok”
and government’s “insatiable appetite for increased spending.” Rankings of the relative size of government in
the 50 states have become a focal point in this debate.

The first edition of this report6 compared the size of state and local government in Minnesota to other
states based on commonly used measures. This edition will extend the analysis to include fiscal year 2007
information that was released in the fall of 2009. All state and local government tax, revenue, and expenditure
data in this report are from annual U.S. Census Bureau reports.7

Not all rankings of the relative size of government are equally valid. The claim that Minnesota is a “big
government” state is often based on rankings that focus exclusively on state taxes. However, a House Fiscal
Analysis Office issue brief noted that rankings based on state taxes alone are a flawed measure of the relative
size of government because some states—such as Minnesota—collect a large share of revenue at the state
level and redistribute it to local governments.8 These states tend to have above average state government
revenue but below average local government revenue.

In order to get a true measure of the relative size of government in the 50 states, it is important to look at
combined state and local government finances. In addition, focusing on taxes alone provides an incomplete
measure of the size of government in the 50 states. Based on FY 2007 data from the U.S. Census Bureau, taxes
comprise only 54.8 percent of state and local government general revenue in the United States (57.2 percent
in Minnesota). Apart from taxes, citizens pay charges, license fees, and special assessments.

A more complete measure of the cost of paying for public services borne by the residents of each state is non-
federal general revenue, commonly referred to as “own-source revenue.” Own-source revenue includes all
taxes, fees, charges, special assessments, and other miscellaneous payments made within a state to support
state and local governments.

Even total “own-source” revenue does not fully measure the total amount of revenue utilized by state and
local governments. State and local governments in all 50 states receive revenue from the federal government
for transportation, health and human services, and other public costs. On a nationwide level, transfers from
the federal government comprised 20 percent of all state and local government general revenue in 2007 (17.6
percent in Minnesota). In order to adequately gauge the relative size of government in the 50 states, it is
important to focus on “general revenue,” which includes both own-source revenue and federal transfers.

In addition to general revenue, the Census Bureau also reports an even broader category of revenue that
includes utility, liquor store, and insurance trust revenue. The following diagram shows the classification of
revenue used in Census Bureau reports.

6 On Our Way to Average


Based on recommendations from research staff with the Minnesota Department of Revenue, this analysis
will exclude insurance trust revenue from total revenue.  The largest category of insurance trust revenue
is employee retirement funds, which can fluctuate greatly from year to year due to the performance of
financial markets.  The fluctuation in insurance trust revenue is often so large that it can cause a large
variation in total government revenue.9  Inclusion of insurance trust revenue in the revenue total would
be measuring changes in state and local government resources that are not driven by ordinary growth in
government, but by fluctuation in financial markets.

The most inclusive category of revenue examined in this report consists of the sum of general revenue plus
utility and liquor store revenue. For shorthand purposes, this category of revenue will be referred to as “total
revenue,” even though it does not include insurance trust revenue. This represents a change from the first
edition of this report, which included insurance trust revenue in “total revenue.”

In summary, this report will examine Minnesota’s rank among the 50 states based on each of the following
categories of revenue from the U.S. Census Bureau, listed from least to most inclusive:

• Taxes

• Own-source revenue (i.e., non-federal general revenue)

• General revenue

• Total revenue (excluding insurance trust revenue)

On Our Way to Average 7


The relative size of government in the 50 states can also be gauged by examining state and local government
expenditures, as opposed to revenue. This report ranks Minnesota relative to other states based on two broad
categories of government spending.

The first of these categories is “general expenditures.” The general expenditure category parallels general
revenue insofar as it excludes utility, liquor store, and insurance trust expenditures. The second category
is referred to herein as “total expenditures.” In order to parallel the “total revenue” category, the “total
expenditure” category will exclude insurance trust expenditures.

Government revenues and expenditures among the 50 states can be compared on a per capita basis or per
$1,000 dollars of personal income. While this report shows Minnesota’s position based on both types of
rankings, rankings based on revenue and expenditures per $1,000 of personal income generally provide a more
meaningful comparison. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP):

Revenue as a percentage of personal income is a standard form of measurement in public finance


analyses, and for several reasons it is usually a better measure for comparisons across states than are
measures of spending and revenue per capita.

• Measuring revenue and spending relative to personal income shows the relative burden of state and
local taxes on state taxpayers and the relative effort states are making to fund public programs.

• By contrast, measuring revenue and spending on a per capita basis does not take into account the
differing abilities of states to raise revenues and fund programs. Two states with large differences
in average income levels could raise the same amount of revenue per resident, but the poorer state
would be placing a greater tax burden on its citizens.

• Both the overall cost-of-living and wage levels may be higher in states with above-average incomes.
Thus, wealthier states may be required to spend more per resident than poorer states to provide the
same level of services.10

A statistical analysis confirms that both cost-of-living and wage levels are higher in high personal income states,
as posited by the CBPP.11 Examining government revenues and expenditures as a percentage of personal
income is therefore a sensible way of adjusting for the higher labor costs for governments in high personal
income states.

In addition, high per capita personal income states tend to receive less federal assistance than low per capita
personal income states and thus must rely more heavily on taxes and other own-source revenue, thereby
contributing to higher per capita taxes in these states.12

Research conducted by Dr. Paul Wilson, Director of the Research Division at the Minnesota Department of
Revenue, has demonstrated that high per capita income states generally have higher per capita taxes than low
per capita income states; Wilson attributes this relationship to the factors cited above: higher wage levels and
cost of living and lower levels of federal assistance in high per capita income states.13 Based on this finding,
Wilson concludes that per capita tax levels are not particularly helpful in identifying high tax and low tax states.
A Revenue Department publication further notes that, “Rankings of total state and local tax burden measured
as a percent of income are better able to identify the states commonly perceived to be low-tax or high-tax
states.”14

8 On Our Way to Average


State rankings of revenues and expenditures per $1,000 of personal income in this report are based on fiscal
year (i.e., July 1-June 30) personal income data that match the fiscal year revenue and expenditure data from
the Census Bureau. Other reports that examine revenues and spending relative to personal income typically
use calendar year (January 1-December 31) personal income data, which does not precisely match the time
frame of the revenue and expenditure data. Personal income data used in this report is from the U.S. Bureau
of Economic Analysis.

The first edition of this report examined state revenue and expenditure data going back to fiscal year (FY) 1995.
In order to avoid going over ground already covered, this report will focus on data beginning with FY 2002. FY
2002 is last year before the commencement of the “no new tax” era in Minnesota (as marked by the ascension
of the Pawlenty administration) for which Census revenue and expenditure data is available. Thus, FY 2002 is
the appropriate baseline year for examining state and local revenue and spending trends during the “no new
tax” period.

This report will rank the 50 states based on revenues and expenditures for each year from FY 2002 to FY 2007,
with the exception FY 2003 for which Census Bureau state and local data is not available. FY 2007 is the most
current year for which Census Bureau state and local revenue and expenditure information is available; the
previous edition of this report extended through FY 2006.

The next section of this report examines Minnesota’s ranking based on the four categories of revenue and two
categories of expenditures per $1,000 of personal income. The subsequent section examines Minnesota’s
ranking based on the same categories of revenues and expenditures on a per capita basis.

Two limitations of state rankings should be noted.


1. A small change in revenue or expenditures can cause a large change in rankings, depending on how
closely the values of a particular factor for each state are clustered together. Thus, a large change in rank
is not necessarily indicative of a large change relative to other states or relative to the national average.
Conversely, if the values among states are widely distributed, a relatively large change in the value of a
factor for a state might result in little or no change in a state ranking.

2. State rankings expressed as a single number tell us nothing about where Minnesota compares to
specific states. For example, it was one thing to rank ahead of large states like California, New York, and
Texas. It is quite another to rank ahead of small states like Wyoming, Alaska, and Hawaii.

To address these shortcomings, this report not only presents Minnesota’s rank among the 50 states, but also
Minnesota’s position relative to the national average. In addition, the report will examine the Minnesota and
nationwide percentage change in each category of revenue and expenditures from 2002 to 2007.

Appendix A shows each state’s value and ranking for each of the revenue and spending categories so that
readers can determine how Minnesota compares to specific states. Unlike the first edition of this report, the
per capita tables in appendix A (tables A-7 to A-12) are adjusted for inflation to account for changes in the
purchasing power of the dollar over time. The inflation adjustment is based on the implicit price deflator
for state and local government purchases, which is the appropriate measure of inflation for state and local
governments.15

A deficiency of all studies that look strictly at government revenues and expenditures is that they overlook the
quality of public services being provided and the economic outcomes being produced. For example, a high
level of government spending relative to other states may be a wise investment if it is producing higher quality

On Our Way to Average 9


roads, schools, and other public services that contribute to superior economic vitality and quality of life. In
short, an examination of government revenue and spending that does not take into account the outcomes
resulting from public expenditures is incomplete.

This report will examine thirteen factors that measure the level of economic performance and the quality of
public services and infrastructure in each of the 50 states. These factors are:

• Per capita personal income

• Median household income

• Average annual pay

• Unemployment rate

• Employment growth since 2001

• Poverty rate

• Homeownership rate

• Percent of population covered by health insurance

• Pupil-teacher ratio in public schools

• Per capita state and local spending for education

• Students performing at or above “basic” level in math and reading (4th and 8th grades)

• Percent of bridges that are deficient

• Miles in poor or mediocre condition per 1,000 road miles

Data on each of these performance factors will be examined for each year from 2002 through the most
current year available. These factors include the same 12 factors examined in the previous edition of this
report, except that (1) all information has been updated to the most current year available and (2) the source
of information for some factors has been changed when more accurate or reliable sources were discovered.
Changes in data relative to the previous version of the report are described in the report. In addition, one new
factor is added to this version of the report: miles in poor or mediocre condition per 1,000 road miles.

As with the revenue and expenditure categories, the report will examine Minnesota’s rank and position relative
to the national average for all 13 performance measures. When survey data is used, a consideration of the
reported margin of error is included in the analysis.

Appendix B consists of tables showing the value of each factor for each state in each of the years examined.
Dollar amounts in appendix B are expressed in inflation-adjusted dollars.16

The report will conclude with an examination of the possible linkage between increases or decreases in
public investment on the one hand and the level of economic performance and quality of public services and
infrastructure on the other. Specifically, the report will address the question of whether the “no new tax”
policy that Minnesota has pursued since 2002 has produced the benefits that were promised.

10 On Our Way to Average


Revenue and Expenditures Per $1,000 of Personal Income
Taxes (see table A-1 in appendix for detail)
Taxes are often the focus of state ranking reports, since they are the largest and most visible source of state
and local government revenue. However, taxes should not be overemphasized to the exclusion of other
revenue sources. Nationally, state and local governments collect 45 percent of general revenue from non-tax
sources, so taxes are an incomplete measure of public revenue.

Minnesota’s rank among the 50 states on state and local government taxes per $1,000 of personal income was
6th in 2002. From 2002 to 2004, Minnesota’s tax rank fell sharply to 17th, with little change since then.
In 2002, Minnesota’s state and local government taxes per $1,000 of personal income were 8.6 percent above
the U.S. average. Minnesota taxes declined dramatically over the next two years, dropping to just 1.2 percent
above the U.S. average in 2004. Minnesota taxes per $1,000 of personal income changed relatively little from
2004 to 2007.

In aggregate, nationwide state and local taxes per $1,000 of personal income increased from $101 in 2002
to $110 in 2007, a growth of 8.8 percent. Over the same period, taxes per $1,000 of personal income in
Minnesota grew from $110 to $112, a growth of 1.9 percent.

Own-Source Revenue (see table A-2 in appendix for detail)


Own-source revenue—also referred to as non-federal general revenue—includes taxes, fees, special
assessments, interest earnings, and all other general revenue except for dollars from the federal government.
Nationally, own-source revenue comprises 80.0 percent of all state and local government general revenue.
Own-source revenue is a better measure of the total “price of government” paid by residents of a state than is
taxes.

Minnesota’s rank among the 50 states on state and local government own-source revenue per $1,000 of
personal income has fallen from 12th in 2002 to 24th in 2004. Since 2004, Minnesota’s rank has changed
relatively little.

Minnesota own-source revenue per $1,000 of personal income has fallen from 9 percent above the national
average in 2002 to just 0.5 percent above the national average in 2007. Once again, the bulk of this decline
occurred from 2002 to 2004.

On Our Way to Average 11


In 2002, state and local own-source revenue per $1,000 of personal income was $148 nationally and $161
in Minnesota. From 2002 to 2007, U.S. state and local own-source revenue grew by 8.5 percent, while in
Minnesota it was virtually unchanged. By 2007, own-source revenue per $1,000 of personal income in
Minnesota was approximately equal to the U.S. average. From 2002 to 2007, Minnesota led the nation in
terms of the decline in own-source revenue per $1,000 of personal income.

General Revenue (see table A-3 in appendix for detail)


General revenue is a more complete measure of the overall size of government because—unlike taxes and
own-source revenue—it includes intergovernmental transfers from the federal government.

Minnesota’s rank on general revenue per $1,000 of personal income has fallen from 22nd in 2002 to 31st in
2004. Since 2004, Minnesota’s rank has changed little.

Minnesota’s general revenue per $1,000 of personal income fell from 4.9 percent above the national average
in 2002 to 1.9 percent below average in 2004. Since 2004, own-source revenue has declined slightly relative to
the rest of the nation, dipping to 2.4 percent below the U.S. average in 2007.

During the entire period from 2002 to 2007, total U.S. state and local general revenue per $1,000 of personal

12 On Our Way to Average


income increased by 6.6 percent from $188 to $201, while in Minnesota it dipped slightly from $198 to $196.
From 2002 to 2007, Minnesota went from significantly above the national average in state and local own-
source revenue to modestly below.

Total Revenue (see table A-4 in appendix for detail)


“Total revenue” is the most comprehensive measure of state and local government revenue used in this report.
“Total revenue” includes all general revenue plus utility and liquor store revenue; with the addition of these
two sources, “total revenue” exceeds general revenue by 6.1 percent nationally and 4.8 percent in Minnesota
based on 2007 data. For reasons noted in the introduction, “total revenue” as defined here excludes insurance
trust revenue.

Minnesota’s rank among the 50 states in total state and local government revenue per $1,000 of personal
income fell from 25th in 2002 to 34th in 2004. Since 2004, Minnesota’s rank has fluctuated only slightly, settling
at 33rd in 2007.

Minnesota state and local government total revenue per $1,000 of personal income fell from 3.3 percent
above the national average in 2002 to 3.2 percent below average in 2004. Over the next three years,
Minnesota total revenue dipped further to 3.6 percent below the national average.

From 2002 to 2007, U.S. state and local government total revenue per $1,000 of personal income increased
from $200 to $213, a growth of 6.3 percent; in Minnesota, it declined from $207 to $205, a drop of 0.8
percent. Both nationally and within Minnesota, the change in total revenue from 2002 to 2007 resembles the
change in general revenue.

General Expenditures (see table A-5 in appendix for detail)


In examining the relative size of government in the 50 states, it is important to examine not just revenue, but
expenditures as well. An analysis of general expenditures is arguably the best way to gauge the relative change
in the size of state and local government over time because:

1. It includes spending on all of the most widely recognized state and local government functions, including
those funded with federal dollars,

2. it does not include spending on utilities, insurance trusts, and liquor stores, which are broadly disparate
among states in the extent to which they are funded, if they are performed at all, and

On Our Way to Average 13


3. Unlike general revenues or any of the other revenue categories, it is not subject to erratic swings from
year to year due to changes in volatile revenue sources. Changes in general expenditures are more likely to
be the result of the conscious decisions of policymakers to increase or decrease the scope of government
services, as opposed to fluctuations in unstable revenues.

Minnesota’s rank on general expenditures per $1,000 of personal income has fallen from 17th in 2002 to 29th in
2007. Most of the drop in Minnesota’s ranking occurred from 2002 to 2004.

Minnesota has gone from 7.4 percent above the national average in general expenditures per $1,000 of
personal income in 2002 to 0.8 percent below the national average in 2009. Once again, most of the decline
occurred from 2002 to 2004.

U.S. state and local general expenditures per $1,000 of personal income in 2007 was $194—the same as it was
in 2002. Meanwhile, in Minnesota it declined from $208 in 2002 to $192 in 2007, a drop of 7.6 percent. From
this information, it is clear that Minnesota’s public spending relative to statewide ability-to-pay declined in
both absolute terms and relative to the national average.

Total Expenditures (see table A-6 in appendix for detail)


As used here, “total expenditures” includes all general expenditures plus utility and liquor store expenditures.
To be consistent with the “total revenue” measure, “total expenditures” excludes insurance trust spending.
With the addition of utility and liquor store spending, “total expenditures” exceed general expenditures by 8.4
percent nationally and by 5.8 percent in Minnesota based on 2007 data.

Minnesota’s rank in state and local government total expenditures per $1,000 of personal income fell from 19th
to 34th from 2002 to 2007. Most of the decline in Minnesota’s rank occurred between 2002 and 2004.

In terms of total expenditures per $1,000 of personal income, Minnesota has gone from 4.6 percent above the
national average in 2002 to 3.4 percent below the national average in 2007. As has been consistently the case
across other categories of revenues and expenditures, most of this decline occurred between 2002 and 2004.

On a nationwide basis, state and local government total expenditures per $1,000 of personal income increased
very slightly from $210 in 2002 to $211 in 2007. Over the same period, state and local government total
expenditures per $1,000 of personal income in Minnesota fell from $220 to $204, a drop of 7.3 percent.

14 On Our Way to Average


Note on Personal Income Growth
On the six measures of revenues and expenditures per $1,000 of personal income examined above,
Minnesota’s ranking and position relative to the national average declined significantly from 2002 to 2007.
This decline could be due to either (1) a decline in Minnesota revenue and expenditures relative to the rest of
the nation or (2) a growth in Minnesota personal income relative to the rest of the nation.

From FY 2002 to 2007, Minnesota’s nominal personal income growth was nearly four percent less than the
national average. Thus, the decline in Minnesota revenues and expenditures relative to the U.S. average was
not due to above average growth in personal income. Rather, the change in Minnesota’s position relative to
the national average was due to below average growth in nominal public revenue and expenditures. Across all
six categories of revenues and expenditures, the nominal growth in Minnesota was below the U.S. average.

On Our Way to Average 15


Revenue and Expenditures Per Capita_
All dollar amounts in the following sections dealing with per capita revenues and expenditures are expressed in
constant FY 2007 dollars. As noted in the introduction, the inflation adjustment is based on the implicit price
deflator for state and local government purchases, which is the appropriate measure of inflation for state and
local governments.17

Taxes (see table A-7 in appendix for detail)


In a presentation at the 2008 Minnesota Policy Analysis Conference, Dr. Paul Wilson, Director of the Research
Division at the Minnesota Department of Revenue, noted that high per capita income states almost always
have higher per capita state and local taxes than low per capita income states.18 Wilson concluded that taxes
per capita are not particularly helpful in identifying high tax and low tax states due to the fact that high per
capita income states nearly always have higher per capita taxes due to higher labor costs, higher costs of living,
and lower levels of federal assistance.

Nonetheless, state and local taxes per capita is commonly used in making interstate comparisons. Thus,
despite its limitations, this report includes data on taxes per capita. While taxes per capita are not particularly
useful as a basis for comparison to the national average, the examination of changes in per capita tax, revenue,
and expenditure levels within a single state over time can be useful.

Minnesota’s rank on state and local government taxes per capita was 5th in 2002. Over the next four years,
Minnesota’s rank declined steadily, hitting 13th in 2006, before rebounding to 11th in 2007.

Relative to the national average, per capita taxes in Minnesota showed an unabated decline over the last five
years, dropping from 17 percent above the national average in 2002 to 7.9 percent above in 2007. Most of this
decline occurred between 2002 and 2004.

Per capita state and local taxes in the U.S. grew from $3,962 in 2002 to $4,234 in 2007, a growth of 6.9 percent
over the five years. Over the same period, per capita taxes in Minnesota fell by 1.4 percent, from $4,633 in
2002 to $4,566 in 2007.

16 On Our Way to Average


Own-Source Revenue (see table A-8 in appendix for detail)
Rankings of state and local government own-source revenue (also referred to as non-federal general revenue)
per capita have the same limitations as rankings of per capita taxes; these limitations were described in the
previous section. However, an examination of changes in own-source revenue per capita over time within a
single state can be useful.

From 2002 to 2005, Minnesota’s rank on own-source revenue per capita declined from 7th to 10th. Minnesota’s
rank remained 10th in 2006 and 2007.

Minnesota per capita state and local own-source revenue relative to the national average has fallen
significantly during the period under examination, going from 17.4 percent above the national average in 2002
to 6.6 percent above average in 2007.

U.S. state and local government own-source revenue per capita grew from $5,797 in 2002 to $6,176 in 2007,
for total growth over the five year period of 6.5 percent. Meanwhile, in Minnesota it declined from $6,805 to
$6,585, a drop of 3.2 percent. From 2002 to 2007, no state in the nation has had a greater decline in per capita
own-source revenue than Minnesota.

General Revenue (see table A-9 in appendix for detail)


General revenue includes own-source revenue plus dollars transferred from the federal government. Because
it includes federal dollars, general revenue per capita is not as flawed as taxes and own-source revenue per
capita as a basis for interstate comparisons. However, interstate comparisons based on general revenue per
capita are nonetheless of limited utility due to the fact that they do not adjust for the higher labor costs and
higher cost of living in high per capita income states.

Minnesota’s rank on total state and local government general revenue per capita fell from 5th in 2002 to 16th in
2006, where it remained in 2007. The largest drop in rank occurred between 2002 and 2004.

Minnesota’s position relative to the national average in per capita state and local general revenue also fell
steadily over this five year period, going from 13.0 percent above the national average in 2002 to just 3.5
percent above in 2007.

U.S. per capita state and local government general revenue grew from $7,375 in 2002 to $7,721 in 2007, a
growth of 4.7 percent. Meanwhile, in Minnesota it fell from $8,333 to $7,990, a decline of 4.1 percent.

On Our Way to Average 17


Total Revenue (see table A-10 in appendix for detail)
Per capita rankings based on total revenue have the same limitations as per capita rankings based on general
revenue. These limitations were described at the beginning of the previous section. For reasons explained in
the introduction, “total revenue” as defined in this report excludes insurance trust revenue.

Minnesota’s rank in state and local government total revenue per capita fell steadily from 7th in 2002 to 18th in
2007.

Minnesota’s total revenue per capita has fallen 11.3 percent above the national average in 2002 to 2.3 percent
above in 2007. Most of Minnesota’s decline relative to the national average occurred between 2002 and 2004.

U.S. state and local government total revenue per capita grew from $7,845 to $8,190 during the period from
2002 to 2007, a growth of 4.4 percent. Over the same period, total revenue per capita in Minnesota declined
from $8,730 to $8,377, a drop of 4 percent.

18 On Our Way to Average


General Expenditures (see table A-11 in appendix for detail)
In examining the relative size of government in the 50 states, it is important to examine not just revenue, but
expenditures as well. Expenditures have an advantage over revenue as a basis for interstate comparisons
because expenditures are less subject to erratic swings from year to year due to changes in volatile revenue
sources. Changes in general expenditures are more likely to be the result of the conscious decisions of
policymakers to increase or decrease the scope of government services, as opposed to fluctuations in unstable
revenue sources.

However, general expenditures per capita have some of the same limitations as general revenue per capita,
insofar as it does not adjust for the higher labor cost and higher cost of living in high per capita income states.

Minnesota ranked 5th among the 50 states in per capita state and local government general expenditures in
2002. Over the next four years, this rank fell to 14th in 2006 before moving to 13th in 2007.

Minnesota’s state and local government general expenditures per capita fell steadily from 15.6 percent above
the national average in 2002 to 5.2 percent above average in 2007.

Real state and local government general expenditures per capita fell both nationally and in Minnesota from
2002 to 2007, although the decline in Minnesota was much greater. Nationally, general expenditures per
capita declined from $7,583 to $7,444, a drop of 1.8 percent. In Minnesota, general expenditures per capita
declined from $8,770 to $7,832, a decline of 10.7 percent.

Total Expenditures (see table A-12 in appendix for detail)


As a basis for interstate comparisons, total expenditures per capita have some of the same limitations as
general expenditures per capita. For reasons described in the introduction, “total expenditures” as used here
exclude insurance trust revenue.

Minnesota’s rank among the 50 states in state and local government total expenditures per capita fell from 6th
in 2002 to 15th in 2007.

Minnesota’s total expenditures per capita were 12.7 percent above the national average in 2002. Over the
next five years, total expenditures per capita in Minnesota declined steadily relative to the national average.
By 2007, Minnesota per capita state and local government expenditures were 2.5 percent above the national
average.

On Our Way to Average 19


As with per capita general expenditures, per capita state and local government total expenditures fell both
nationally and in Minnesota from 2002 to 2007. U.S. state and local general expenditures per capita fell from
$8,232 to $8,109, a drop of 1.5 percent. In Minnesota, general expenditures per capita went from $9,274 to
$8,311, a decline of 10.4 percent.

20 On Our Way to Average


Summarizing Revenue and Expenditure Trends
From 2002 to 2007, Minnesota’s rank and position relative to the national average declined on all six measures
of state and local government revenues and expenditures examined above; this decline occurred regardless of
whether the measurement was on a per $1,000 of personal income basis or a per capita basis.

The tables below summarize the change in Minnesota’s rank and position relative to the national average for
each of the six revenue and expenditure categories from fiscal year 2002 to 2007. The first table shows the
change per $1,000 of personal income, while second table shows the per capita change; the percent changes
in the second table are expressed in inflation-adjusted dollars.

As noted above, measuring revenues and expenditures per $1,000 of personal income provides a simple and
sensible way of adjusting for the higher labor costs and lower level of federal assistance in high income states.
On all six categories of revenue and expenditures per $1,000 of personal income, Minnesota’s rank declined by

On Our Way to Average 21


at least eight places and on one category—total expenditures—by 15 places. Relative to the national average,
Minnesota declined from 6.9 percent to 8.5 percent on the various measures.

For reasons explained in a preceding section, the single most meaningful measure of the relative size of
government is arguably general expenditures per $1,000 of personal income. On this measure, Minnesota’s
rank declined from 17th in 2002 to 29th in 2007. Over this period, Minnesota declined from 7.4 percent above
the national average in 2002 to 0.8 percent below the national average in 2007.

Minnesota’s per capita rankings are much higher than the per $1,000 of personal income rankings because
per capita rankings do not take into account the higher labor costs and lower level of federal assistance in high
income states such as Minnesota. Even so, Minnesota’s rank and position relative to the national average fell
significantly from 2002 to 2007 on all six categories of revenue and expenditures per capita. Relative to the
national average, Minnesota declined by nine percent to 10.8 percent on all per capita measures.

For most measures, the fastest rate of decline relative to the national average occurred from 2002 to 2004;
from 2004 to 2007, the decline generally continued, but at a slower pace.

Minnesota is a national leader in terms of the magnitude of state and local government revenue and
expenditure reductions from 2002 to 2007. The table below compares the change in all six categories of U.S.
and Minnesota revenues and expenditures both on a per capita and per $1,000 of personal income basis.
Minnesota’s rank among the 50 states in terms of revenue and spending reductions is also shown.

Per $1,000 of personal income, Minnesota has declined or increased very slightly on all six categories of
revenues and expenditures; this is in contrast to the U.S. total, which has increased on all six categories with
the exception of general expenditures. The graph below illustrates the magnitude of the change from 2002 to
2007 in revenues and expenditures per $1,000 of personal income in Minnesota versus the U.S. total.

22 On Our Way to Average


The contrast between Minnesota and the rest of the nation in per capita revenues and expenditures is equally
stark. Minnesota revenues and expenditures fell across all six categories, while the U.S. total either grew or
fell only modestly. For example, in terms of total and general revenue, Minnesota declined by about $343
and $353 per capita respectively, while the U.S. average increased by $346 and $345 per capita respectively;
meanwhile, the decline in total and general expenditures per capita was about $800 greater in Minnesota than
in the rest of the U.S. The graph below illustrates the magnitude of the difference between Minnesota and the
rest of the nation in terms of the change in per capita revenues and expenditures from 2002 to 2007.

On Our Way to Average 23


Minnesota leads the nation in terms of the decline in own-source revenue from 2002 to 2007, both on a per
capita basis and per $1,000 of personal income. In fact, on all six categories of revenue and expenditures and
on both a per capita basis and per $1,000 of personal income, Minnesota ranks among the top 10 states in
terms of the decline (or least growth) from 2002 to 2007. This is true for no other state in the nation.

In terms of the total size of state and local government, Minnesota is a mid-size state based on the most
current data available for all 50 states. Per $1,000 of personal income, Minnesota is approximately 3.5 percent
below the national average on the broadest finance categories used in this report: total revenues and total
expenditures. Even on a per capita basis, Minnesota total revenue and total expenditures are only about 2.5
percent above the national average. Furthermore, Minnesota leads the nation in terms of the rate of decline
in the size of government from 2002 to 2007.

Not surprisingly, 2002 marks Governor Pawlenty’s election, so it is the appropriate baseline year to use when
examining the impact of the “no new tax” policies pursued by the Pawlenty administration. (Actually, the last
budget year under Governor Pawlenty’s predecessor—Governor Ventura—is FY 2003; however, since state-by-
state Census Bureau data is not available for FY 2003, FY 2002 becomes the default baseline year.) It is clear
that Pawlenty’s “no new tax” policies have succeeded in shrinking the size of government in Minnesota both in
an absolute sense and relative to other states.

24 On Our Way to Average


State Performance____________________
The next important question is whether the decline in the size of government in Minnesota relative to other
states has been a benefit or a detriment to the state as a whole. Has the decline in the relative size of the
public sector in Minnesota led to increased private sector investment, with improvements in job growth,
personal income, and other indicators relative to other states? Or has the relative reduction in government
revenues and spending lead to cuts in education, public safety, and infrastructure that reduces Minnesota’s
quality of life and that ultimately makes Minnesota a less attractive place to work and do business?

In an attempt to address this question, this report examines various indicators of Minnesota’s economic
performance and quality of life relative to other states. The thirteen factors examined in this report are listed
below.

• Per capita personal income

• Median household income

• Average annual pay

• Unemployment rate

• Employment growth since 2001

• Poverty rate

• Homeownership rate

• Percent of population covered by health insurance

• Pupil-teacher ratio in public schools

• Per capita state and local spending for education

• Students performing at or above “basic” level in math and reading (4th and 8th grades)

• Percent of bridges that are deficient

• Miles in poor or mediocre condition per 1,000 road miles

Minnesota’s rank and position relative to the national average on each of these 13 factors will be examined
for every year from 2002 to the most current year for which data is available. The period from 2002 to 2007
corresponds with the ascendance of the “no new tax” agenda, which commenced a significant decline in
Minnesota’s revenue and expenditure rankings and position relative to the U.S. average. The value and rank
for each state on each of the 13 performance measures are shown in appendix B.

In all rankings based on the performance measures, a rank of “1” will denote the state with the best
performance and “50” will denote the state with the worst performance.

Per Capita Personal Income (see table B-1 in appendix for detail)
The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) defines personal income as “income received by persons from
all sources.”19 Personal income includes “compensation of employees, supplements to wages and salaries,
proprietors’ income with inventory valuation adjustment and capital consumption adjustment (CCAdj), rental

On Our Way to Average 25


income of persons with CCAdj, personal income receipts on assets, and personal current transfer receipts, less
contributions for government social insurance.” Per capita personal income is equal to total personal income
divided by the number of people. The per capita personal income amounts20 in this section and in table B-1
are converted to constant 2008 dollars using the consumer price index (CPI).

Minnesota’s rank among the 50 states on per capita personal income was 8th in 2002, increased to 7th in 2003
and 2004, before falling to 12th in 2005; from 2005 to 2008, Minnesota’s rank changed little. Minnesota per
capita personal income was 8.3 percent
above the national average in 2002 and
improved to approximately 9.3 percent in
2003 and 2004. Minnesota’s per capita
personal income declined relative to the
national average over the next three years,
dropping to 5.9 percent above in 2007,
before rebounding to seven percent above
in 2008.

U.S. per capita personal income increased


from $37,656 in 2002 to $40,208 in 2008,
a growth of 6.8 percent. Over the same
period, Minnesota per capita personal
income grew from $40,774 to $43,037,
a growth of 5.5 percent. Growth in
Minnesota per capita personal income
lagged 1.3 percent behind the national
growth rate from 2002 to 2008.

26 On Our Way to Average


Median Household Income (see table B-2 in appendix for detail)
The U.S. Census Bureau defines household income as “the sum of money income received in the calendar
year by all household members 15 years old and over.”21 Included in this definition of income are “amounts
reported separately for wage or salary income; net self-employment income; interest, dividends, or net
rental or royalty income or income from estates and trusts; Social Security or Railroad Retirement income;
Supplemental Security Income (SSI); public assistance or welfare payments; retirement, survivor, or disability
pensions; and all other income.” According to the U.S. BEA, the measure of income used by the Census Bureau
to determine household income is generally less comprehensive than personal income from the BEA.22

Last year’s report relied on median household income data from the Census Bureau’s “Current Population
Survey.” The median household income data in this year’s report is from the Census Bureau’s “American
Community Survey” (ACS).23 The ACS is based on a larger sample than the Current Population Survey and thus
has a smaller margin of error. In some instances, data from the ACS is significantly different than data from the
Current Population Survey.

Per capita income amounts can be distorted by a relatively small number of high income earners, which tends
to pull the per capita amount upward. Median income, on the other hand, is more representative of the
typical household, since it represents the income level which divides the population into two equal halves and
is less influenced by the presence of extremely high incomes within the population.

As with the per capita personal income amounts in the previous section, the median household income
amounts in this section and in table B-2 are converted to constant 2008 dollars using the consumer price index
(CPI).

Minnesota’s median household income was 10th highest for four years during the period from 2002 to 2008,
only dipping below tenth in 2003, 2005, and 2008. Minnesota’s median household income was 14.6 percent

On Our Way to Average 27


above the national average in 2002 and dropped to 10.1 percent above by 2008.
U.S. median household income grew
by one percent from $51,521 in 2002
to $52,029 in 2008. Meanwhile,
Minnesota median household
income declined by three percent
from $59,053 to $57,288. These
estimates do contain a margin
of error; however, based on the
margins error reported in the ACS,
we can conclude with statistical
confidence that the U.S. median
household income increased from
2002 to 2008, while the Minnesota
median household income declined.

As with per capita personal income,


median household income in
Minnesota is still high relative to
the rest of the nation. However,
Minnesota’s median household
income has slipped relative to the
U.S. average since 2002.

Average Annual Pay (see table B-3 in appendix for detail)


Personal income and median household income both include income earned from a variety of sources,
including investments. Average annual pay, on the other hand, focuses only on wages, including bonuses,
cash value of meals and lodging, and employer contributions to certain deferred compensation plans. Average
annual pay was computed by adding total annual
wages of employees covered by unemployment
insurance programs by the average monthly
number of these employees. The data used here
are taken from annual “State Rankings” reports
from CQ Press and are based on data from U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Average annual pay amounts in this section and in


table B-3 are converted to constant 2007 dollars
using the consumer price index (CPI).

Minnesota’s rank among the 50 states in average


annual pay did not change dramatically from
2002 to 2007, hovering at about 12th in each year.
However, Minnesota’s average annual pay fell from
1.9 percent above the national average in 2002 to 0.2 percent below the national average in 2007; modest
growth in real Minnesota annual pay relative to the national average from 2002 to 2004 and from 2006 to
2007 was more than offset by a large decline from 2004 to 2006.
28 On Our Way to Average
It is interesting to note that—despite Minnesota’s relative high ranking in 2007 (13th)—average annual pay
in Minnesota is slightly below the national average. Several of the 12 states that are ahead of Minnesota in
average pay ranking are large states (e.g., California, New York, and Illinois) which have a greater effect on the
national average than small states. Despite the fact that Minnesota is ahead of most states in terms of average
annual pay, it has dipped below the national average because it trails behind some of the largest and most
critical states. This illustrates how rankings can be somewhat deceptive is an indicator of a state’s position
relative to the nation as a whole.

From 2002 to 2007, Minnesota average annual pay increased from $43,181 to $44,375. This 2.8 percent
increase was a full two percent less than the national growth rate of 4.9 percent. As with median household
income, Minnesota’s position relative to the rest of the nation in average annual pay has deteriorated since
2002.

Unemployment Rate (see table B-4 in appendix for detail)


The unemployment rate represents the number of unemployed as a percent of the labor force. The
unemployment rates used here were calculated from seasonally adjusted U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
The annual rate was calculated by averaging the unemployment rate for all 12 months of the year except for
2009, which is based on the first 11 months. (December 2009 data was not available at the time of publication
of this report.)

Minnesota had the 14th lowest unemployment rate in the nation in 2002 and 2003; that rank dropped
modestly over the next three years before hitting 18th in 2006. Minnesota’s unemployment rate rank fell
precipitously in 2007, hitting 33rd, before rebounding to 30th in 2008 and 21st in 2009.

The Minnesota and national unemployment rates both increased by approximately the same amount from
2002 to 2008. However, as a percentage of the national rate, Minnesota’s rate deteriorated somewhat
over this period. Minnesota’s unemployment rate was 21.4 percent below the national average in 2002;

On Our Way to Average 29


Minnesota’s annual unemployment rate deteriorated relative to the national average over the next five years
and then improved in the subsequent two years. By 2009, Minnesota’s annual unemployment rate was 15
percent below the national average—better than in 2006 but not as favorable as in 2002.

Employment Growth Since 2001 (see table B-5 in appendix for detail)
A reduction in the unemployment rate does not necessarily mean that more people are working. A fall in the
unemployment rate could be due to the fact that unemployed people have stopped looking for work and have
dropped out of the labor force. For this reason, it is important to supplement unemployment rate information
with information on the growth or decline in total employment.
The annual change in
employment in this section is
measured relative to a baseline
year of 2001. This differs from
the previous version of this
report, which measured the
change in each year relative
to the previous year. With the
exception of 2009, average
employment for all 12 months
of the year was compared to
average employment for all
12 months of 2001; average
employment for 2009 is based on
the first 11 months of that year.
(December 2009 data were not
available at the time of publication of this report.) Data used in these calculations are from the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics (seasonally adjusted).

30 On Our Way to Average


Based on this measure, Minnesota’s rank among the 50 states declined from 26th in 2002 to 46th in 2007. Over
the next two years, Minnesota’s rank recovered somewhat, climbing to 39th.
Minnesota’s employment growth
from 2001 to 2002 was slightly
above average. However,
Minnesota employment growth
lagged behind the national
average in each of the next
five years, before rebounding
somewhat in 2008 and 2009.
However, even after this
rebound, employment growth
from 2001 to 2009 lagged behind
the national average by over
three percent.

From 2002 to 2009, total U.S.


employment increased by 2.5
percent. Over the same period,
employment in Minnesota fell by
one percent, despite population
growth of over five percent.
Only ten other states have had
a higher rate of employment
loss than Minnesota over the
last seven years. In aggregate,
Minnesota’s track record of job
growth since 2002 is well below
the U.S. average.

Poverty Rate (see table B-6 in appendix for detail)


The poverty rate represents the portion of the population living below the poverty level based on data
from the U.S. Census Bureau. Last year’s report relied on poverty rates from the Census Bureau’s “Current
Population Survey.” The poverty rate data in this year’s report is from the Census Bureau’s “American
Community Survey” (ACS).24 As noted above, the ACS is based on a larger sample than the Current Population
Survey and thus has a smaller margin of error. In some instances, data from the ACS is significantly different
than data from the Current Population Survey.

Minnesota had the 8th lowest poverty rate in the nation in 2002, before improving to 2nd lowest in 2003; since
2003, Minnesota’s rank has slipped, falling to 9th in 2008. Minnesota’s poverty rate was 31.3 percent below
the national average in 2002 and improved to 38.6 percent below in 2003. From 2003 to 2006, Minnesota’s
position relative to the rest of the nation deteriorated modestly, falling to approximately 27 percent below the
U.S. average in 2006, 2007, and 2008.

From 2002 to 2008, Minnesota’s poverty rate increased by 1.1 percent from 8.5 percent to 9.6 percent; over
the same period, the U.S. poverty rate increased by 0.8 percent from 12.4 percent to 13.2 percent. While
the growth in Minnesota’s poverty rate over this period was slightly greater than the growth in the total U.S.
poverty rate, the difference between the two was within the margin of error.
On Our Way to Average 31
The growth in Minnesota’s poverty rate relative to the U.S. average since 2002 is modest. The rate of poverty
in Minnesota is still very low relative to the rest of the nation.

Homeownership Rate (see table B-7 in appendix for detail)


As defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, the homeownership rate equals the number of owner-occupied housing
units divided by the total number of occupied housing units.25 The importance of homeownership as a means
of improving the welfare of individual households and society as a whole has long been recognized. An Urban
Coalition report concluded that “Homeownership provides important financial security and also contributes to
family independence, security and self-dignity.”26 The report further notes homeownership is associated with
reduced crime rates, higher education levels, and increased wealth.

The Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) indicates a significant decline in Minnesota’s
homeownership rate relative to the national average from 2002 to 2008; based on CPS data,27 Minnesota’s
rank among the 50 states has fallen from 2nd in 2002 to 14th in 2008.28 Data from the CPS is cited in the annual
State Rankings reports from CQ Press and was the source of homeownership data in the previous version of
this report.

The current version of this report relies on data from the American Community Survey (ACS) instead of the
CPS because the ACS is based on a larger sample size and thus has a smaller margin of error.29 As it pertains
to Minnesota versus the rest of the nation, homeownership rates from the ACS are significantly different than
rates from the CPS.

Based on data from the ACS, Minnesota has had the highest rate of homeownership in the nation each year
from 2002 to 2008. In each year from 2002 to 2008, Minnesota’s homeownership rate has been approximately
12 percent to 14 percent above the national average.

32 On Our Way to Average


From 2002 to 2008, the national homeownership rate has increased by 0.2 percent, while the Minnesota
homeownership rate has fallen by 0.2 percent based on data from the ACS. This is a relatively small difference
and well within the margin of error of these estimates. Based on ACS data, there is no statistically significant
evidence of a decline in Minnesota’s homeownership rate relative to the U.S. average.

Percent of Population Covered by Health Insurance (see table B-8 for detail)
Information on the percent of the population covered by health insurance is from the U.S. Census Bureau’s
Current Population Survey.30 Health insurance coverage data in the previous version of this report were based
on a rolling three year average (e.g., the 2002 amount was based on the average from 2000 to 2002, the 2003
amount was based on the average from 2001 to 2003, etc.). Single year data are used in this report in order to
more accurately track current health insurance coverage.
From 2002 to 2005, Minnesota ranked 1st or 2nd in the
nation in terms of the percent of the population covered
by health insurance. In 2006 and 2007, Minnesota’s rank
fell to 4th, before rebounding to 3rd in 2008. In 2002, the
percentage of the population covered by health insurance
in Minnesota was 8.6 percent above the national average.
Over the next seven years, the health insurance coverage
percentage fluctuated within a relatively small range. By
2008, Minnesota’s health insurance coverage percentage
was 7.9 percent above the national average.

From 2002 to 2008, the percentage of Minnesotans


covered by health insurance fell by 1.3 percent, from
92.6 percent to 91.3 percent. Over the same period, the

On Our Way to Average 33


percentage of the U.S. population covered by health insurance fell by about 0.7 percent, from 85.3 percent to
84.6 percent.

Based on this information, it appears as if the percentage of population covered by health insurance fell
0.6 percent more rapidly in Minnesota than in the nation as a whole during the period from 2002 to 2008.
However, after consideration of the margins of error of the insurance coverage estimates, these findings
become more ambiguous. While there is a 50 percent chance that the decline in Minnesota’s health insurance
coverage rate relative to the national average was more than 0.6 percent, there is about a 25 percent chance
that there was no decline relative to the national average.

The time frame of this analysis does not include the 2009 line-item veto of funding for General Assistance
Medical Care effective for FY 2011, which will cut health insurance coverage for an estimated 35,000 low-
income Minnesotans.31

Pupil-Teacher Ratios in Public Schools (see table B-9 in appendix for detail)
Research has shown a link between low pupil-teacher ratios (i.e., the number of pupils per teacher) in
elementary schools and better performance on standardized tests (although the benefit of low ratios to
secondary school students has been disputed). The public school elementary and secondary school pupil-
teacher ratio information cited here is from CQ Press annual “State Rankings” reports and is based on data
from National Education Association. (CQ Press did not report data for 2007.) Data corresponds to the Fall of
the school year (e.g., 2002 data is for the school year that began in the Fall of 2002).

Minnesota ranked 25th among the 50 states in pupil-teacher ratios in 2002 and then fell to 36th the following
year. Minnesota’s rank fell as low as 40th in 2006 before recovering to 37th in 2008. From 2002 to 2006,
Minnesota’s pupil-teacher ratio went from 3.2 percent below the national average to 7.1 percent above the
national average, before falling to two percent above the national average in 2008.

34 On Our Way to Average


From 2002 to 2007, Minnesota’s pupil-teacher ratio increased from 15.2 to 15.6 (2.6 percent growth), while
nationally the pupil-teacher ratio declined from 15.7 to 15.3 (2.5 percent decline).

Over this period, the low-point in Minnesota’s


pupil-teacher ratio and the high point in Minnesota’s
rank on this indicator was 2002, which corresponds
to Minnesota’s school fiscal year 2003. This year
was also a peak year for Minnesota public schools
in total real per pupil funding. Since then, real
per pupil public school revenue in Minnesota has
declined and Minnesota’s pupil-teacher ratio has
increased.

Education spending per capita (see table B-10 in


appendix for detail)
Per capita spending for elementary, secondary,
higher, and “other” education was calculated using
data from the U.S. Census Bureau and includes both
state and local government expenditures.32 Total
state and local education expenditure data for 2003
is not available. The amounts in this section and in
table B-10 are converted to constant 2007 dollars
using the implicit price deflator for state and local government purchases, which is the appropriate measure of
inflation for state and local governments.33

On Our Way to Average 35


Minnesota’s rank on per capita education spending has fallen from 12th in 2002 to 19th in 2005, then bounced
back to 15th by 2007. Minnesota’s per capita education spending was 8.7 percent above the national average
in 2002, but by 2007 had fallen to just 3.9 percent above the national average.

From 2002 to 2007, nationwide per capita


state and local government education
spending fell from $2,603 to $2,578, a drop
of one percent. Over the same period, per
capita state and local government education
expenditures in Minnesota fell from $2,828 to
$2,679, a decline of 5.3 percent.

The measure of education expenditures used


here includes higher and “other” education
spending. If we focus only on public
elementary and secondary current spending
per pupil, Minnesota is 1.2 percent below
the national average based on data for the
most current year available (FY 2007).34 With
the decline in state and local government
revenue in Minnesota relative to the rest
of the nation since 2002, it should not be
surprising that Minnesota’s spending on
education has also declined relative to the
national average.

36 On Our Way to Average


Math and Reading Skill Levels (see table B-11 in appendix for detail)
A primary function of a public education system is to impart basic math and reading skills to students. A
simple way of measuring the success of a school system is to measure the extent to which students have
achieved basic proficiency in these skills. As part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),
the U.S. Department of Education conducts regular assessments of math and reading skills at the 4th and
8th grade levels. To assess the relative performance of public schools in each state, this report averages the
percentage of public school students that achieve the basic skill level or higher on the 4th and 8th grade reading
and math assessments.35

The previous version of this report contained an error in the calculation of this measure for 2002 and 2003.
This error is corrected in the current version.

In terms of the average percentage of students achieving


basic skill levels or higher in 4th and 8th grade math and
reading, Minnesota ranked 3rd in the nation in 2003,
but had dropped to 8th place by 2007. The average
percentage of students achieving the basic skill level
or higher in Minnesota fell from 12.7 percent above
the national average in 2002 to 9.2 percent above the
national average in 2007.

From 2002 to 2007, the average percentage of students


achieving at or above “basic” across 4th and 8th grade
reading and math improved by 3.9 percent nationally
(from 69.6 percent to 73.5 percent), but by only 1.8
percent in Minnesota (from 78.4 percent to 80.3
percent).

On Our Way to Average 37


In terms of the percentage of students achieving basic math and reading skills, Minnesota is performing well
above the national average. However, Minnesota’s performance in this area relative to the rest of the nation
has slipped somewhat since 2002.

Percentage of Bridges that are Deficient (see table B-12 in appendix for detail)
This report measures the quality of transportation infrastructure in the 50 states in two ways. The first of
these measures is the percentage of all bridges that are deficient.36 The information used here is from the
from CQ Press annual “State Rankings” reports and is based on data from U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration. Data for 2005 are not available.

Minnesota had the second lowest percentage of deficient bridges in the nation in 2002; Minnesota’s ranking
dropped to third in 2003, where it remained through 2007. In each year from 2002 to 2007 (excluding 2005,
for which data are not available), approximately 25 to 28 percent of all bridges nationwide were classified as
deficient; in each of these years, the percentage of deficient bridges in Minnesota was approximately half the
national average.

From 2002 to 2007, the percentage of bridges that are deficient declined by about two percent both nationally
and in Minnesota. Based on this measure, the quality of Minnesota’s bridge system is high and has not
deteriorated relative to the national average since 2002.

Miles in Poor or Mediocre Condition Per 1,000 Road Miles (see table B-13 for detail)
The second measure of the quality of transportation infrastructure used in this report is the number of road
miles in poor or mediocre condition per 1,000 road miles calculated from annual State Transportation Statistics
reports from the U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics.37

38 On Our Way to Average


In 2002, Minnesota had the 8th lowest number of road miles in poor or mediocre condition per 1,000 road
miles. In the next year, Minnesota’s rank dropped to 13th. Over the next three years, Minnesota’s rank
changed little, until dropping to 27th in 2007. In 2002, the number of miles in poor or mediocre condition
per 1,000 road miles was 61.3 percent below the national average. By 2007, Minnesota was only 9.3 percent
below the national average.
From 2002 to 2007, the number
of U.S. road miles in poor or
mediocre condition per 1,000
miles fell from 180 to 176, a
decline of 2.4 percent; over the
same period, the number in
Minnesota more than doubled
from 70 to 160.

In 2007, the number of road


miles in poor or mediocre
condition per 1,000 miles in
Minnesota is still modestly
below the U.S. average.
However, relative to the
national average, the quality of
Minnesota road infrastructure
based on this measure has
deteriorated dramatically since
2002.38

On Our Way to Average 39


Summary of Performance Trends
Relative to other states, Minnesota’s economic performance and the quality of its transportation infrastructure
remains above average, if not strong. On five of the 13 performance indicators examined, Minnesota ranks
among the top ten states in the nation in 2007. However, Minnesota’s trend over time on most of the
indicators gives cause for concern.

Comparing Minnesota performance relative to the national average across the thirteen factors used in this
report is problematic, because the degree of variability about the average varies significantly from factor to
factor. For example, the degree of variability about the average is much greater for road miles in poor or
mediocre condition per 1,000 road miles than for the poverty rate, so a simple comparison of the extent to
which Minnesota deviates from the national average can be misleading.

In order to provide a more meaningful comparison across factors, the previous graph shows the change in
Minnesota’s performance relative to other states from 2002 to 2007 in terms of the number of standard

40 On Our Way to Average


deviations39 that Minnesota is above or below the 50 state mean. For example, Minnesota’s median household
income was 0.95 standard deviations above the 50 state mean in 2002 and 0.62 standard deviations above the
mean in 2008; thus, Minnesota’s performance relative to the 50 state mean fell by 0.33 standard deviations
from 2002 to 2008. The graph was constructed so that improvement in Minnesota’s relative performance
would appear as a positive amount and deterioration would appear as a negative amount.

On nine of the 13 measures, Minnesota’s performance relative to other states deteriorated modestly to
significantly since 2002. On two of the remaining four factors, Minnesota showed insignificant improvement
on one measure and insignificant deterioration on another. On the final two factors, further analysis revealed
that the decline—though apparently substantial—was not statistically significant after accounting for the
margin of error in the estimates that were used.

Minnesota’s performance relative to other states in the unemployment rate and employment growth
deteriorated significantly since 2002. On both measures, Minnesota’s position relative to the 50 state mean
declined by over one-half standard deviation from 2002 to 2009. This standard deviation analysis is consistent
with the analysis presented in preceding sections. Minnesota’s rank and position relative to the national
average deteriorated for the unemployment rate and employment growth.

On each of the three income and pay measures (per capita personal income, median household income, and
average annual pay), Minnesota’s performance relative to the 50 state mean deteriorated by 0.15 to 0.33
standard deviations since 2002—not as large as the decline in the two employment factors but still notable.

In addition, on all three education indicators—pupil-teacher ratio, students at or above “basic” level in
math and reading, and per capita state and local spending on education—Minnesota experienced a modest
deterioration relative to other states ranging from 0.18 to 0.44 standard deviations.

The two transportation measures reveal mixed results. There has been no significant change in Minnesota’s
position relative to the national average in the percentage of bridges that are deficient. However, Minnesota’s
position in terms of road miles in poor or mediocre condition fell sharply relative to the rest of the nation;
Minnesota’s faltering performance in this area was not due to a decline in the number of “poor and mediocre”
roads nationally, but to a substantial increase in the number of such roads in Minnesota. Minnesota
performance on this measure declined by 0.82 standard deviations—the largest decline in the standard
deviation analysis.

The standard deviation analysis indicates modest improvement in Minnesota’s homeownership rate and
modest deterioration in its poverty rate, although neither of these are statistically significant after taking into
account the margins of error in the survey data that was used.

In terms of the percentage of the population with health insurance, Minnesota has declined by 0.31 standard
deviations from 2002 to 2008. While this is larger than many of the other declines in the standard deviation
analysis, it needs to be evaluated in the context of the margin or error for the insurance coverage data. This
data is drawn from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, which is based on a smaller sample than
the American Community Survey and thus typically has a larger margin of error. While there is a 50 percent
chance that Minnesota’s decline on this factor was more than 0.31 standard deviations, there is about a 25
percent chance that there was no decline at all in Minnesota relative to the 50 state mean.

In general, the standard deviation analysis reveals a disturbing trend: Minnesota is losing ground relative to the
rest of the nation on most of the 13 factors, while showing significant improvement in none.

On Our Way to Average 41


Like Minnesota’s position relative to the national average, Minnesota’s ranking on the 13 performance
measures generally deteriorated over time. The graph below shows Minnesota’s ranking on each factor in
2002 versus the most current year for which data is available. A ranking of “1” denotes the best performance
among the fifty states, while “50” denotes the worst performance.

On 12 of the 13 measures, Minnesota’s rank has declined since 2002, although in some instances the drop
in ranking was slight. For the remaining factor, Minnesota’s rank remained the same. In no instance did
Minnesota’s rank improve.

The above analysis compares Minnesota’s rank on each factor in 2002 to the rank based on data for the most
current year available. An alternative way of ranking states would be on the change in each factor over this
period. For example, it is possible to rank each state in terms of the percent change in median household
income from 2002 to 2008. The state with the highest percentage growth over this period would be ranked
number 1, while the state with the greatest percentage decline or least percentage increase would be ranked
50th.

The graph on the following page shows Minnesota’s rank among the 50 states based on the change in each
factor from 2002 to the most current year available. Once again, a rank of “1” denotes the most improvement
among the 50 states, while “50” denotes the greatest decline.

In terms of the change since 2002, Minnesota ranks among the bottom ten states in the nation on four of
the 13 factors and among the bottom 20 on 11. Minnesota breaks into the top 25 states on only one factor.
(Minnesota ranks 23rd in terms of improvement in the deficient bridge percentage since 2002.)

42 On Our Way to Average


On Our Way to Average 43
Admittedly, it is more difficult for a state with already strong performance in a particular area to make dramatic
improvement in that area. For example, Minnesota already has a low deficient bridge percentage and high
health insurance coverage and thus the potential for improvement is more limited in Minnesota than in other
poorer performing states.

However, in other areas—such as average annual pay and pupil-teacher ratios—Minnesota’s performance
in 2002 was not particulary strong relative to the rest of the nation and thus there was certainly room for
improvement. Even in these areas, Minnesota’s performance change ranking since 2002 is discouraging.

Minnesota’s performance relative to other states was never so strong that there was no room for
improvement. The fact the Minnesota failed to break into the top 20 states on even one of the 13 factors
should give cause for concern, if not embarrassment.

Minnesota is by no means an economic basket case; we still compare favorably to other states on most of the
13 indicators. However, Minnesota’s performance relative to other states on most factors has deteriorated
since 2002. This is true regardless of whether we examine Minnesota’s rank or its position relative to the
national average.

44 On Our Way to Average


Conclusion___________________________
Since 2002, the size of government in Minnesota declined significantly relative to other states. This period also
corresponded with deterioration in Minnesota’s performance relative to the rest of the nation on many key
indicators. These trends are consistent with the expectations of pro-investment advocates and run counter
to claims from anti-tax groups, who argue that lower taxes and lower government spending would improve
Minnesota’s competitiveness relative to other states.

However, correlation does not equal causation. Simply because deterioration in Minnesota’s economic
performance relative to other states corresponded with a relative decline in public investment does not
necessarily mean that the decline in investment caused the decline in performance.

Proponents of “less government” could argue that factors other than the decline in public investment have
led to the decline in Minnesota’s relative performance. For example, Minnesota’s deteriorating economic
performance relative to other states has been attributed to the fact that the national defense and energy
sectors of the economy have done well in recent years. These sectors are not particularly large components of
Minnesota’s economy in comparison to other states and thus other states have benefited more from the boom
in these sectors than Minnesota.

While Minnesota is not a “big player” in sectors that have done well, the state’s economy is fairly heavily
into two sectors that have done poorly in recent years: forestry and wood product manufacturing and
air transportation. The forestry and wood product industry has been hurt by the slump in new home
construction, while the air transportation industry has been hurt by a combination of factors, including

On Our Way to Average 45


rising energy prices. Just as Minnesota’s economic performance relative to other states is hurt by its light
dependence on industries that have done well, it is also hurt by its relatively heavy dependence on industries
that have done poorly.

In an attempt to quantify the contribution of trends in national defense, energy production, forestry and wood
product manufacturing, and air transportation industries to Minnesota’s lackluster economic performance
from 2002 to 2007, a recent Minnesota 2020 analysis compared Minnesota and U.S. total GDP growth to the
rate of GDP growth excluding these four sectors.40

From 2002 to 2007, Minnesota total real GDP growth lagged 4.1 percent behind the national average.
After factoring out national defense, energy extraction and manufacturing, forestry and wood product
manufacturing, and air transportation, Minnesota’s “adjusted GDP” growth was still 2.3 percent below the
national average. Even after factoring out the impact of these categories, over half of the gap between
Minnesota and the rest of the nation in terms of GDP growth remains. In other words, trends in defense
spending, energy, and the other categories described above explain some—but not all or even most—of
Minnesota’s lackluster GDP growth.

Proponents of “less government” might also argue that Minnesota’s relative decline in public investment
did not cause a decline in relative economic performance, but rather that the relative decline in economic
performance caused a relative decline in public revenue. This is a variation of the old conundrum: what came
first, the chicken or the egg?

It is well understood that an economic slump can lead to a reduction in government revenue. However,
this simply begs a different question: why was Minnesota’s economic performance slumping relative to the
national average in the first place?

Advocates of “less government” tend to focus on taxes and other own-source revenue, since these represent
dollars that are being diverted from the state’s private economy into its public sector. During the period from
1995 to 2007—and particularly during the period from 2002 to 2007—the level of taxes and other own-source
revenue in Minnesota declined relative to the national average. If proponents of less government are correct,
the decline in own-source revenue in Minnesota relative to the national average should have contributed to an
improvement in Minnesota’s economy relative to the national average. This did not occur.

Admittedly, this report is dealing with complicated economic forces in a simple way that overlooks potentially
important interactions. Nonetheless, the trends highlighted in this report leave “small government”
proponents with a difficult question to answer. Why did the reduction in the relative size of government in
Minnesota not produce the relative improvement in Minnesota’s economic performance that was predicted?
To this point, the economic experiment undertaken by the advocates of “less government” and “no new taxes”
has been a failure.

Proponents of sustained public investment have long argued that the failure to maintain these investments
would lead to deterioration in Minnesota’s economic performance relative to the national average. This is
precisely what has occurred.

It must be noted that not all government spending is created equal. Not all public expenditures will contribute
to long-term economic growth. Public dollars that are spent wastefully or inefficiently will ultimately do more
harm than good to the state’s economy. Nothing in this report should be construed as an endorsement of
public spending simply for the sake of public spending.

46 On Our Way to Average


Minnesota is facing hard economic times. The state’s general fund budget deficit is projected to be $1.2 billion
in the current biennium and $7.4 billion in the next.41 In addition, a recent district court ruling threatens to
cancel Governor Pawlenty’s July 2009 unallotment, potentially adding $2.7 billion to the deficit.42 Spending
reductions and spending reforms will have to be part of the solution to the state’s ongoing budget woes.
However, it is wrongheaded to insist that the budget solutions be restricted entirely to the expenditure side of
the ledger.

The shrinkage in real per capita public revenue in Minnesota since 2002 has jeopardized critical public
investments. As noted above, the state’s road infrastructure has deteriorated and the pupil-teacher ratio in
public schools has increased. In addition, per pupil current spending in Minnesota public elementary and
secondary schools has dropped below the national average.43 Moreover, per capita public employment in
Minnesota has dropped below the national average44 and total Minnesota government revenue has not only
declined relative to other states, but also in real per capita dollars.45

In the past, Minnesotans have demonstrated an ability to identify critical public investments and fund them in
a way that would promote long-term prosperity. As State Economist Tom Stinson observed in MinnPost:

Minnesota’s economic record over the last half-century is one most states envy. The reason that occurred
was because far-sighted public and private sector leaders figured out they were going to invest in the
education of the baby boom generation. Now it seems like an obvious decision to have made, but if it was,
other states would have done it too and we wouldn’t have done as well.46

The importance of funding education was underscored by State Demographer Tom Gillaspy in a recent Star
Tribune column.

“Investment in the future has to be at the absolute core” of what a society considers essential if that
society is going to prosper, he said. “Our ancestors saw that. Many people aren’t seeing that right now.
They haven’t noticed that the height of the [educational] bar is increasing. A high school diploma only
gets you to first base. You haven’t scored yet.”47

While there are some efficiencies to be gained through spending reform in the education area, other critical
investments cannot be funded simply by “belt-tightening.” The Star Tribune column goes on to note that
“existing budgets can’t be stretched far enough to pay for two things that could make the biggest difference—
early childhood education for at-risk preschoolers and more affordable access to grades 13 and 14 at
community and technical colleges.”48

The principal objective of the “no new tax” policy is to freeze or shrink the level of public revenue. If this had
been the agenda of state leaders a half-century ago, the progress cited by Stinson and Gillaspy would not
have occurred. The primary goal of state policymakers should not be to fixate upon a particular level of public
revenue, but to identify which public investments are in the long-term interest of the state and find a way to
pay for them. Any ideology or political priority that interferes with this objective must be abandoned.

Minnesota continued strong economic performance relative to the rest of the nation is by no means
predestined; Minnesota’s position in comparison to other states can and has deteriorated. This deterioration
has corresponded with shrinkage in Minnesota’s public investment. Minnesota’s ability to restore a bright
economic future lies not in a slavish devotion to shrinking public revenue, but upon our ability to identify the
state’s long-term investment needs and fund them appropriately.

On Our Way to Average 47


Endnotes_____________________________
1 “Minnesota’s Slip Toward Mediocrity: Less Investment, Less Return,” Minnesota 2020, June 4, 2008. (http://tinyurl.
com/5fodn4)

2 The Revenue Department’s analysis of this subject is summarized in “Comparing Minnesota’s Taxes to the 50 States,”
Minnesota 2020, November 7, 2008. (http://tinyurl.com/yblrbmf)

3 Ibid.

4 “How to Reduce Minnesota’s Red Ink and Move Forward,” Minnesota 2020 Hindsight, December 2, 2009. (http://www.
mn2020hindsight.org/?p=3382)

5 “Minnesota’s School Investment Drops Below National Average,” Minnesota 2020, September 29, 2009. (http://tinyurl.
com/ybm4ycp)

6 “Minnesota’s Slip Toward Mediocrity: Less Investment, Less Return,” Minnesota 2020, June 4, 2008. (http://tinyurl.
com/5fodn4)

7 The annual U.S. Census Bureau data for state and local governments in all fifty states can be found at: http://www.
census.gov/govs/estimate/

8 “FAQs on Tax Rankings & Minnesota,” Money Matters Number 08-01, January 2008. (http://www. house.leg.state.
mn.us/fiscal/files/08taxrankings.pdf)

9 For example, from FY 2000 to FY 2002, U.S. state and local government per capita revenue from all sources fell from
$7,867 to $6,745 and then increased to $8,314 in FY 2004. (Data for FY 2001 and 2003 are not available.) The large
dip in revenue in FY 2002 was not due to contraction of public services, but to a large decline in public insurance
trust revenue driven by a sharp decline in financial markets. Excluding insurance trust revenue, U.S. state and local
government per capita revenue increased from $6,606 in FY 2000 to $6,691 in FY 2002 to $6,841 in FY 2004. For
Minnesota, state and local government per capita revenue from all sources fell from $8,987 in FY 2000 to $7,522 in FY
2002 and then increased to $8,459 in FY 2004; excluding insurance trust revenue, Minnesota state and local government
per capita revenue went from $7,494 in FY 2000 to $7,446 in FY 2002 to $7,261 in FY 2004. All amounts in this footnote
are in constant FY 2004 dollars.

10 “State and Local Government Revenue for Fiscal Year 1999-2000: State-by-State Census Data,” Center for Budget and
Policy Priorities, p. 3, 2002.

11 The relationship between state per capita personal income and state cost-of-living indices (http://ded.mo. gov/
researchandplanning/indicators/cost_of_living/index.stm) is statistically significant at the .01 level. Furthermore, the
relationship between state per capita personal income and annual mean wages for 12 common public sector occupations
(e.g., school teachers, fire fighters, police and sheriff patrol officers, etc.) also indicates a statistically significant at the .01
level for each occupation.

12 A statistical analysis confirms that high per capita personal income states receive less federal assistance per capita
than low per capita personal income states. After excluding Alaska and Wyoming, the negative relationship between per
capita personal income and per capita federal assistance is statistically significant at the .05 level. Alaska and Wyoming
are outliers because they are (1) the top two per capita energy producing states in the nation and thus tend to have high
per capita income and (2) the top two recipients of per capita federal assistance, largely because of the large amount of
federal land within their borders.

13 Dr. Wilson’s research on this subject is summarized in “Comparing Minnesota’s Taxes to the 50 States,” Minnesota

48 On Our Way to Average


2020, November 7, 2008. (http://tinyurl.com/yblrbmf)

14 “Frequently Asked Questions,” Minnesota Department of Revenue, December 17, 2007. (http://www. taxes.state.
mn.us/taxes/legal_policy/research_reports/content/04_FAQ.pdf)

15 “Taking the Spin out of Inflation Estimates,” Minnesota 2020, September 9, 2008. (http://tinyurl.com/ yfo2zgo)

16 In appendix B, factors that represent income for consumers (i.e., per capita personal income, median household
income, and average annual pay) were adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers. The
factor that represents income for government (i.e., state and local education spending per capita) is adjusted for inflation
using the Implicit Price Deflator for State and Local Government Purchases.

17 “Taking the Spin out of Inflation Estimates,” Minnesota 2020, September 9, 2008. (http://tinyurl.com/ yfo2zgo)

18 Wilson’s research on this subject is summarized in “Comparing Minnesota’s Taxes to the 50 States,” Minnesota 2020,
November 7, 2008. (http://tinyurl.com/yblrbmf)

19 “Bureau of Economic Analysis Glossary,” U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, October 2, 2006. (http:// www.bea.gov/
glossary/glossary.cfm?letter=P)

20 Per capita personal income information (prior to conversion to constant dollars) was compiled from the following BEA
website: http://www.bea.gov/regional/spi/default.cfm?selTable=summary.

21 “State and County QuickFacts: Household Income and Persons Below Poverty,” U.S. Census Bureau. (http://quickfacts.
census.gov/qfd/meta/long_IPE010204.htm)

22 “Alternative Measures of Household Income,” U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, February 27, 2004. (http://www.bea.
gov/regional/docs/spi2001/household_income.cfm#footnotes)

23 ACS median household income data was compiled from the following website: http://tinyurl.com/l3we7x

24 ACS poverty rates were compiled from the following website: http://tinyurl.com/l3we7x.

25 “Housing Vacancies and Homeownership,” U.S. Census Bureau, January 29, 2008. (http://www.census. gov/hhes/
www/housing/hvs/qtr407/q407def.html)

26 “A Dream Deferred: The 50/30 Housing Research Initiative Final Report,” The Urban Coalition, p. v., July 1999.

27 “Table 15. Homeownership Rates by State: 1984 to 2008,” U.S. Census Bureau. (http://www.census. gov/hhes/www/
housing/hvs/annual08/ann08t15.xls)

28 “Minnesota Homeownership Declines,” Minnesota 2020, January 5, 2010. (http://tinyurl.com/yc452fj)

29 “Homeownership Revisited,” Minnesota 2020 Hindsight, January 12, 2010. (http://www. mn2020hindsight.
org/?p=3627)

30 “Table HIA-4. Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by State All People: 1999 to 2008”, U.S. Census
Bureau. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/historic/hihistt4.xls)

31 For more on the GAMC cuts, see “Minnesota Health Cuts Defy All Logic,” Minnesota 2020, May 22, 2009. (http://
tinyurl.com/yhhzvf9)

32 The education expenditure data used here is from annual U.S. Census Bureau data for state and local governments in

On Our Way to Average 49


all fifty states, which can be found at http://www.census.gov/govs/estimate/.

33 “Taking the Spin out of Inflation Estimates,” Minnesota 2020, September 9, 2008. (http://tinyurl.com/ yfo2zgo)

34 “Minnesota’s School Investment Drops Below National Average,” Minnesota 2020, September 29, 2009. (http://
tinyurl.com/ybm4ycp)

35 NAEP math and reading data for all states are available for 2003, 2005, and 2007; no data is available for 2004 and
2006. Fourth and 8th grade reading data are available for most states for 2002; for those states in which 2002 reading
data is not available, 2003 data is substituted for 2002 data. No NAEP math data is available for 2002. Fourth and 8th
grade math data for 2002 were interpolated based on data from 2000 and 2003; when 2000 math data was not available,
2003 data were substituted for 2002 data. Raw data used in this analysis was compiled from NAEP reports (http://nces.
ed.gov/nationsreportcard/).

36 Bridges classified as “deficient” are either functionally obsolete or structurally deficient, but not necessarily unsafe.

37 “State Transportation Statistics” (annual reports), U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation
Statistics. (http://www.bts.gov/publications/state_transportation_statistics/)

38 For more on this, see “Why Minnesota’s Roads are Literally Falling Apart,” Minnesota 2020, November 23, 2009.
(http://tinyurl.com/ydarfss)

39 The standard deviation is a widely used measure of dispersion or variability. A low standard deviation indicates that
the data points are close to the mean, whereas a high standard deviation indicates that the data are widely distributed
about the mean. For a normal distribution of values (i.e., the symmetrical bell-shaped curve), about 68 percent of scores
will be within one standard deviation of the mean.

40 “Another Look at Minnesota’s Underperforming Economy,” Minnesota 2020, December 14, 2009. (http://tinyurl.com/
yekexr6)

41 “How to Reduce Minnesota’s Red Ink and Move Forward,” Minnesota 2020 Hindsight, December 2, 2009. (http://
www.mn2020hindsight.org/?p=3382)

42 “Unallotment Verdict: An Opportunity to ‘Get it Right’,” Minnesota 2020 Hindsight, January 4, 2010. (http://www.
mn2020hindsight.org/?p=3584)

43 “Minnesota’s School Investment Drops Below National Average,” Minnesota 2020, September 29, 2009. (http://
tinyurl.com/ybm4ycp)

44 “Minnesota’s Public Employment and Payroll Shrinking,” Minnesota 2020, October 5, 2009. (http://tinyurl.com/
ychz9wj)

45 “Minnesota Communities Continue Bearing Brunt of State Budget Problems,” Minnesota 2020, August 25, 2009.
(http://tinyurl.com/ydupzxl)

46 “Minnesota’s economist worries about the future of the state’s sputtering economic engine,” MinnPost, November
19, 2007. (http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2007/11/19/134/minnesotas_economist_worries_ about_future_of_the_
states_sputtering_economic_engine)

47 “Let’s peer into the demographic crystal ball,” Star Tribune, January 3, 2010. (http://tinyurl.com/ ydywxya)

48 Ibid.

50 On Our Way to Average


Table A-1: State & Local Taxes Per $1,000 of Personal Income
FY 2002 State FY 2004 State FY 2005 State FY 2006 State FY 2007 State
United States Total $101 Rank $105 Rank $107 Rank $110 Rank $110 Rank
Alabama $86 48 $85 49 $89 47 $91 47 $91 47
Alaska $100 26 $106 16 $124 6 $143 3 $182 1
Arizona $99 27 $102 27 $103 32 $101 39 $109 21
Arkansas $99 29 $98 37 $106 23 $109 26 $107 25
California $103 15 $105 19 $109 19 $113 14 $113 15
Colorado $89 45 $89 46 $90 46 $92 46 $93 46
Connecticut $101 20 $111 10 $114 10 $113 16 $111 18
Delaware $102 16 $105 20 $108 20 $112 19 $108 24
Florida $90 44 $97 38 $98 38 $101 40 $104 34
Georgia $97 34 $97 40 $97 40 $102 35 $103 36
Hawaii $116 3 $119 4 $126 4 $132 5 $129 4
Idaho $96 37 $101 30 $102 33 $102 37 $100 41
Illinois $100 24 $102 28 $106 25 $107 27 $106 26
Indiana $98 32 $100 33 $111 15 $114 12 $100 38
Iowa $101 22 $101 31 $103 31 $105 29 $106 27
Kansas $99 28 $108 14 $106 26 $111 21 $112 17
Kentucky $104 13 $103 23 $105 27 $111 22 $106 28
Louisiana $106 11 $107 15 $110 16 $112 18 $118 9
Maine $124 2 $124 3 $125 5 $135 4 $124 6
Maryland $100 23 $103 25 $103 29 $105 28 $104 32
Massachusetts $94 39 $102 26 $104 28 $104 32 $102 37
Michigan $102 17 $106 18 $109 17 $109 25 $109 22
Minnesota $110 6 $106 17 $109 18 $113 17 $112 16
Mississippi $100 25 $101 32 $100 36 $102 36 $105 31
Missouri $93 41 $92 45 $95 45 $95 45 $95 45
Montana $92 42 $95 42 $100 37 $103 33 $104 33
Nebraska $103 14 $111 9 $112 14 $112 20 $110 19
Nevada $97 33 $103 24 $103 30 $103 34 $103 35
New Hampshire $82 49 $87 47 $87 48 $88 49 $86 50
New Jersey $102 18 $111 8 $114 11 $120 8 $121 8
New Mexico $106 12 $109 12 $114 12 $122 7 $122 7
New York $131 1 $142 1 $145 1 $151 1 $151 2
North Carolina $96 36 $100 35 $101 34 $104 30 $106 29
North Dakota $101 21 $100 34 $106 24 $113 15 $117 10
Ohio $108 10 $110 11 $113 13 $113 13 $115 11
Oklahoma $97 35 $97 39 $97 42 $99 41 $99 42
Oregon $88 46 $95 43 $97 43 $101 38 $98 43
Pennsylvania $99 30 $105 21 $108 21 $110 24 $110 20
Rhode Island $108 9 $114 7 $118 7 $119 9 $115 13
South Carolina $93 40 $99 36 $98 39 $96 43 $100 39
South Dakota $87 47 $83 50 $83 50 $86 50 $86 49
Tennessee $81 50 $86 48 $87 49 $89 48 $90 48
Texas $95 38 $96 41 $95 44 $96 44 $96 44
Utah $102 19 $105 22 $107 22 $110 23 $109 23
Vermont $108 7 $116 5 $126 3 $128 6 $127 5
Virginia $92 43 $94 44 $97 41 $98 42 $100 40
Washington $99 31 $101 29 $101 35 $104 31 $105 30
West Virginia $108 8 $109 13 $117 8 $118 10 $114 14
Wisconsin $113 5 $116 6 $116 9 $116 11 $115 12
Wyoming $116 4 $127 2 $141 2 $147 2 $136 3
% MN above or
8.6% 1.2% 1.8% 2.5% 1.7%
below U.S. average

On Our Way to Average 51


Table A-2: State & Local Own-Source Revenue Per $1,000 of Personal Income
FY 2002 State FY 2004 State FY 2005 State FY 2006 State FY 2007 State
United States Total $148 Rank $152 Rank $155 Rank $159 Rank $161 Rank
Alabama $149 27 $152 28 $153 28 $156 29 $158 26
Alaska $261 1 $273 1 $305 1 $337 1 $384 1
Arizona $136 40 $139 42 $143 39 $140 45 $153 36
Arkansas $148 30 $147 34 $155 27 $158 27 $153 35
California $152 20 $155 21 $160 19 $164 20 $166 19
Colorado $140 38 $140 41 $142 42 $146 40 $149 40
Connecticut $126 48 $137 44 $140 45 $138 48 $136 48
Delaware $171 4 $181 5 $180 6 $185 7 $187 5
Florida $146 33 $151 31 $149 34 $151 35 $157 30
Georgia $141 37 $141 39 $140 44 $146 39 $151 39
Hawaii $161 13 $158 17 $172 9 $180 9 $176 9
Idaho $152 22 $156 20 $157 24 $156 31 $156 34
Illinois $135 43 $136 45 $141 43 $147 38 $143 44
Indiana $151 24 $152 26 $165 13 $190 5 $159 25
Iowa $160 14 $157 18 $159 20 $165 17 $167 18
Kansas $144 36 $154 22 $152 31 $157 28 $157 29
Kentucky $152 19 $151 30 $152 30 $160 26 $156 33
Louisiana $171 5 $166 9 $170 11 $167 14 $176 12
Maine $168 7 $171 7 $173 7 $182 8 $171 14
Maryland $133 45 $136 47 $137 47 $138 47 $138 47
Massachusetts $129 46 $140 40 $145 38 $145 41 $141 46
Michigan $152 18 $159 16 $164 15 $164 19 $173 13
Minnesota $161 12 $154 24 $157 26 $161 22 $162 22
Mississippi $163 11 $160 14 $158 22 $160 25 $168 16
Missouri $133 44 $136 46 $138 46 $140 46 $142 45
Montana $153 17 $153 25 $157 23 $160 24 $164 20
Nebraska $152 23 $161 12 $163 17 $167 15 $168 15
Nevada $148 31 $147 35 $150 32 $150 37 $152 37
New Hampshire $116 50 $125 49 $123 50 $125 50 $124 50
New Jersey $136 41 $145 37 $150 33 $156 30 $157 28
New Mexico $169 6 $174 6 $182 5 $197 4 $194 4
New York $176 3 $187 3 $189 3 $202 3 $200 3
North Carolina $145 34 $147 36 $147 36 $153 34 $156 32
North Dakota $166 9 $159 15 $164 14 $174 12 $181 7
Ohio $154 16 $157 19 $163 16 $165 16 $168 17
Oklahoma $150 26 $148 33 $146 37 $150 36 $152 38
Oregon $148 29 $152 27 $157 25 $165 18 $162 21
Pennsylvania $147 32 $149 32 $152 29 $155 32 $157 31
Rhode Island $145 35 $154 23 $158 21 $161 23 $160 24
South Carolina $151 25 $163 10 $170 12 $171 13 $176 10
South Dakota $129 47 $125 50 $125 49 $132 49 $134 49
Tennessee $124 49 $127 48 $134 48 $141 44 $144 43
Texas $138 39 $143 38 $143 41 $144 43 $147 41
Utah $167 8 $168 8 $173 8 $177 10 $179 8
Vermont $152 21 $163 11 $172 10 $175 11 $176 11
Virginia $136 42 $138 43 $143 40 $144 42 $146 42
Washington $148 28 $151 29 $149 35 $154 33 $158 27
West Virginia $165 10 $186 4 $186 4 $186 6 $185 6
Wisconsin $158 15 $160 13 $161 18 $162 21 $161 23
Wyoming $194 2 $209 2 $225 2 $233 2 $219 2
% MN above or
9.0% 0.9% 1.2% 1.1% 0.5%
below U.S. average

52 On Our Way to Average


Table A-3: State & Local General Revenue Per $1,000 of Personal Income
FY 2002 State FY 2004 State FY 2005 State FY 2006 State FY 2007 State
United States Total $188 Rank $196 Rank $198 Rank $201 Rank $201 Rank
Alabama $204 16 $207 18 $209 19 $211 22 $211 20
Alaska $347 1 $382 1 $413 1 $431 1 $477 1
Arizona $176 38 $186 35 $189 34 $184 40 $193 34
Arkansas $204 18 $207 17 $212 17 $214 19 $205 24
California $193 28 $198 26 $200 27 $203 26 $202 26
Colorado $167 43 $172 44 $171 46 $174 46 $177 43
Connecticut $153 49 $166 48 $167 49 $164 49 $160 49
Delaware $207 14 $220 12 $219 14 $223 15 $224 13
Florida $176 39 $185 36 $184 37 $186 35 $190 37
Georgia $178 36 $179 41 $178 43 $184 41 $194 33
Hawaii $203 19 $204 23 $217 15 $222 16 $220 15
Idaho $193 27 $206 20 $203 24 $200 27 $197 29
Illinois $166 44 $172 46 $174 45 $179 43 $175 45
Indiana $187 32 $191 32 $203 26 $228 12 $198 28
Iowa $204 17 $206 22 $206 22 $211 21 $211 18
Kansas $182 35 $191 33 $190 33 $194 33 $190 36
Kentucky $204 15 $208 16 $205 23 $215 18 $208 22
Louisiana $227 8 $228 9 $231 10 $239 8 $265 5
Maine $220 10 $237 7 $237 7 $244 7 $226 12
Maryland $163 45 $169 47 $170 47 $171 47 $169 48
Massachusetts $154 48 $178 42 $178 42 $178 44 $175 46
Michigan $194 26 $207 19 $208 21 $207 25 $215 16
Minnesota $198 22 $193 31 $195 32 $197 31 $196 32
Mississippi $233 6 $240 6 $238 6 $252 6 $284 3
Missouri $178 37 $182 39 $185 36 $184 39 $185 40
Montana $222 9 $226 11 $231 9 $230 11 $227 11
Nebraska $190 29 $206 21 $208 20 $210 23 $210 21
Nevada $172 41 $172 45 $175 44 $175 45 $177 44
New Hampshire $146 50 $158 50 $156 50 $157 50 $155 50
New Jersey $163 46 $173 43 $178 41 $186 37 $185 39
New Mexico $237 3 $251 5 $262 3 $268 3 $267 4
New York $230 7 $251 4 $249 5 $256 4 $250 6
North Carolina $189 30 $194 29 $196 31 $199 29 $202 25
North Dakota $234 5 $228 10 $229 11 $236 10 $240 8
Ohio $195 25 $203 24 $210 18 $213 20 $213 17
Oklahoma $198 21 $197 27 $196 30 $198 30 $199 27
Oregon $211 13 $196 28 $203 25 $209 24 $205 23
Pennsylvania $189 31 $193 30 $197 29 $196 32 $197 30
Rhode Island $197 24 $211 15 $214 16 $216 17 $211 19
South Carolina $202 20 $218 14 $228 12 $223 14 $227 10
South Dakota $184 33 $181 40 $179 40 $185 38 $185 41
Tennessee $171 42 $182 38 $184 38 $186 36 $188 38
Texas $175 40 $184 37 $183 39 $183 42 $183 42
Utah $211 12 $219 13 $220 13 $223 13 $221 14
Vermont $212 11 $232 8 $236 8 $238 9 $238 9
Virginia $161 47 $165 49 $167 48 $168 48 $169 47
Washington $184 34 $188 34 $185 35 $191 34 $192 35
West Virginia $235 4 $262 3 $261 4 $254 5 $249 7
Wisconsin $197 23 $202 25 $200 28 $199 28 $197 31
Wyoming $270 2 $321 2 $369 2 $329 2 $296 2
% MN above or
4.9% -1.9% -1.5% -1.9% -2.4%
below U.S. average

On Our Way to Average 53


Table A-4: State & Local Total Revenue* Per $1,000 of Personal Income
*Excluding insurance trust revenue
FY 2002 State FY 2004 State FY 2005 State FY 2006 State FY 2007 State
United States Total $200 Rank $208 Rank $210 Rank $213 Rank $213 Rank
Alabama $223 14 $225 16 $227 16 $229 17 $230 15
Alaska $358 1 $392 1 $423 1 $443 1 $488 1
Arizona $198 33 $205 32 $208 31 $203 36 $212 29
Arkansas $213 19 $217 18 $221 18 $224 21 $214 28
California $211 21 $215 22 $217 22 $219 26 $218 23
Colorado $178 43 $182 44 $182 44 $185 46 $188 43
Connecticut $156 49 $170 49 $170 49 $168 49 $164 50
Delaware $214 17 $228 15 $228 15 $233 16 $235 13
Florida $187 39 $197 37 $195 37 $198 37 $202 37
Georgia $191 38 $191 39 $190 40 $197 38 $207 32
Hawaii $208 24 $209 29 $222 17 $227 18 $224 18
Idaho $199 32 $213 24 $210 28 $206 33 $203 35
Illinois $172 44 $178 45 $180 46 $186 44 $182 46
Indiana $197 34 $201 36 $212 27 $237 14 $208 31
Iowa $213 20 $215 21 $215 25 $221 23 $221 20
Kansas $193 36 $202 33 $201 36 $205 34 $201 38
Kentucky $213 18 $216 19 $214 26 $225 20 $219 22
Louisiana $235 10 $236 12 $239 12 $248 9 $273 5
Maine $224 12 $242 10 $242 11 $247 11 $229 16
Maryland $166 47 $173 47 $173 48 $174 48 $172 48
Massachusetts $163 48 $188 42 $187 41 $188 43 $184 45
Michigan $202 29 $215 23 $216 24 $215 27 $224 19
Minnesota $207 25 $202 34 $204 35 $207 31 $205 33
Mississippi $245 3 $251 6 $249 8 $263 5 $296 3
Missouri $185 41 $189 41 $192 39 $192 41 $193 41
Montana $227 11 $231 14 $236 13 $235 15 $232 14
Nebraska $235 9 $249 7 $250 6 $256 7 $255 7
Nevada $185 42 $184 43 $186 43 $186 45 $186 44
New Hampshire $155 50 $168 50 $166 50 $167 50 $164 49
New Jersey $167 46 $177 46 $182 45 $190 42 $189 42
New Mexico $245 4 $259 5 $270 3 $276 3 $275 4
New York $244 5 $266 4 $263 5 $271 4 $265 6
North Carolina $201 31 $207 31 $208 30 $212 29 $216 26
North Dakota $238 7 $233 13 $234 14 $241 13 $245 11
Ohio $203 28 $211 26 $217 21 $220 25 $221 21
Oklahoma $210 22 $209 28 $207 32 $210 30 $210 30
Oregon $223 13 $210 27 $216 23 $222 22 $218 24
Pennsylvania $197 35 $202 35 $206 33 $205 35 $205 34
Rhode Island $201 30 $216 20 $218 20 $221 24 $215 27
South Carolina $223 16 $240 11 $249 7 $245 12 $248 9
South Dakota $192 37 $189 40 $187 42 $194 40 $194 40
Tennessee $207 26 $219 17 $221 19 $226 19 $226 17
Texas $186 40 $196 38 $194 38 $194 39 $196 39
Utah $238 8 $245 8 $244 10 $247 10 $244 12
Vermont $223 15 $243 9 $246 9 $248 8 $248 10
Virginia $168 45 $171 48 $174 47 $175 47 $176 47
Washington $210 23 $211 25 $209 29 $214 28 $216 25
West Virginia $239 6 $267 3 $266 4 $259 6 $254 8
Wisconsin $203 27 $208 30 $206 34 $207 32 $203 36
Wyoming $280 2 $331 2 $379 2 $338 2 $306 2
% MN above or
3.3% -3.2% -2.8% -3.0% -3.6%
below U.S. average

54 On Our Way to Average


Table A-5: State & Local General Expenditures Per $1,000 of Personal Income
FY 2002 State FY 2004 State FY 2005 State FY 2006 State FY 2007 State
United States Total $194 Rank $198 Rank $197 Rank $195 Rank $194 Rank
Alabama $217 12 $219 12 $220 12 $219 11 $205 19
Alaska $406 1 $380 1 $369 1 $366 1 $378 1
Arizona $178 40 $186 36 $184 36 $180 36 $184 36
Arkansas $202 23 $205 24 $205 23 $207 21 $196 27
California $201 25 $205 23 $204 24 $203 24 $204 21
Colorado $174 44 $173 44 $167 46 $164 47 $167 46
Connecticut $162 47 $161 48 $159 48 $156 50 $152 49
Delaware $204 21 $218 14 $225 10 $231 7 $226 8
Florida $175 43 $182 39 $185 34 $185 34 $184 35
Georgia $186 34 $190 34 $180 40 $179 39 $197 26
Hawaii $226 8 $215 16 $212 16 $209 17 $213 12
Idaho $199 28 $200 28 $197 29 $190 31 $185 34
Illinois $177 42 $179 41 $177 42 $173 44 $173 42
Indiana $190 32 $191 32 $198 28 $198 27 $198 24
Iowa $208 18 $206 22 $206 21 $211 16 $207 17
Kansas $185 35 $191 31 $189 32 $191 30 $182 37
Kentucky $207 19 $211 18 $201 26 $206 22 $207 16
Louisiana $209 15 $223 10 $220 11 $217 12 $230 5
Maine $216 14 $232 7 $228 9 $231 6 $219 11
Maryland $161 48 $157 50 $158 49 $161 48 $163 47
Massachusetts $167 45 $183 38 $180 39 $178 40 $171 44
Michigan $203 22 $213 17 $208 19 $201 25 $205 18
Minnesota $208 17 $200 27 $198 27 $194 29 $192 29
Mississippi $235 5 $245 5 $239 5 $240 4 $264 2
Missouri $178 39 $176 42 $178 41 $179 38 $179 38
Montana $219 11 $216 15 $211 18 $212 15 $208 15
Nebraska $188 33 $190 33 $186 33 $190 32 $190 31
Nevada $177 41 $176 43 $170 45 $170 45 $170 45
New Hampshire $144 50 $161 49 $158 50 $158 49 $151 50
New Jersey $160 49 $172 45 $177 43 $180 37 $175 40
New Mexico $249 2 $254 3 $264 3 $259 2 $262 3
New York $238 4 $246 4 $241 4 $238 5 $228 6
North Carolina $190 31 $193 30 $195 30 $195 28 $191 30
North Dakota $227 7 $218 13 $218 13 $216 13 $209 14
Ohio $200 26 $209 19 $212 15 $215 14 $211 13
Oklahoma $200 27 $186 35 $183 37 $184 35 $186 33
Oregon $224 10 $201 25 $206 20 $207 20 $200 23
Pennsylvania $192 30 $197 29 $203 25 $200 26 $196 28
Rhode Island $201 24 $208 21 $211 17 $209 18 $204 20
South Carolina $226 9 $226 8 $231 7 $225 10 $224 9
South Dakota $183 36 $171 46 $176 44 $178 41 $177 39
Tennessee $180 37 $182 40 $185 35 $177 42 $174 41
Texas $179 38 $184 37 $181 38 $174 43 $172 43
Utah $217 13 $220 11 $213 14 $208 19 $204 22
Vermont $209 16 $224 9 $231 8 $229 9 $227 7
Virginia $162 46 $161 47 $164 47 $165 46 $163 48
Washington $195 29 $201 26 $194 31 $187 33 $190 32
West Virginia $229 6 $233 6 $235 6 $229 8 $220 10
Wisconsin $206 20 $208 20 $205 22 $205 23 $197 25
Wyoming $245 3 $257 2 $268 2 $251 3 $251 4
% MN above or
7.4% 1.3% 0.7% -0.5% -0.8%
below U.S. average

On Our Way to Average 55


Table A-6: State & Local Total Expenditures* Per $1,000 of Personal Income
*Excluding insurance trust expenditures
FY 2002 State FY 2004 State FY 2005 State FY 2006 State FY 2007 State
United States Total $210 Rank $215 Rank $213 Rank $212 Rank $211 Rank
Alabama $236 9 $238 10 $238 10 $236 11 $224 15
Alaska $420 1 $395 1 $384 1 $382 1 $396 1
Arizona $206 31 $208 32 $206 33 $203 33 $207 31
Arkansas $211 28 $215 28 $215 27 $217 24 $206 33
California $228 15 $232 14 $230 15 $229 14 $230 12
Colorado $189 42 $190 43 $182 46 $180 46 $184 45
Connecticut $168 48 $166 49 $164 50 $162 50 $158 50
Delaware $213 26 $228 17 $236 11 $242 7 $240 8
Florida $190 41 $196 41 $200 36 $198 35 $198 35
Georgia $203 35 $207 34 $196 37 $195 38 $214 26
Hawaii $236 10 $225 18 $222 19 $217 25 $221 19
Idaho $205 34 $207 33 $203 34 $197 36 $192 38
Illinois $188 43 $192 42 $189 41 $185 45 $186 43
Indiana $200 36 $201 36 $208 32 $208 31 $209 28
Iowa $219 21 $216 26 $216 24 $222 17 $218 21
Kansas $195 38 $202 35 $200 35 $203 34 $194 37
Kentucky $219 20 $220 22 $210 30 $219 21 $221 17
Louisiana $219 22 $233 13 $230 14 $228 15 $240 9
Maine $221 18 $236 11 $231 13 $234 12 $224 16
Maryland $166 49 $163 50 $165 49 $167 49 $170 48
Massachusetts $182 45 $199 38 $195 39 $194 39 $186 42
Michigan $213 25 $223 19 $217 23 $212 29 $216 23
Minnesota $220 19 $210 29 $208 31 $205 32 $204 34
Mississippi $246 7 $257 5 $250 6 $256 5 $277 2
Missouri $187 44 $185 44 $187 43 $189 40 $190 39
Montana $224 16 $221 21 $216 25 $218 22 $214 25
Nebraska $233 12 $240 8 $234 12 $241 9 $249 6
Nevada $197 37 $197 40 $187 42 $187 44 $185 44
New Hampshire $152 50 $169 47 $167 48 $167 48 $160 49
New Jersey $169 47 $182 45 $186 44 $189 42 $183 46
New Mexico $257 3 $262 4 $272 3 $266 3 $273 3
New York $265 2 $277 2 $270 4 $267 2 $255 5
North Carolina $206 32 $209 31 $211 29 $211 30 $207 30
North Dakota $233 13 $223 20 $223 18 $222 18 $216 24
Ohio $208 30 $218 23 $221 21 $224 16 $221 18
Oklahoma $212 27 $198 39 $194 40 $196 37 $198 36
Oregon $240 8 $217 24 $221 20 $222 19 $216 22
Pennsylvania $205 33 $210 30 $215 26 $213 28 $209 29
Rhode Island $209 29 $215 27 $219 22 $217 23 $213 27
South Carolina $248 5 $248 7 $254 5 $246 6 $248 7
South Dakota $191 40 $180 46 $184 45 $188 43 $187 41
Tennessee $217 23 $229 16 $224 17 $219 20 $228 13
Texas $193 39 $200 37 $195 38 $189 41 $188 40
Utah $247 6 $250 6 $240 9 $234 13 $231 11
Vermont $222 17 $234 12 $243 7 $241 8 $240 10
Virginia $170 46 $169 48 $171 47 $173 47 $171 47
Washington $229 14 $232 15 $226 16 $216 26 $220 20
West Virginia $235 11 $240 9 $242 8 $237 10 $228 14
Wisconsin $214 24 $217 25 $213 28 $214 27 $207 32
Wyoming $257 4 $267 3 $278 2 $261 4 $262 4
% MN above or
4.6% -2.3% -2.3% -3.2% -3.4%
below U.S. average

56 On Our Way to Average


Table A-7: State & Local Taxes Per Capita Constant FY 2007 Dollars

FY 2002 State FY 2004 State FY 2005 State FY 2006 State FY 2007 State
United States Total $3,962 Rank $4,054 Rank $4,128 Rank $4,198 Rank $4,234 Rank
Alabama $2,738 50 $2,748 50 $2,866 50 $2,916 50 $2,909 50
Alaska $4,058 16 $4,224 16 $4,905 6 $5,678 5 $7,268 1
Arizona $3,333 36 $3,369 37 $3,422 35 $3,382 39 $3,673 30
Arkansas $2,988 46 $2,991 47 $3,237 44 $3,269 44 $3,242 43
California $4,344 10 $4,417 11 $4,547 12 $4,750 9 $4,754 9
Colorado $3,888 19 $3,726 25 $3,742 27 $3,798 28 $3,848 27
Connecticut $5,524 2 $5,824 2 $6,045 2 $5,970 3 $6,044 4
Delaware $4,210 13 $4,262 14 $4,349 14 $4,459 14 $4,245 16
Florida $3,395 34 $3,651 27 $3,763 26 $3,879 26 $4,009 26
Georgia $3,530 28 $3,384 36 $3,363 38 $3,489 35 $3,481 34
Hawaii $4,350 9 $4,519 8 $4,861 7 $5,094 6 $5,139 6
Idaho $3,090 43 $3,217 41 $3,268 41 $3,229 45 $3,185 45
Illinois $4,175 14 $4,194 17 $4,304 15 $4,282 15 $4,290 13
Indiana $3,480 29 $3,534 29 $3,800 25 $3,821 27 $3,332 40
Iowa $3,581 26 $3,602 28 $3,659 30 $3,622 31 $3,665 31
Kansas $3,703 25 $3,977 22 $3,809 24 $3,974 22 $4,088 21
Kentucky $3,322 38 $3,257 39 $3,275 40 $3,383 38 $3,235 44
Louisiana $3,436 31 $3,422 33 $3,540 31 $3,883 25 $4,020 24
Maine $4,421 8 $4,478 10 $4,431 13 $4,632 11 $4,280 14
Maryland $4,602 7 $4,739 6 $4,770 8 $4,824 8 $4,817 8
Massachusetts $4,678 4 $4,932 5 $4,974 5 $4,982 7 $4,966 7
Michigan $3,851 22 $3,900 24 $3,891 23 $3,743 30 $3,691 29
Minnesota $4,633 5 $4,496 9 $4,568 11 $4,582 13 $4,566 11
Mississippi $2,875 48 $2,888 49 $2,876 49 $2,959 49 $2,989 49
Missouri $3,356 35 $3,327 38 $3,342 39 $3,290 43 $3,265 42
Montana $2,956 47 $3,086 45 $3,241 43 $3,347 41 $3,419 36
Nebraska $3,883 20 $4,257 15 $4,186 18 $4,093 21 $4,034 23
Nevada $3,743 24 $4,032 20 $4,190 17 $4,119 20 $4,089 20
New Hampshire $3,567 27 $3,702 26 $3,696 29 $3,616 32 $3,614 32
New Jersey $5,102 3 $5,393 3 $5,485 4 $5,737 4 $5,944 5
New Mexico $3,322 37 $3,387 35 $3,531 32 $3,771 29 $3,797 28
New York $5,842 1 $6,176 1 $6,394 1 $6,691 1 $6,898 2
North Carolina $3,421 32 $3,449 31 $3,509 33 $3,555 33 $3,586 33
North Dakota $3,437 30 $3,512 30 $3,716 28 $3,898 24 $4,085 22
Ohio $3,992 18 $4,021 21 $4,054 22 $3,955 23 $4,012 25
Oklahoma $3,176 42 $3,158 43 $3,175 45 $3,306 42 $3,312 41
Oregon $3,220 41 $3,442 32 $3,413 36 $3,531 34 $3,413 37
Pennsylvania $3,853 21 $4,070 19 $4,146 19 $4,150 17 $4,208 17
Rhode Island $4,280 12 $4,611 7 $4,704 9 $4,631 12 $4,545 12
South Carolina $2,994 45 $3,130 44 $3,090 46 $3,015 46 $3,134 46
South Dakota $3,045 44 $3,063 46 $3,004 47 $2,982 47 $3,009 47
Tennessee $2,818 49 $2,974 48 $2,975 48 $2,977 48 $3,005 48
Texas $3,421 33 $3,393 34 $3,373 37 $3,396 37 $3,441 35
Utah $3,251 40 $3,190 42 $3,250 42 $3,357 40 $3,337 39
Vermont $4,024 17 $4,345 13 $4,627 10 $4,651 10 $4,714 10
Virginia $3,830 23 $3,942 23 $4,079 21 $4,129 19 $4,205 18
Washington $4,058 15 $4,075 18 $4,088 20 $4,146 18 $4,269 15
West Virginia $3,257 39 $3,238 40 $3,424 34 $3,412 36 $3,371 38
Wisconsin $4,305 11 $4,361 12 $4,300 16 $4,196 16 $4,169 19
Wyoming $4,608 6 $5,248 4 $5,876 3 $6,411 2 $6,205 3
% MN above or
17.0% 10.9% 10.7% 9.2% 7.9%
below U.S. average

On Our Way to Average 57


Table A-8: State & Local Own-Source Revenue Per Capita Constant FY 2007 Dollars

FY 2002 State FY 2004 State FY 2005 State FY 2006 State FY 2007 State
United States Total $5,797 Rank $5,875 Rank $5,959 Rank $6,089 Rank $6,176 Rank
Alabama $4,748 45 $4,881 43 $4,945 41 $5,001 41 $5,071 43
Alaska $10,625 1 $10,862 1 $12,102 1 $13,351 1 $15,330 1
Arizona $4,577 47 $4,621 46 $4,767 45 $4,692 48 $5,131 40
Arkansas $4,458 49 $4,490 49 $4,700 47 $4,736 46 $4,654 50
California $6,435 8 $6,517 8 $6,684 8 $6,865 9 $6,990 8
Colorado $6,124 10 $5,858 19 $5,892 20 $6,020 20 $6,129 18
Connecticut $6,854 5 $7,232 5 $7,412 4 $7,315 6 $7,409 5
Delaware $7,021 4 $7,341 4 $7,244 5 $7,364 5 $7,390 6
Florida $5,472 28 $5,671 24 $5,718 26 $5,813 26 $6,084 19
Georgia $5,136 35 $4,937 41 $4,847 43 $4,993 42 $5,096 42
Hawaii $6,035 14 $5,998 17 $6,680 9 $6,949 7 $7,012 7
Idaho $4,886 41 $4,973 39 $5,019 40 $4,944 43 $4,988 44
Illinois $5,660 25 $5,625 27 $5,725 25 $5,874 24 $5,780 29
Indiana $5,343 31 $5,367 32 $5,684 27 $6,384 11 $5,296 37
Iowa $5,694 21 $5,628 26 $5,671 29 $5,696 30 $5,792 28
Kansas $5,355 30 $5,655 25 $5,486 31 $5,646 31 $5,760 30
Kentucky $4,875 43 $4,758 45 $4,732 46 $4,883 44 $4,776 48
Louisiana $5,518 27 $5,312 34 $5,453 32 $5,804 27 $5,968 23
Maine $6,013 15 $6,147 13 $6,117 14 $6,261 15 $5,874 24
Maryland $6,111 11 $6,263 10 $6,334 11 $6,350 12 $6,349 14
Massachusetts $6,422 9 $6,775 7 $6,906 7 $6,913 8 $6,846 9
Michigan $5,733 17 $5,870 18 $5,820 23 $5,640 32 $5,834 26
Minnesota $6,805 7 $6,497 9 $6,558 10 $6,555 10 $6,585 10
Mississippi $4,701 46 $4,593 48 $4,528 49 $4,644 49 $4,791 47
Missouri $4,823 44 $4,905 42 $4,880 42 $4,831 45 $4,917 45
Montana $4,889 40 $4,970 40 $5,101 38 $5,207 37 $5,388 35
Nebraska $5,732 18 $6,164 12 $6,097 15 $6,134 17 $6,162 17
Nevada $5,693 22 $5,739 23 $6,086 16 $5,984 22 $6,016 21
New Hampshire $5,065 36 $5,338 33 $5,210 36 $5,156 38 $5,230 39
New Jersey $6,823 6 $7,043 6 $7,193 6 $7,476 4 $7,724 4
New Mexico $5,275 33 $5,396 31 $5,672 28 $6,100 18 $6,040 20
New York $7,845 2 $8,141 3 $8,338 3 $8,967 3 $9,133 3
North Carolina $5,141 34 $5,083 37 $5,117 37 $5,208 36 $5,309 36
North Dakota $5,642 26 $5,605 28 $5,738 24 $5,999 21 $6,315 15
Ohio $5,707 20 $5,746 22 $5,829 22 $5,757 28 $5,821 27
Oklahoma $4,935 39 $4,818 44 $4,805 44 $5,004 40 $5,108 41
Oregon $5,434 29 $5,532 29 $5,552 30 $5,739 29 $5,676 31
Pennsylvania $5,728 19 $5,766 21 $5,836 21 $5,868 25 $5,992 22
Rhode Island $5,754 16 $6,186 11 $6,316 12 $6,292 14 $6,353 13
South Carolina $4,884 42 $5,182 35 $5,374 34 $5,356 35 $5,503 32
South Dakota $4,550 48 $4,593 47 $4,503 50 $4,595 50 $4,671 49
Tennessee $4,317 50 $4,405 50 $4,575 48 $4,729 47 $4,824 46
Texas $4,989 38 $5,050 38 $5,041 39 $5,103 39 $5,241 38
Utah $5,334 32 $5,112 36 $5,247 35 $5,381 34 $5,482 33
Vermont $5,673 24 $6,082 15 $6,310 13 $6,347 13 $6,495 11
Virginia $5,675 23 $5,799 20 $5,989 18 $6,064 19 $6,166 16
Washington $6,094 12 $6,090 14 $6,038 17 $6,135 16 $6,398 12
West Virginia $4,994 37 $5,531 30 $5,431 33 $5,384 33 $5,451 34
Wisconsin $6,037 13 $6,031 16 $5,951 19 $5,880 23 $5,863 25
Wyoming $7,729 3 $8,606 2 $9,388 2 $10,185 2 $9,997 2
% MN above or
17.4% 10.6% 10.0% 7.6% 6.6%
below U.S. average

58 On Our Way to Average


Table A-9: State & Local General Revenue Per Capita Constant FY 2007 Dollars

FY 2002 State FY 2004 State FY 2005 State FY 2006 State FY 2007 State
United States Total $7,375 Rank $7,583 Rank $7,609 Rank $7,677 Rank $7,721 Rank
Alabama $6,512 41 $6,660 40 $6,769 38 $6,758 39 $6,749 38
Alaska $14,133 1 $15,167 1 $16,352 1 $17,080 1 $19,033 1
Arizona $5,899 50 $6,172 50 $6,305 48 $6,188 50 $6,495 44
Arkansas $6,157 48 $6,324 47 $6,444 45 $6,428 45 $6,227 50
California $8,175 7 $8,309 11 $8,376 11 $8,501 9 $8,507 10
Colorado $7,318 22 $7,187 27 $7,109 30 $7,196 29 $7,303 27
Connecticut $8,329 6 $8,755 5 $8,835 4 $8,696 6 $8,710 9
Delaware $8,525 4 $8,896 4 $8,816 5 $8,893 5 $8,839 6
Florida $6,603 37 $6,973 31 $7,044 32 $7,190 30 $7,342 24
Georgia $6,509 42 $6,244 49 $6,141 50 $6,275 48 $6,539 41
Hawaii $7,623 15 $7,720 18 $8,409 10 $8,601 8 $8,739 8
Idaho $6,215 47 $6,558 42 $6,485 42 $6,351 47 $6,281 48
Illinois $6,934 29 $7,077 29 $7,073 31 $7,183 31 $7,095 33
Indiana $6,631 36 $6,755 36 $6,965 34 $7,631 19 $6,579 40
Iowa $7,253 24 $7,348 25 $7,322 26 $7,289 26 $7,308 26
Kansas $6,794 30 $7,005 30 $6,867 35 $6,970 36 $6,948 35
Kentucky $6,543 38 $6,532 44 $6,366 47 $6,566 41 $6,356 47
Louisiana $7,347 21 $7,308 26 $7,396 23 $8,283 14 $9,003 5
Maine $7,863 11 $8,553 8 $8,364 12 $8,409 12 $7,778 18
Maryland $7,483 18 $7,804 15 $7,839 16 $7,824 17 $7,782 17
Massachusetts $7,631 14 $8,613 7 $8,497 9 $8,497 10 $8,491 11
Michigan $7,308 23 $7,630 19 $7,385 24 $7,092 32 $7,258 28
Minnesota $8,333 5 $8,154 12 $8,151 13 $8,023 16 $7,990 16
Mississippi $6,739 33 $6,892 34 $6,827 36 $7,313 25 $8,100 15
Missouri $6,449 44 $6,546 43 $6,529 41 $6,379 46 $6,387 46
Montana $7,090 28 $7,357 24 $7,485 22 $7,459 21 $7,467 22
Nebraska $7,174 26 $7,876 14 $7,793 17 $7,692 18 $7,674 20
Nevada $6,643 35 $6,710 38 $7,124 29 $6,993 35 $6,979 34
New Hampshire $6,349 45 $6,768 35 $6,600 40 $6,478 43 $6,511 43
New Jersey $8,142 8 $8,397 10 $8,562 7 $8,900 4 $9,081 4
New Mexico $7,402 19 $7,762 17 $8,149 14 $8,312 13 $8,302 14
New York $10,223 3 $10,923 3 $10,968 3 $11,343 3 $11,456 3
North Carolina $6,692 34 $6,725 37 $6,796 37 $6,776 38 $6,878 36
North Dakota $7,940 9 $8,032 13 $8,035 15 $8,138 15 $8,362 12
Ohio $7,237 25 $7,421 23 $7,499 21 $7,408 22 $7,404 23
Oklahoma $6,531 39 $6,431 46 $6,438 46 $6,593 40 $6,676 39
Oregon $7,739 13 $7,155 28 $7,167 28 $7,282 27 $7,169 29
Pennsylvania $7,369 20 $7,492 22 $7,571 19 $7,400 23 $7,516 21
Rhode Island $7,841 12 $8,516 9 $8,518 8 $8,448 11 $8,342 13
South Carolina $6,521 40 $6,921 32 $7,233 27 $6,997 34 $7,097 32
South Dakota $6,452 43 $6,659 41 $6,459 43 $6,435 44 $6,424 45
Tennessee $5,969 49 $6,300 48 $6,262 49 $6,224 49 $6,271 49
Texas $6,318 46 $6,501 45 $6,454 44 $6,497 42 $6,535 42
Utah $6,743 32 $6,664 39 $6,680 39 $6,807 37 $6,770 37
Vermont $7,899 10 $8,683 6 $8,670 6 $8,637 7 $8,786 7
Virginia $6,754 31 $6,910 33 $7,011 33 $7,044 33 $7,134 31
Washington $7,559 16 $7,562 21 $7,521 20 $7,582 20 $7,775 19
West Virginia $7,095 27 $7,773 16 $7,615 18 $7,350 24 $7,329 25
Wisconsin $7,531 17 $7,580 20 $7,378 25 $7,220 28 $7,140 30
Wyoming $10,737 2 $13,238 2 $15,401 2 $14,365 2 $13,504 2
% MN above or
13.0% 7.5% 7.1% 4.5% 3.5%
below U.S. average

On Our Way to Average 59


Table A-10: State & Local Total Revenue* Per Capita Constant FY 2007 Dollars
*Excluding insurance trust revenue
FY 2002 State FY 2004 State FY 2005 State FY 2006 State FY 2007 State
United States Total $7,845 Rank $8,041 Rank $8,060 Rank $8,140 Rank $8,190 Rank
Alabama $7,115 36 $7,247 35 $7,342 34 $7,320 39 $7,360 37
Alaska $14,574 1 $15,574 1 $16,762 1 $17,525 1 $19,478 1
Arizona $6,637 48 $6,805 47 $6,932 42 $6,824 45 $7,122 40
Arkansas $6,435 49 $6,619 50 $6,738 47 $6,724 47 $6,507 49
California $8,935 4 $8,997 8 $9,066 6 $9,195 6 $9,215 8
Colorado $7,809 18 $7,637 26 $7,565 29 $7,641 25 $7,754 24
Connecticut $8,515 9 $8,937 9 $9,013 8 $8,888 10 $8,917 11
Delaware $8,792 6 $9,232 5 $9,148 5 $9,277 5 $9,282 5
Florida $7,033 38 $7,402 33 $7,462 32 $7,626 29 $7,804 22
Georgia $6,965 41 $6,680 49 $6,578 50 $6,721 48 $6,992 42
Hawaii $7,824 17 $7,916 20 $8,601 12 $8,787 11 $8,904 12
Idaho $6,409 50 $6,786 48 $6,691 48 $6,554 50 $6,498 50
Illinois $7,213 30 $7,341 34 $7,332 35 $7,447 34 $7,349 38
Indiana $6,983 40 $7,084 41 $7,274 37 $7,946 20 $6,914 45
Iowa $7,568 26 $7,675 24 $7,650 25 $7,636 26 $7,658 26
Kansas $7,195 33 $7,410 32 $7,250 38 $7,359 37 $7,368 36
Kentucky $6,836 43 $6,813 44 $6,653 49 $6,896 43 $6,688 47
Louisiana $7,601 23 $7,577 29 $7,662 24 $8,587 13 $9,280 6
Maine $8,032 15 $8,723 10 $8,564 13 $8,485 16 $7,865 20
Maryland $7,645 22 $7,971 17 $8,001 18 $7,994 19 $7,946 19
Massachusetts $8,079 14 $9,061 7 $8,938 9 $8,976 9 $8,951 10
Michigan $7,592 25 $7,922 18 $7,674 23 $7,384 36 $7,551 29
Minnesota $8,730 7 $8,534 13 $8,518 14 $8,408 17 $8,377 18
Mississippi $7,083 37 $7,215 36 $7,139 40 $7,632 27 $8,457 17
Missouri $6,724 47 $6,807 46 $6,777 45 $6,645 49 $6,676 48
Montana $7,259 28 $7,528 30 $7,645 26 $7,628 28 $7,646 27
Nebraska $8,889 5 $9,551 4 $9,366 4 $9,375 4 $9,340 4
Nevada $7,129 35 $7,188 37 $7,550 30 $7,427 35 $7,368 35
New Hampshire $6,749 44 $7,182 39 $7,013 41 $6,883 44 $6,914 44
New Jersey $8,335 10 $8,585 12 $8,759 10 $9,104 7 $9,274 7
New Mexico $7,653 21 $8,029 16 $8,400 16 $8,563 14 $8,555 14
New York $10,844 3 $11,567 3 $11,601 3 $11,998 3 $12,121 3
North Carolina $7,131 34 $7,169 40 $7,220 39 $7,209 40 $7,324 39
North Dakota $8,092 13 $8,210 15 $8,209 17 $8,309 18 $8,543 15
Ohio $7,510 27 $7,684 23 $7,757 21 $7,673 24 $7,668 25
Oklahoma $6,910 42 $6,807 45 $6,800 44 $6,989 41 $7,070 41
Oregon $8,211 12 $7,658 25 $7,645 27 $7,756 21 $7,632 28
Pennsylvania $7,695 20 $7,819 22 $7,905 19 $7,732 22 $7,840 21
Rhode Island $8,001 16 $8,696 11 $8,696 11 $8,632 12 $8,525 16
South Carolina $7,200 32 $7,613 27 $7,900 20 $7,687 23 $7,768 23
South Dakota $6,742 45 $6,964 42 $6,745 46 $6,742 46 $6,736 46
Tennessee $7,200 31 $7,578 28 $7,522 31 $7,562 30 $7,532 30
Texas $6,737 46 $6,918 43 $6,854 43 $6,904 42 $6,980 43
Utah $7,594 24 $7,443 31 $7,398 33 $7,530 31 $7,480 32
Vermont $8,310 11 $9,087 6 $9,065 7 $9,008 8 $9,168 9
Virginia $7,031 39 $7,187 38 $7,287 36 $7,331 38 $7,422 33
Washington $8,633 8 $8,504 14 $8,509 15 $8,512 15 $8,753 13
West Virginia $7,234 29 $7,919 19 $7,756 22 $7,489 32 $7,481 31
Wisconsin $7,752 19 $7,820 21 $7,608 28 $7,477 33 $7,387 34
Wyoming $11,132 2 $13,640 2 $15,799 2 $14,781 2 $13,930 2
% MN above or
11.3% 6.1% 5.7% 3.3% 2.3%
below U.S. average

60 On Our Way to Average


Table A-11: State & Local General Expenditures Per Capita Constant FY 2007 Dollars

FY 2002 State FY 2004 State FY 2005 State FY 2006 State FY 2007 State
United States Total $7,583 Rank $7,637 Rank $7,567 Rank $7,452 Rank $7,444 Rank
Alabama $6,933 30 $7,065 29 $7,120 26 $7,017 26 $6,571 37
Alaska $16,553 1 $15,108 1 $14,639 1 $14,501 1 $15,061 1
Arizona $5,965 50 $6,147 49 $6,147 49 $6,063 48 $6,164 46
Arkansas $6,091 49 $6,252 48 $6,231 47 $6,197 45 $5,949 48
California $8,496 7 $8,608 6 $8,550 6 $8,514 7 $8,611 5
Colorado $7,616 20 $7,262 25 $6,919 31 $6,788 35 $6,903 30
Connecticut $8,838 4 $8,461 8 $8,385 10 $8,257 9 $8,236 10
Delaware $8,391 8 $8,813 5 $9,054 4 $9,192 4 $8,905 4
Florida $6,585 41 $6,841 36 $7,081 27 $7,131 24 $7,113 24
Georgia $6,786 35 $6,623 42 $6,204 48 $6,096 47 $6,642 35
Hawaii $8,506 6 $8,145 13 $8,210 12 $8,090 11 $8,465 7
Idaho $6,388 46 $6,374 44 $6,300 44 $6,043 49 $5,910 49
Illinois $7,399 23 $7,377 21 $7,205 25 $6,914 30 $7,016 25
Indiana $6,713 39 $6,726 38 $6,803 37 $6,642 36 $6,582 36
Iowa $7,389 25 $7,348 22 $7,335 21 $7,277 22 $7,165 23
Kansas $6,905 32 $7,008 32 $6,816 36 $6,860 33 $6,658 34
Kentucky $6,641 40 $6,634 41 $6,262 46 $6,318 41 $6,331 41
Louisiana $6,768 37 $7,137 28 $7,062 28 $7,525 16 $7,813 14
Maine $7,738 17 $8,341 12 $8,074 14 $7,951 13 $7,546 16
Maryland $7,397 24 $7,238 26 $7,316 23 $7,366 21 $7,532 18
Massachusetts $8,286 9 $8,845 4 $8,602 5 $8,525 6 $8,296 9
Michigan $7,655 19 $7,879 15 $7,399 20 $6,914 31 $6,919 29
Minnesota $8,770 5 $8,480 7 $8,286 11 $7,897 14 $7,832 13
Mississippi $6,779 36 $7,041 30 $6,852 34 $6,964 27 $7,537 17
Missouri $6,445 44 $6,349 45 $6,274 45 $6,205 43 $6,186 44
Montana $6,991 28 $7,040 31 $6,840 35 $6,900 32 $6,848 32
Nebraska $7,118 27 $7,273 24 $6,968 29 $6,960 28 $6,968 28
Nevada $6,846 33 $6,888 34 $6,919 30 $6,791 34 $6,704 33
New Hampshire $6,287 48 $6,867 35 $6,703 39 $6,522 39 $6,373 40
New Jersey $8,014 12 $8,347 11 $8,505 7 $8,633 5 $8,589 6
New Mexico $7,790 16 $7,849 16 $8,198 13 $8,039 12 $8,154 11
New York $10,591 2 $10,706 2 $10,596 3 $10,536 3 $10,436 3
North Carolina $6,749 38 $6,687 40 $6,758 38 $6,623 38 $6,497 39
North Dakota $7,726 18 $7,680 18 $7,620 17 $7,434 19 $7,270 21
Ohio $7,400 22 $7,645 20 $7,573 19 $7,503 17 $7,341 20
Oklahoma $6,565 42 $6,074 50 $6,015 50 $6,118 46 $6,237 43
Oregon $8,230 10 $7,332 23 $7,290 24 $7,209 23 $6,974 27
Pennsylvania $7,507 21 $7,655 19 $7,775 16 $7,560 15 $7,489 19
Rhode Island $7,983 13 $8,387 9 $8,409 9 $8,161 10 $8,086 12
South Carolina $7,313 26 $7,167 27 $7,333 22 $7,040 25 $7,014 26
South Dakota $6,423 45 $6,279 47 $6,349 42 $6,209 42 $6,164 45
Tennessee $6,288 47 $6,284 46 $6,304 43 $5,938 50 $5,796 50
Texas $6,459 43 $6,502 43 $6,407 41 $6,200 44 $6,146 47
Utah $6,938 29 $6,699 39 $6,461 40 $6,328 40 $6,242 42
Vermont $7,792 15 $8,358 10 $8,497 8 $8,301 8 $8,392 8
Virginia $6,796 34 $6,772 37 $6,872 32 $6,922 29 $6,864 31
Washington $8,037 11 $8,098 14 $7,893 15 $7,442 18 $7,675 15
West Virginia $6,910 31 $6,911 33 $6,853 33 $6,632 37 $6,500 38
Wisconsin $7,866 14 $7,833 17 $7,579 18 $7,417 20 $7,165 22
Wyoming $9,766 3 $10,599 3 $11,166 2 $10,976 2 $11,430 2
% MN above or
15.6% 11.0% 9.5% 6.0% 5.2%
below U.S. average

On Our Way to Average 61


Table A-12: State & Local Total Expenditures* Per Capita Constant FY 2007 Dollars
*Excluding insurance trust expenditures
FY 2002 State FY 2004 State FY 2005 State FY 2006 State FY 2007 State
United States Total $8,232 Rank $8,297 Rank $8,195 Rank $8,089 Rank $8,109 Rank
Alabama $7,541 31 $7,672 29 $7,692 25 $7,563 27 $7,184 35
Alaska $17,121 1 $15,706 1 $15,232 1 $15,140 1 $15,781 1
Arizona $6,917 45 $6,905 45 $6,876 43 $6,820 42 $6,942 41
Arkansas $6,368 50 $6,564 49 $6,532 48 $6,503 49 $6,261 49
California $9,639 4 $9,731 4 $9,617 4 $9,584 5 $9,714 4
Colorado $8,283 15 $7,947 21 $7,571 31 $7,413 30 $7,601 25
Connecticut $9,141 7 $8,751 12 $8,657 13 $8,559 11 $8,584 12
Delaware $8,740 12 $9,236 7 $9,473 5 $9,650 4 $9,478 5
Florida $7,128 36 $7,401 34 $7,641 27 $7,652 25 $7,683 22
Georgia $7,409 32 $7,228 38 $6,768 44 $6,657 45 $7,234 33
Hawaii $8,866 9 $8,541 14 $8,579 14 $8,377 13 $8,762 11
Idaho $6,577 49 $6,604 47 $6,496 49 $6,245 50 $6,126 50
Illinois $7,885 25 $7,904 24 $7,682 26 $7,405 31 $7,528 28
Indiana $7,078 40 $7,084 42 $7,146 38 $6,981 39 $6,961 40
Iowa $7,770 26 $7,717 27 $7,700 24 $7,677 23 $7,559 27
Kansas $7,293 34 $7,410 33 $7,224 35 $7,276 33 $7,100 36
Kentucky $7,007 42 $6,937 44 $6,549 47 $6,693 44 $6,763 42
Louisiana $7,063 41 $7,453 32 $7,384 32 $7,893 18 $8,153 16
Maine $7,923 22 $8,485 15 $8,170 17 $8,051 16 $7,691 21
Maryland $7,653 28 $7,517 31 $7,598 30 $7,660 24 $7,825 19
Massachusetts $9,006 8 $9,610 5 $9,322 6 $9,263 6 $9,042 7
Michigan $8,014 19 $8,239 16 $7,738 23 $7,261 34 $7,295 32
Minnesota $9,274 6 $8,890 9 $8,703 12 $8,340 14 $8,311 15
Mississippi $7,114 38 $7,379 35 $7,170 37 $7,434 29 $7,916 18
Missouri $6,783 46 $6,680 46 $6,599 46 $6,553 46 $6,566 47
Montana $7,162 35 $7,197 39 $7,002 41 $7,081 38 $7,065 38
Nebraska $8,813 11 $9,186 8 $8,759 10 $8,826 8 $9,120 6
Nevada $7,584 29 $7,686 28 $7,614 29 $7,489 28 $7,329 31
New Hampshire $6,638 48 $7,234 37 $7,074 39 $6,896 40 $6,761 43
New Jersey $8,471 13 $8,796 10 $8,937 9 $9,039 7 $8,970 8
New Mexico $8,050 18 $8,123 19 $8,444 15 $8,264 15 $8,498 13
New York $11,767 2 $12,032 2 $11,873 2 $11,841 2 $11,651 3
North Carolina $7,309 33 $7,251 36 $7,327 33 $7,170 36 $7,038 39
North Dakota $7,903 24 $7,858 26 $7,798 22 $7,642 26 $7,514 29
Ohio $7,722 27 $7,957 20 $7,883 19 $7,825 19 $7,667 23
Oklahoma $6,973 44 $6,461 50 $6,380 50 $6,522 48 $6,663 46
Oregon $8,827 10 $7,909 23 $7,822 21 $7,726 21 $7,562 26
Pennsylvania $8,009 21 $8,135 18 $8,236 16 $8,029 17 $7,977 17
Rhode Island $8,292 14 $8,668 13 $8,709 11 $8,489 12 $8,419 14
South Carolina $8,012 20 $7,885 25 $8,034 18 $7,726 22 $7,755 20
South Dakota $6,695 47 $6,600 48 $6,663 45 $6,532 47 $6,513 48
Tennessee $7,549 30 $7,923 22 $7,629 28 $7,325 32 $7,616 24
Texas $6,988 43 $7,041 43 $6,902 42 $6,723 43 $6,694 45
Utah $7,908 23 $7,597 30 $7,276 34 $7,123 37 $7,076 37
Vermont $8,271 16 $8,756 11 $8,948 8 $8,745 9 $8,867 10
Virginia $7,115 37 $7,087 41 $7,185 36 $7,253 35 $7,226 34
Washington $9,449 5 $9,330 6 $9,189 7 $8,567 10 $8,907 9
West Virginia $7,095 39 $7,115 40 $7,050 40 $6,861 41 $6,720 44
Wisconsin $8,152 17 $8,138 17 $7,862 20 $7,738 20 $7,511 30
Wyoming $10,233 3 $11,024 3 $11,579 3 $11,411 3 $11,946 2
% MN above or
12.7% 7.1% 6.2% 3.1% 2.5%
below U.S. average

62 On Our Way to Average


Table B-1: Per Capita Personal Income (constant 2008 dollars)
Per capita personal income from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (http://www.bea.gov/regional/spi/default.cfm?selTable=summary)
converted to constant 2008 dollars based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) - All Urban Consumers

2002 State 2003 State 2004 State 2005 State 2006 State 2007 State 2008 State
United States 37,656 Rank 37,762 Rank 38,621 Rank 39,065 Rank 40,281 Rank 40,928 Rank 40,208 Rank
Alabama 30,891 44 31,293 41 32,362 42 32,940 42 33,614 43 34,132 43 33,768 42
Alaska 39,678 13 39,235 15 39,759 17 40,569 15 41,530 16 42,716 14 44,039 8
Arizona 32,537 38 32,587 38 33,686 38 34,784 36 35,765 35 35,720 36 34,335 41
Arkansas 29,076 49 29,798 48 30,653 47 30,837 48 31,574 48 32,848 47 32,397 46
California 40,691 9 40,848 10 41,961 9 42,617 8 44,206 7 44,863 8 43,641 9
Colorado 41,918 7 41,126 8 41,754 10 42,472 9 43,680 10 44,056 10 42,985 12
Connecticut 51,867 1 51,151 1 52,883 1 53,434 1 56,268 1 57,721 1 56,272 1
Delaware 39,741 12 39,628 13 40,734 14 40,845 14 41,818 15 41,590 18 40,519 18
Florida 36,531 21 36,686 22 38,348 20 39,420 19 40,900 19 40,693 19 39,267 21
Georgia 35,026 28 34,720 32 34,907 34 35,460 33 35,738 36 35,966 35 34,893 38
Hawaii 36,535 20 36,869 21 38,494 19 39,510 18 41,127 17 42,461 16 42,055 15
Idaho 31,146 41 30,964 44 32,417 41 32,667 43 33,811 42 34,155 42 33,074 44
Illinois 40,320 11 40,435 11 40,966 13 40,962 13 42,225 13 43,148 13 42,347 14
Indiana 34,143 33 34,609 33 34,914 33 34,497 38 35,106 40 35,038 41 34,605 40
Iowa 34,500 32 34,441 35 36,086 26 35,603 30 36,144 29 37,055 29 37,402 28
Kansas 35,609 27 36,052 25 36,364 25 36,511 26 38,176 22 38,809 23 38,820 23
Kentucky 30,917 43 30,819 45 31,351 45 31,472 47 32,168 47 32,391 48 32,076 47
Louisiana 31,049 42 31,240 42 31,976 43 33,172 41 36,034 31 36,706 30 36,424 31
Maine 34,579 31 35,020 30 35,858 30 35,290 35 36,018 32 36,410 33 36,457 30
Maryland 44,469 4 44,696 4 46,284 4 46,949 4 48,174 4 48,837 5 48,378 6
Massachusetts 47,279 3 46,976 3 47,991 3 48,377 3 50,533 3 51,780 3 51,254 3
Michigan 36,122 23 36,511 23 36,059 27 35,558 32 35,444 38 35,487 39 34,949 37
Minnesota 40,774 8 41,277 7 42,244 7 41,869 12 42,723 11 43,350 12 43,037 11
Mississippi 27,698 50 28,072 50 28,675 50 29,575 49 29,905 50 30,671 50 30,399 50
Missouri 35,019 29 35,370 29 35,814 31 35,572 31 36,367 28 36,649 31 36,631 29
Montana 30,734 45 31,582 39 32,599 40 33,217 40 34,383 41 35,237 40 34,644 39
Nebraska 36,291 22 37,595 19 37,915 21 37,835 21 38,143 23 39,348 21 39,150 22
Nevada 37,496 18 38,261 17 40,274 15 42,133 11 42,040 14 42,708 15 41,182 17
New Hampshire 42,031 6 41,757 6 42,851 6 42,332 10 43,773 9 44,458 9 43,623 10
New Jersey 47,820 2 47,377 2 48,313 2 48,484 2 50,880 2 52,174 2 51,358 2
New Mexico 29,990 47 30,147 47 31,103 46 31,884 45 32,657 45 33,385 44 33,430 43
New York 42,379 5 42,302 5 43,747 5 44,830 5 46,949 6 49,420 4 48,753 4
North Carolina 34,077 34 33,897 37 34,847 35 35,339 34 35,916 33 36,280 34 35,344 35
North Dakota 32,749 37 34,811 31 34,565 36 35,655 29 35,876 34 38,089 26 39,870 20
Ohio 35,724 25 35,907 26 36,021 28 35,815 27 36,400 27 36,648 32 36,021 33
Oklahoma 31,389 39 31,499 40 32,823 39 33,604 39 35,532 37 35,640 37 35,985 34
Oregon 35,611 26 35,733 27 36,000 29 35,804 28 36,966 26 37,068 28 36,297 32
Pennsylvania 37,699 17 37,930 18 38,568 18 38,548 20 39,852 20 40,542 20 40,140 19
Rhode Island 38,479 15 39,149 16 39,978 16 39,931 17 40,990 18 41,747 17 41,368 16
South Carolina 31,207 40 31,236 43 31,824 44 32,257 44 33,131 44 33,283 45 32,666 45
South Dakota 33,591 36 35,620 28 36,657 24 36,533 25 36,052 30 37,875 27 38,661 25
Tennessee 33,675 35 33,952 36 34,517 37 34,561 37 35,218 39 35,589 38 34,976 36
Texas 34,623 30 34,601 34 35,402 32 36,558 24 37,662 25 38,228 25 37,774 26
Utah 30,690 46 30,213 46 30,564 48 31,518 46 32,372 46 32,945 46 31,944 48
Vermont 35,913 24 36,276 24 37,270 23 36,827 23 38,458 21 39,150 22 38,686 24
Virginia 40,416 10 40,973 9 42,054 8 42,958 7 44,166 8 44,919 7 44,224 7
Washington 39,615 14 39,616 14 40,999 12 40,526 16 42,304 12 43,616 11 42,857 13
West Virginia 29,182 48 29,144 49 29,376 49 29,407 50 30,666 49 31,289 49 31,641 49
Wisconsin 36,865 19 37,028 20 37,296 22 37,127 22 38,078 24 38,414 24 37,767 27
Wyoming 38,389 16 39,687 12 41,327 11 43,492 6 47,725 5 48,516 6 48,608 5
% MN above or
8.3% 9.3% 9.4% 7.2% 6.1% 5.9% 7.0%
below U.S. avg.

On Our Way to Average 63


Table B-2: Median Household Income (constant 2008 dollars)
Median household income from U.S. Census Bureau "American Community Survery" (http://tinyurl.com/l3we7x); converted to constant 2008
dollars based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) - All Urban Consumers

2002 State 2003 State 2004 State 2005 State 2006 State 2007 State 2008 State
United States 51,521 Rank 50,957 Rank 50,909 Rank 50,962 Rank 51,730 Rank 52,667 Rank 52,029 Rank
Alabama 42,373 44 41,124 43 41,823 42 40,643 46 41,407 46 42,094 46 42,666 46
Alaska 67,650 3 61,408 6 64,971 4 61,973 7 63,412 7 66,777 4 68,460 4
Arizona 49,265 25 47,679 29 47,845 28 48,802 25 50,463 22 51,784 22 50,958 22
Arkansas 41,165 47 40,057 47 37,578 48 38,571 48 39,076 48 39,582 48 38,815 48
California 59,515 9 58,742 11 58,315 9 59,103 9 60,478 8 62,225 8 61,021 9
Colorado 57,773 12 59,114 10 54,912 14 55,822 13 55,535 14 57,309 12 56,993 13
Connecticut 67,658 2 66,442 3 68,960 2 67,161 3 67,714 3 68,473 3 68,595 3
Delaware 59,859 8 59,167 9 57,324 11 57,857 10 56,408 12 56,684 15 57,989 11
Florida 46,984 35 46,637 34 46,980 35 46,764 33 48,574 27 49,620 27 47,778 33
Georgia 50,339 22 49,995 23 49,032 23 50,259 23 50,001 24 51,002 23 50,861 23
Hawaii 60,505 7 59,405 8 61,014 7 64,043 4 65,299 4 66,167 5 67,214 5
Idaho 44,586 39 46,194 36 45,497 36 45,673 36 45,766 35 48,010 34 47,576 34
Illinois 55,674 13 56,118 14 55,772 12 55,390 14 55,525 15 56,180 16 56,235 16
Indiana 50,144 23 49,206 24 48,073 26 48,483 26 48,466 30 49,250 30 47,966 32
Iowa 47,011 34 47,403 32 47,110 34 48,060 28 47,502 33 49,088 31 48,980 29
Kansas 47,924 31 48,045 28 47,438 32 47,301 31 48,555 28 49,253 29 50,177 25
Kentucky 41,848 46 40,200 46 40,182 45 41,183 44 42,036 44 41,796 47 41,538 47
Louisiana 39,859 48 39,935 48 40,001 47 40,478 47 41,999 45 42,480 45 43,733 41
Maine 47,851 32 46,598 35 48,036 27 47,169 32 46,378 34 47,631 35 46,581 36
Maryland 66,589 4 66,928 2 65,423 3 67,878 2 69,552 1 70,666 1 70,545 1
Massachusetts 66,130 5 62,707 5 63,411 5 63,020 5 64,021 5 64,734 7 65,401 6
Michigan 52,404 20 51,943 19 51,160 20 50,738 21 50,375 23 49,771 26 48,591 30
Minnesota 59,053 10 58,602 12 57,945 10 57,334 11 57,679 10 57,921 10 57,288 12
Mississippi 37,919 49 37,975 49 36,050 49 36,300 50 36,806 50 37,718 50 37,790 50
Missouri 48,100 30 47,636 30 47,250 33 46,258 35 45,740 36 46,828 36 46,867 35
Montana 42,188 45 41,406 42 40,148 46 43,312 41 43,376 42 45,184 39 43,654 42
Nebraska 47,748 33 48,432 26 47,460 31 48,324 27 48,551 29 48,873 32 49,693 28
Nevada 52,563 18 53,098 18 50,865 21 54,187 17 56,584 11 57,153 14 56,361 15
New Hampshire 64,884 6 63,058 4 63,322 6 62,562 6 63,722 6 64,738 6 63,731 7
New Jersey 70,310 1 68,530 1 69,907 1 67,966 1 68,833 2 69,581 2 70,378 2
New Mexico 43,099 42 40,711 45 41,064 43 41,319 43 43,378 41 43,026 44 43,508 44
New York 53,754 17 54,034 17 53,945 16 54,530 15 54,861 17 55,547 18 56,033 17
North Carolina 45,714 36 44,722 40 44,920 39 44,886 38 45,509 38 46,367 37 46,549 37
North Dakota 43,360 41 43,927 41 44,942 38 45,218 37 44,756 39 45,415 38 45,685 39
Ohio 48,697 28 48,367 27 48,124 25 47,932 29 47,545 32 48,367 33 47,988 31
Oklahoma 42,560 43 41,090 44 40,282 44 40,846 45 41,393 47 43,146 43 42,822 45
Oregon 48,315 29 47,161 33 47,616 29 47,327 30 49,358 26 50,581 24 50,169 26
Pennsylvania 49,264 26 48,517 25 48,923 24 49,083 24 49,389 25 50,421 25 50,713 24
Rhode Island 54,604 16 57,144 13 55,509 13 56,710 12 55,320 16 55,603 17 55,701 18
South Carolina 45,393 37 44,995 37 45,386 37 43,329 40 43,881 40 44,975 41 44,625 40
South Dakota 44,575 40 44,934 38 43,831 41 44,424 39 45,687 37 45,073 40 46,032 38
Tennessee 44,609 38 44,737 39 44,198 40 42,842 42 43,043 43 43,976 42 43,614 43
Texas 49,509 24 47,576 31 47,576 30 46,440 34 47,962 31 49,354 28 50,043 27
Utah 55,573 14 54,827 15 53,632 17 52,826 18 54,781 18 57,202 13 56,633 14
Vermont 52,546 19 51,112 21 53,027 18 50,349 22 50,890 20 51,803 21 52,104 20
Virginia 58,615 11 59,426 7 58,889 8 59,776 8 60,085 9 61,824 9 61,233 8
Washington 55,091 15 54,821 16 54,298 15 54,290 16 56,141 13 57,702 11 58,078 10
West Virginia 37,072 50 36,270 50 35,893 50 36,866 49 37,431 49 38,468 49 37,989 49
Wisconsin 52,191 21 51,565 20 51,628 19 51,913 19 52,072 19 52,499 20 52,094 21
Wyoming 49,178 27 50,685 22 50,443 22 50,918 20 50,632 21 53,696 19 53,207 19
% MN above or
14.6% 15.0% 13.8% 12.5% 11.5% 10.0% 10.1%
below U.S. avg.

64 On Our Way to Average


Table B-3: Average Annual Pay (constant 2007 dollars)
Average annual pay from CQ Press Annual "State Rankings" report based on data from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Computed by adding total annual
wages of employees covered by unemployment insurance programs by the average monthly number of these employees. Includes bonuses, cash value of
meals and lodging, tips, and, in many states, employer contributions to certain deferred compensation plans. The amounts reported in CQ's "State
Rankings" have been converted to constant 2007 dollars using CPI - All Urban Consumers.
2002 State 2003 State 2004 State 2005 State 2006 State 2007 State
United States 42,381 Rank 42,557 Rank 43,195 Rank 43,188 Rank 43,751 Rank 44,458 Rank
Alabama 35,924 31 36,327 31 36,676 31 36,734 31 37,239 33 37,492 33
Alaska 42,808 14 42,601 14 42,875 15 42,699 15 42,944 16 43,972 14
Arizona 39,236 21 39,504 22 40,223 21 40,510 21 41,163 21 41,551 21
Arkansas 32,363 46 32,559 45 33,197 45 33,196 45 33,315 46 34,118 44
California 47,747 5 47,997 5 48,999 5 49,064 5 49,728 5 50,538 5
Colorado 43,812 11 43,883 11 44,207 12 44,169 10 44,750 10 45,396 10
Connecticut 54,010 1 54,460 1 55,986 1 56,223 1 56,382 2 58,029 2
Delaware 45,747 7 46,151 6 46,634 7 47,377 6 47,609 6 47,308 8
Florida 37,380 30 37,801 27 38,621 25 39,072 23 39,586 23 39,746 23
Georgia 41,194 18 41,274 18 41,562 18 41,510 18 41,525 19 42,178 18
Hawaii 37,663 26 38,024 25 38,634 24 38,597 25 38,880 25 39,466 25
Idaho 32,466 45 32,316 46 32,787 46 32,677 46 33,512 45 33,544 46
Illinois 45,752 6 45,684 8 46,404 8 46,445 8 46,956 8 47,685 7
Indiana 37,584 27 37,615 30 38,081 30 37,618 30 37,598 32 37,528 32
Iowa 34,201 39 34,605 39 35,230 36 35,112 38 35,302 39 35,738 39
Kansas 35,535 34 35,485 34 35,934 34 35,944 34 36,717 34 37,044 35
Kentucky 35,626 33 35,897 33 36,402 33 36,062 33 36,208 36 36,480 37
Louisiana 34,716 36 34,688 36 34,992 38 35,638 35 37,651 31 38,229 30
Maine 34,279 38 34,652 37 35,020 37 34,720 40 34,760 43 35,129 43
Maryland 45,399 8 45,849 7 46,735 6 47,107 7 47,482 7 48,241 6
Massachusetts 51,822 4 52,201 4 53,691 3 53,188 3 53,935 3 55,244 3
Michigan 43,962 10 44,437 9 44,314 11 43,758 11 43,363 15 43,357 16
Minnesota 43,181 12 43,509 12 44,341 10 43,319 12 43,391 14 44,375 13
Mississippi 30,739 47 31,092 48 31,320 48 31,600 48 32,086 48 32,291 48
Missouri 38,178 24 38,075 24 38,246 27 38,171 26 38,205 28 38,603 29
Montana 29,974 50 30,321 50 30,547 50 30,950 49 31,471 49 32,224 49
Nebraska 33,947 40 34,237 40 34,583 40 34,424 42 34,781 42 35,238 42
Nevada 39,187 22 39,812 20 40,728 20 41,156 19 41,216 20 42,149 19
New Hampshire 41,703 16 42,057 15 43,000 14 43,054 14 43,661 13 43,863 15
New Jersey 52,085 3 52,233 3 52,756 4 52,525 4 53,122 4 53,853 4
New Mexico 33,928 41 34,034 41 34,477 41 34,618 41 35,556 38 36,379 38
New York 53,406 2 53,242 2 54,816 2 55,143 2 57,066 1 59,439 1
North Carolina 37,684 25 37,787 28 38,187 28 38,129 27 38,510 27 38,909 28
North Dakota 30,607 48 31,134 47 31,817 47 31,805 47 32,212 47 33,086 47
Ohio 39,442 20 39,614 21 39,998 22 39,638 22 39,671 22 39,917 22
Oklahoma 33,032 43 33,468 43 33,744 43 33,679 43 34,995 41 35,491 40
Oregon 38,831 23 38,821 23 39,108 23 38,847 24 39,166 24 39,569 24
Pennsylvania 41,279 17 41,689 16 42,318 16 42,110 17 42,532 17 43,239 17
Rhode Island 40,129 19 41,036 19 41,326 19 41,143 20 41,611 18 41,646 20
South Carolina 34,587 37 34,652 37 34,947 39 34,960 39 35,261 40 35,393 41
South Dakota 30,388 49 30,663 49 31,042 49 30,949 50 31,157 50 31,655 50
Tennessee 37,501 28 37,842 26 38,334 26 38,094 28 38,638 26 39,082 27
Texas 41,786 15 41,659 17 42,270 17 42,629 16 43,672 12 44,695 12
Utah 35,258 35 35,053 35 35,311 35 35,386 36 36,135 37 37,054 34
Vermont 35,784 32 36,157 32 36,522 32 36,308 32 36,558 35 36,956 36
Virginia 42,909 13 43,481 13 44,491 9 44,898 9 45,311 9 45,995 9
Washington 44,085 9 43,972 10 43,203 13 43,235 13 44,124 11 45,021 11
West Virginia 32,984 44 33,000 44 33,348 44 33,282 44 33,664 44 34,106 45
Wisconsin 37,424 29 37,666 29 38,134 29 37,661 29 37,874 29 38,050 31
Wyoming 33,402 42 33,721 42 34,257 42 35,304 37 37,710 30 39,254 26
% MN above or
1.9% 2.2% 2.7% 0.3% -0.8% -0.2%
below U.S. avg.

On Our Way to Average 65


Table B-4: Unemployment Rate
Unemployment rate calculated from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis data compiled from "Economagic" subscription website. Based on the
average for all 12 months of the year.

2002 State 2003 State 2004 State 2005 State 2006 State 2007 State 2008 State 2009 State
United States 5.8% Rank 6.0% Rank 5.5% Rank 5.1% Rank 4.6% Rank 4.6% Rank 5.8% Rank 9.3% Rank
Alabama 5.4% 26 5.4% 21 5.0% 24 3.8% 10 3.5% 11 3.5% 11 5.0% 23 9.7% 37
Alaska 7.1% 48 7.7% 49 7.4% 50 6.9% 49 6.5% 48 6.2% 48 6.7% 45 8.2% 27
Arizona 6.0% 40 5.7% 30 5.0% 21 4.6% 21 4.1% 19 3.8% 17 5.5% 32 8.4% 29
Arkansas 5.3% 25 5.8% 32 5.6% 37 5.1% 30 5.2% 42 5.1% 40 5.1% 24 7.0% 15
California 6.7% 46 6.8% 46 6.2% 45 5.4% 39 4.9% 37 5.4% 44 7.2% 48 11.6% 47
Colorado 5.7% 30 6.1% 36 5.6% 36 5.1% 32 4.4% 24 3.9% 18 4.9% 21 7.3% 18
Connecticut 4.4% 11 5.5% 22 4.9% 19 4.9% 25 4.4% 25 4.6% 31 5.7% 33 7.9% 22
Delaware 4.0% 5 4.2% 6 3.9% 8 4.0% 13 3.5% 12 3.4% 10 4.8% 18 7.9% 23
Florida 5.7% 32 5.3% 18 4.7% 17 3.8% 11 3.4% 10 4.1% 22 6.2% 36 10.4% 42
Georgia 4.8% 17 4.8% 13 4.7% 18 5.2% 34 4.6% 31 4.6% 32 6.2% 37 9.7% 36
Hawaii 4.0% 7 3.9% 3 3.2% 1 2.7% 1 2.5% 1 2.6% 1 3.9% 8 7.0% 16
Idaho 5.4% 27 5.2% 17 4.6% 13 3.7% 9 3.0% 5 3.0% 7 4.9% 20 8.0% 24
Illinois 6.5% 44 6.7% 45 6.2% 43 5.8% 42 4.6% 29 5.1% 41 6.5% 42 9.8% 38
Indiana 5.2% 20 5.3% 19 5.3% 29 5.4% 37 5.0% 40 4.6% 30 5.9% 34 10.0% 39
Iowa 3.9% 4 4.4% 8 4.6% 16 4.3% 17 3.8% 15 3.7% 15 4.1% 10 5.9% 6
Kansas 5.1% 19 5.6% 24 5.5% 33 5.1% 31 4.3% 23 4.1% 20 4.4% 14 6.6% 10
Kentucky 5.7% 34 6.3% 39 5.6% 35 6.1% 44 5.9% 46 5.5% 45 6.4% 41 10.4% 43
Louisiana 5.9% 37 6.2% 38 5.5% 32 6.7% 46 3.9% 17 3.8% 16 4.6% 16 6.6% 11
Maine 4.4% 10 5.0% 15 4.6% 14 4.9% 24 4.6% 30 4.6% 34 5.4% 28 8.2% 26
Maryland 4.5% 12 4.5% 12 4.3% 11 4.1% 14 3.8% 16 3.5% 13 4.4% 13 7.0% 17
Massachusetts 5.3% 22 5.8% 31 5.2% 26 4.8% 23 4.8% 35 4.5% 27 5.3% 25 8.4% 30
Michigan 6.2% 42 7.1% 47 7.1% 48 6.8% 48 6.9% 50 7.1% 50 8.4% 50 14.0% 50
Minnesota 4.5% 14 4.9% 14 4.6% 15 4.2% 16 4.1% 18 4.6% 33 5.4% 30 7.9% 21
Mississippi 6.7% 47 6.4% 40 6.3% 46 7.8% 50 6.8% 49 6.3% 49 6.9% 46 9.4% 35
Missouri 5.2% 21 5.6% 23 5.8% 39 5.4% 36 4.8% 36 5.1% 39 6.1% 35 9.0% 34
Montana 4.5% 13 4.3% 7 4.0% 10 3.7% 7 3.3% 9 3.4% 9 4.5% 15 6.3% 7
Nebraska 3.7% 3 4.0% 4 3.9% 7 3.9% 12 3.0% 4 2.9% 5 3.3% 4 4.7% 2
Nevada 5.7% 31 5.2% 16 4.4% 12 4.5% 18 4.3% 22 4.7% 36 6.6% 44 11.6% 48
New Hampshire 4.5% 15 4.5% 9 3.9% 6 3.6% 5 3.5% 13 3.5% 12 3.8% 7 6.5% 9
New Jersey 5.8% 36 5.9% 33 4.9% 20 4.5% 19 4.6% 32 4.3% 23 5.5% 31 8.9% 33
New Mexico 5.5% 28 5.9% 34 5.8% 38 5.2% 33 4.2% 21 3.5% 14 4.2% 11 6.7% 12
New York 6.2% 41 6.4% 41 5.8% 40 5.0% 28 4.6% 27 4.5% 28 5.4% 29 8.3% 28
North Carolina 6.6% 45 6.5% 42 5.5% 34 5.3% 35 4.8% 34 4.7% 37 6.3% 38 10.8% 44
North Dakota 3.5% 2 3.6% 2 3.5% 2 3.4% 2 3.2% 7 3.1% 8 3.2% 3 4.2% 1
Ohio 5.7% 33 6.2% 37 6.1% 42 5.9% 43 5.4% 45 5.6% 47 6.5% 43 10.3% 41
Oklahoma 4.8% 16 5.6% 25 5.0% 22 4.5% 20 4.1% 20 4.1% 21 3.8% 6 6.4% 8
Oregon 7.6% 50 8.1% 50 7.3% 49 6.2% 45 5.3% 44 5.1% 42 6.4% 39 11.4% 45
Pennsylvania 5.6% 29 5.7% 28 5.4% 30 5.0% 27 4.5% 26 4.4% 25 5.4% 27 8.2% 25
Rhode Island 5.1% 18 5.4% 20 5.2% 27 5.1% 29 5.0% 41 5.2% 43 7.8% 49 11.9% 49
South Carolina 6.0% 39 6.7% 43 6.8% 47 6.7% 47 6.3% 47 5.6% 46 6.9% 47 11.6% 46
South Dakota 3.3% 1 3.5% 1 3.7% 3 3.6% 6 3.1% 6 2.9% 3 3.0% 1 4.8% 3
Tennessee 5.3% 24 5.7% 29 5.4% 31 5.6% 41 5.2% 43 4.8% 38 6.4% 40 10.1% 40
Texas 6.4% 43 6.7% 44 6.0% 41 5.4% 38 4.9% 39 4.4% 26 4.9% 22 7.4% 19
Utah 5.8% 35 5.7% 27 5.1% 25 4.2% 15 3.0% 2 2.7% 2 3.4% 5 5.7% 5
Vermont 4.0% 6 4.5% 11 3.7% 5 3.5% 4 3.7% 14 4.0% 19 4.8% 19 6.9% 14
Virginia 4.2% 9 4.1% 5 3.7% 4 3.5% 3 3.0% 3 3.0% 6 4.0% 9 6.7% 13
Washington 7.3% 49 7.4% 48 6.2% 44 5.5% 40 4.9% 38 4.5% 29 5.3% 26 8.9% 32
West Virginia 5.9% 38 6.0% 35 5.3% 28 4.9% 26 4.6% 28 4.3% 24 4.3% 12 7.9% 20
Wisconsin 5.3% 23 5.6% 26 5.0% 23 4.8% 22 4.7% 33 4.7% 35 4.7% 17 8.4% 31
Wyoming 4.1% 8 4.5% 10 3.9% 9 3.7% 8 3.3% 8 2.9% 4 3.1% 2 5.6% 4

% MN above or
-21.4% -18.7% -16.2% -17.8% -11.6% 0.0% -6.2% -15.0%
below U.S. avg.

66 On Our Way to Average


Table B-5: Employment Growth Since 2001
Employment growth since 2001 calculated from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis data compiled from "Economagic" subscription website.
Based on a comparison of the average for all 12 months of the year (except for 2009, which is based on the average for the first 11 months) to
the average for all 12 months of 2001.
2002 State 2003 State 2004 State 2005 State 2006 State 2007 State 2008 State 2009 State
United States -0.3% Rank 0.6% Rank 1.7% Rank 3.5% Rank 5.5% Rank 6.6% Rank 6.2% Rank 2.1% Rank
Alabama -2.0% 48 -2.2% 48 -1.4% 44 0.4% 39 2.7% 35 3.2% 36 0.9% 42 -6.2% 49
Alaska 1.1% 5 3.0% 4 4.3% 7 6.3% 9 8.3% 11 9.4% 12 10.5% 12 9.1% 7
Arizona 2.4% 1 4.9% 2 8.0% 2 11.4% 2 16.1% 2 19.0% 3 20.7% 2 17.7% 2
Arkansas 0.9% 7 0.2% 23 2.3% 17 6.2% 11 7.6% 15 8.2% 16 8.9% 15 6.4% 12
California -0.2% 27 -0.1% 28 0.8% 28 2.8% 23 4.5% 24 5.5% 24 5.2% 24 0.7% 30
Colorado 0.0% 20 1.6% 12 3.9% 9 6.3% 10 9.7% 8 12.1% 7 12.7% 6 8.8% 9
Connecticut 0.1% 18 -0.2% 31 0.2% 34 1.2% 34 2.8% 33 3.9% 30 4.1% 30 2.2% 23
Delaware -0.7% 36 -0.2% 29 1.0% 26 2.8% 22 4.7% 22 5.3% 25 4.4% 27 -0.9% 38
Florida 0.5% 12 2.1% 8 4.9% 5 8.9% 4 12.6% 4 14.3% 4 13.6% 5 8.4% 10
Georgia 0.5% 9 1.5% 13 3.3% 11 6.3% 8 9.6% 9 11.3% 9 10.5% 11 4.6% 18
Hawaii -0.8% 40 0.6% 20 1.5% 20 4.1% 16 6.4% 17 6.7% 19 6.7% 20 2.0% 25
Idaho 0.2% 17 1.1% 15 3.3% 12 7.6% 5 10.7% 5 12.6% 6 11.4% 9 7.3% 11
Illinois -2.4% 49 -3.2% 49 -2.4% 49 -0.9% 47 2.3% 36 3.8% 32 2.5% 38 -2.3% 40
Indiana -0.6% 35 -0.8% 38 -0.8% 41 0.2% 40 1.8% 41 1.8% 42 0.6% 44 -5.2% 48
Iowa -0.1% 23 -2.0% 45 -2.1% 47 -0.6% 45 1.7% 42 2.1% 41 2.4% 39 0.7% 31
Kansas 0.2% 16 1.3% 14 2.5% 16 3.4% 20 4.6% 23 5.7% 22 6.2% 22 5.4% 15
Kentucky -0.7% 37 -0.2% 33 0.1% 37 1.1% 35 3.1% 32 3.9% 31 3.2% 33 0.3% 34
Louisiana -1.5% 47 -1.2% 40 0.3% 33 0.8% 37 -0.8% 47 1.4% 44 3.2% 34 0.6% 32
Maine 0.0% 19 0.0% 27 0.5% 32 1.5% 32 2.8% 34 3.0% 38 2.8% 36 -0.8% 37
Maryland 0.8% 8 1.1% 17 1.8% 19 3.6% 18 5.9% 18 6.3% 21 5.7% 23 1.4% 28
Massachusetts -1.0% 41 -2.0% 46 -2.2% 48 -1.9% 49 -0.9% 48 -0.4% 48 -1.0% 48 -4.0% 44
Michigan -3.1% 50 -4.1% 50 -3.9% 50 -3.2% 50 -3.2% 50 -4.3% 50 -7.3% 50 -14.4% 50
Minnesota -0.2% 26 -0.2% 30 -0.1% 38 0.1% 41 0.7% 45 0.7% 46 0.6% 43 -1.2% 39
Mississippi -1.2% 43 -0.3% 35 0.2% 36 -0.6% 46 -1.6% 49 -0.4% 49 -0.5% 47 -4.2% 45
Missouri -1.3% 46 -1.9% 44 -1.8% 46 -1.1% 48 0.0% 46 0.1% 47 -1.3% 49 -4.5% 47
Montana -0.6% 34 0.5% 21 1.9% 18 3.8% 17 6.6% 16 8.2% 15 8.0% 17 4.7% 17
Nebraska -0.5% 32 0.6% 19 1.3% 21 1.3% 33 2.1% 38 3.2% 35 4.0% 31 1.4% 27
Nevada 2.3% 2 4.9% 1 8.3% 1 12.3% 1 17.3% 1 20.9% 1 23.0% 1 18.5% 1
New Hampshire -0.1% 25 -0.2% 32 1.1% 24 2.4% 27 3.9% 29 4.6% 27 4.4% 26 1.7% 26
New Jersey 0.0% 22 -0.2% 34 0.6% 31 2.5% 26 3.7% 30 3.7% 33 3.2% 32 0.4% 33
New Mexico 0.3% 15 1.8% 10 3.5% 10 6.0% 12 9.2% 10 11.1% 10 12.0% 7 8.8% 8
New York -0.3% 28 -0.5% 36 0.8% 29 2.6% 24 4.0% 28 4.5% 28 4.7% 25 2.2% 24
North Carolina 0.0% 21 1.1% 16 2.6% 15 4.5% 15 7.8% 13 9.2% 14 8.3% 16 3.3% 20
North Dakota -0.8% 39 0.0% 25 1.0% 27 2.2% 28 4.0% 27 5.5% 23 6.5% 21 4.4% 19
Ohio -1.1% 42 -1.2% 41 -1.2% 43 -0.4% 44 1.0% 44 1.3% 45 0.3% 46 -4.2% 46
Oklahoma -0.8% 38 -1.0% 39 -0.6% 40 0.6% 38 2.1% 37 3.3% 34 4.2% 29 2.9% 21
Oregon -0.4% 30 -0.7% 37 0.2% 35 2.1% 29 5.0% 21 6.7% 20 7.1% 19 2.4% 22
Pennsylvania -0.1% 24 -1.3% 43 -0.2% 39 1.1% 36 2.1% 39 2.5% 39 3.0% 35 0.1% 35
Rhode Island 1.0% 6 2.4% 6 1.0% 25 2.5% 25 4.2% 26 4.2% 29 0.5% 45 -3.9% 43
South Carolina -0.5% 31 1.1% 18 2.9% 13 5.1% 14 7.7% 14 9.3% 13 9.2% 14 5.3% 16
South Dakota 0.5% 10 1.9% 9 2.8% 14 3.6% 19 5.5% 20 7.3% 18 7.8% 18 6.2% 13
Tennessee -0.5% 33 0.1% 24 0.6% 30 1.6% 31 4.2% 25 5.1% 26 4.3% 28 -0.4% 36
Texas 1.2% 4 2.4% 7 3.9% 8 5.8% 13 8.0% 12 9.8% 11 11.4% 10 10.9% 5
Utah 0.5% 14 2.8% 5 6.4% 3 10.7% 3 15.6% 3 19.1% 2 20.5% 3 17.0% 3
Vermont 0.5% 11 0.4% 22 1.2% 22 2.0% 30 3.7% 31 3.0% 37 2.6% 37 1.2% 29
Virginia 1.4% 3 3.1% 3 5.0% 4 7.3% 7 10.0% 7 11.5% 8 11.9% 8 9.5% 6
Washington 0.5% 13 1.7% 11 4.7% 6 7.5% 6 10.2% 6 13.0% 5 14.9% 4 12.9% 4
West Virginia -1.3% 45 -2.2% 47 -1.6% 45 0.0% 42 1.9% 40 2.5% 40 1.7% 40 -3.9% 42
Wisconsin -1.3% 44 -1.2% 42 -1.0% 42 -0.4% 43 1.0% 43 1.7% 43 1.4% 41 -2.5% 41
Wyoming -0.4% 29 0.0% 26 1.1% 23 2.9% 21 5.7% 19 7.9% 17 9.3% 13 6.0% 14

Gap between
0.1% -0.8% -1.8% -3.4% -4.8% -5.9% -5.5% -3.3%
MN & U.S. avg.

On Our Way to Average 67


Table B-6: Poverty Rate
Poverty rate from U.S. Census Bureau "American Community Survey" (http://tinyurl.com/l3we7x)

2002 State 2003 State 2004 State 2005 State 2006 State 2007 State 2008 State
United States 12.4% Rank 12.7% Rank 13.1% Rank 13.3% Rank 13.3% Rank 13.0% Rank 13.2% Rank
Alabama 16.6% 46 17.1% 45 16.1% 43 17.0% 44 16.6% 42 16.9% 44 15.7% 42
Alaska 7.7% 4 9.7% 10 8.2% 3 11.2% 17 10.9% 13 8.9% 7 8.4% 3
Arizona 14.2% 37 15.4% 41 14.2% 35 14.2% 36 14.2% 36 14.2% 37 14.7% 38
Arkansas 15.3% 43 16.0% 42 17.9% 46 17.2% 45 17.3% 46 17.9% 47 17.3% 47
California 13.0% 33 13.4% 32 13.3% 32 13.3% 30 13.1% 29 12.4% 29 13.3% 30
Colorado 9.7% 10 9.8% 12 11.1% 20 11.1% 15 12.0% 21 12.0% 22 11.4% 19
Connecticut 7.5% 2 8.1% 3 7.6% 2 8.3% 3 8.3% 3 7.9% 2 9.3% 6
Delaware 8.2% 6 8.7% 6 9.9% 11 10.4% 12 11.1% 16 10.5% 13 10.0% 11
Florida 12.8% 32 13.1% 31 12.2% 25 12.8% 27 12.6% 25 12.1% 25 13.2% 29
Georgia 12.7% 31 13.4% 33 14.8% 39 14.4% 37 14.7% 38 14.3% 38 14.7% 37
Hawaii 10.1% 13 10.9% 20 10.6% 14 9.8% 7 9.3% 5 8.0% 3 9.1% 5
Idaho 13.8% 36 13.8% 36 14.5% 38 13.9% 34 12.6% 25 12.1% 25 12.6% 27
Illinois 11.6% 25 11.3% 24 11.9% 23 12.0% 23 12.3% 23 11.9% 21 12.2% 24
Indiana 10.9% 17 10.6% 16 10.8% 16 12.2% 24 12.7% 27 12.3% 28 13.1% 28
Iowa 11.2% 22 10.1% 13 9.9% 10 10.9% 13 11.0% 14 11.0% 16 11.5% 20
Kansas 12.1% 29 10.8% 18 10.5% 13 11.7% 20 12.4% 24 11.2% 17 11.3% 17
Kentucky 15.6% 44 17.4% 46 17.4% 45 16.8% 43 17.0% 44 17.3% 46 17.3% 48
Louisiana 18.8% 48 20.3% 50 19.4% 49 19.8% 49 19.0% 49 18.6% 49 17.3% 49
Maine 11.1% 21 10.5% 15 12.3% 27 12.6% 26 12.9% 28 12.0% 22 12.3% 25
Maryland 8.1% 5 8.2% 4 8.8% 6 8.2% 2 7.8% 1 8.3% 4 8.1% 2
Massachusetts 8.9% 9 9.4% 8 9.2% 8 10.3% 11 9.9% 9 9.9% 10 10.0% 10
Michigan 11.0% 20 11.4% 26 12.3% 26 13.2% 29 13.5% 32 14.0% 35 14.4% 35
Minnesota 8.5% 8 7.8% 2 8.3% 4 9.2% 5 9.8% 8 9.5% 8 9.6% 9
Mississippi 19.9% 50 19.9% 49 21.6% 50 21.3% 50 21.1% 50 20.6% 50 21.2% 50
Missouri 11.9% 28 11.7% 29 11.8% 22 13.3% 30 13.6% 33 13.0% 31 13.4% 32
Montana 14.6% 41 14.2% 40 14.2% 34 14.4% 37 13.6% 33 14.1% 36 14.8% 39
Nebraska 11.0% 18 10.8% 19 11.0% 18 10.9% 13 11.5% 19 11.2% 17 10.8% 15
Nevada 11.8% 26 11.5% 27 12.6% 29 11.1% 15 10.3% 10 10.7% 14 11.3% 16
New Hampshire 6.4% 1 7.7% 1 7.6% 1 7.5% 1 8.0% 2 7.1% 1 7.6% 1
New Jersey 7.5% 3 8.4% 5 8.5% 5 8.7% 4 8.7% 4 8.6% 5 8.7% 4
New Mexico 18.9% 49 18.6% 48 19.3% 48 18.5% 48 18.5% 48 18.1% 48 17.1% 46
New York 13.1% 34 13.5% 34 14.2% 36 13.8% 33 14.2% 36 13.7% 34 13.6% 33
North Carolina 14.2% 38 14.0% 38 15.2% 40 15.1% 39 14.7% 38 14.3% 38 14.6% 36
North Dakota 12.5% 30 11.7% 28 12.1% 24 11.2% 17 11.4% 18 12.1% 25 12.0% 22
Ohio 11.9% 27 12.1% 30 12.5% 28 13.0% 28 13.3% 30 13.1% 32 13.4% 31
Oklahoma 15.0% 42 16.1% 43 15.3% 41 16.5% 42 17.0% 44 15.9% 41 15.9% 44
Oregon 13.2% 35 13.9% 37 14.1% 33 14.1% 35 13.3% 30 12.9% 30 13.6% 34
Pennsylvania 10.5% 15 10.9% 21 11.7% 21 11.9% 21 12.1% 22 11.6% 20 12.1% 23
Rhode Island 10.7% 16 11.3% 25 12.8% 30 12.3% 25 11.1% 16 12.0% 22 11.7% 21
South Carolina 14.2% 39 14.1% 39 15.7% 42 15.6% 41 15.7% 40 15.0% 40 15.7% 41
South Dakota 11.4% 23 11.1% 23 11.0% 19 13.6% 32 13.6% 33 13.1% 32 12.5% 26
Tennessee 14.5% 40 13.8% 35 14.5% 37 15.5% 40 16.2% 41 15.9% 41 15.5% 40
Texas 15.6% 45 16.3% 44 16.6% 44 17.6% 46 16.9% 43 16.3% 43 15.8% 43
Utah 10.5% 14 10.6% 17 10.9% 17 10.2% 9 10.6% 12 9.7% 9 9.6% 8
Vermont 8.5% 7 9.7% 9 9.0% 7 11.5% 19 10.3% 10 10.1% 12 10.6% 14
Virginia 9.9% 12 9.0% 7 9.5% 9 10.0% 8 9.6% 7 9.9% 10 10.2% 12
Washington 11.4% 24 11.0% 22 13.1% 31 11.9% 21 11.8% 20 11.4% 19 11.3% 18
West Virginia 17.2% 47 18.5% 47 17.9% 47 18.0% 47 17.3% 46 16.9% 44 17.0% 45
Wisconsin 9.7% 11 10.5% 14 10.7% 15 10.2% 9 11.0% 14 10.8% 15 10.4% 13
Wyoming 11.0% 19 9.7% 11 10.3% 12 9.5% 6 9.4% 6 8.7% 6 9.4% 7
% MN above or
-31.3% -38.6% -36.1% -30.8% -26.3% -26.9% -27.0%
below U.S. average

68 On Our Way to Average


Table B-7: Homeownership rate
Homeownership rate compiled from U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey data (http://tinyurl.com/l3we7x)

2002 State 2003 State 2004 State 2005 State 2006 State 2007 State 2008 State
United States 66.4 Rank 66.8 Rank 67.1 Rank 66.9 Rank 67.3 Rank 67.2 Rank 66.6 Rank
Alabama 72.5 7 71.7 12 71.9 11 70.5 16 71.8 11 70.9 14 71.0 11
Alaska 64.2 42 62.4 46 65.5 40 63.0 45 64.5 45 63.0 46 65.0 42
Arizona 68.6 30 68.3 32 68.7 31 68.2 33 68.5 34 68.1 35 68.1 34
Arkansas 67.9 33 67.8 35 65.5 41 67.8 37 68.3 35 67.7 38 67.4 37
California 57.0 48 58.1 48 58.6 49 58.4 49 58.4 49 58.0 49 57.0 49
Colorado 68.0 32 70.4 15 68.6 32 67.8 35 68.7 31 68.8 30 67.5 35
Connecticut 69.0 27 67.7 37 69.7 20 69.5 24 69.5 28 70.0 22 69.0 29
Delaware 73.4 5 72.8 8 72.9 7 72.4 6 74.4 4 72.5 8 73.5 4
Florida 70.4 16 70.2 18 70.5 14 69.6 23 70.3 19 70.6 17 69.7 20
Georgia 67.9 34 68.3 33 67.7 38 66.8 40 67.7 38 68.5 32 67.4 36
Hawaii 56.1 49 56.6 49 58.9 48 59.7 48 59.5 48 59.6 48 59.1 48
Idaho 74.6 2 74.4 3 72.4 10 71.4 11 71.3 13 72.1 9 70.9 12
Illinois 67.6 37 68.6 30 69.2 27 69.9 21 69.9 25 70.1 20 69.3 25
Indiana 71.8 9 71.8 10 71.8 12 72.0 7 72.1 7 71.6 12 71.8 9
Iowa 72.7 6 73.6 5 73.8 4 73.1 4 73.3 5 73.7 6 72.9 5
Kansas 69.6 20 68.6 29 69.5 24 69.5 25 69.9 21 70.2 18 69.4 23
Kentucky 70.8 15 70.2 17 70.1 15 70.6 14 70.7 16 70.7 15 69.5 21
Louisiana 65.7 40 67.1 39 66.2 39 67.8 36 68.5 33 67.9 37 68.5 31
Maine 72.0 8 70.6 14 72.9 6 71.8 8 72.8 6 74.0 5 72.1 8
Maryland 69.1 26 69.4 23 69.5 25 69.0 30 69.4 29 69.9 25 69.5 22
Massachusetts 64.0 44 64.5 41 64.6 43 64.0 43 64.9 43 65.1 43 64.5 44
Michigan 74.0 4 74.5 2 74.7 2 74.7 3 75.2 2 74.8 3 74.0 2
Minnesota 74.9 1 76.6 1 75.3 1 75.8 1 76.3 1 75.2 1 74.7 1
Mississippi 71.4 13 70.1 20 69.6 23 69.9 20 70.7 14 71.3 13 70.1 17
Missouri 70.0 19 70.4 16 70.8 13 70.6 13 70.7 15 70.7 16 70.1 16
Montana 70.2 18 68.9 28 68.5 33 69.1 28 69.9 23 69.6 27 68.5 32
Nebraska 67.7 36 67.8 36 68.4 34 68.2 31 67.9 37 68.8 31 69.3 24
Nevada 60.1 47 61.9 47 61.2 47 60.7 47 62.0 47 60.4 47 59.7 47
New Hampshire 71.7 11 72.9 7 72.6 9 73.0 5 72.1 8 74.1 4 72.3 6
New Jersey 65.9 39 66.7 40 68.1 36 67.3 39 67.3 39 67.3 39 67.0 39
New Mexico 69.3 24 69.5 22 69.3 26 69.3 26 69.7 26 70.0 23 69.2 27
New York 53.8 50 54.2 50 55.6 50 55.3 50 55.6 50 55.5 50 55.3 50
North Carolina 68.6 31 68.3 31 69.0 30 68.2 32 68.1 36 68.3 33 68.2 33
North Dakota 65.9 38 67.2 38 68.1 37 67.5 38 66.7 40 65.7 41 66.6 40
Ohio 69.3 23 70.2 19 69.8 19 69.9 19 70.0 20 69.7 26 69.0 28
Oklahoma 68.7 28 68.0 34 68.2 35 67.9 34 68.6 32 68.2 34 67.2 38
Oregon 63.7 45 63.2 44 63.0 45 63.8 44 64.8 44 64.6 44 64.3 45
Pennsylvania 71.7 12 71.8 11 72.8 8 71.5 10 71.7 12 71.6 11 70.8 13
Rhode Island 61.4 46 63.0 45 61.8 46 62.7 46 63.0 46 63.6 45 62.4 46
South Carolina 70.2 17 69.8 21 69.7 21 70.1 18 70.3 18 70.0 21 70.6 14
South Dakota 69.4 21 69.2 25 69.1 29 69.0 29 69.2 30 68.1 36 69.2 26
Tennessee 69.2 25 69.3 24 70.0 16 69.3 27 69.9 22 69.9 24 69.8 19
Texas 64.2 43 64.4 42 65.1 42 64.7 41 65.2 42 65.2 42 64.9 43
Utah 71.7 10 73.3 6 69.7 22 70.6 15 72.0 9 71.7 10 71.7 10
Vermont 71.0 14 71.2 13 73.3 5 71.1 12 71.9 10 72.8 7 72.2 7
Virginia 67.8 35 69.1 26 69.2 28 69.6 22 69.9 24 69.5 28 68.7 30
Washington 64.3 41 64.3 43 64.1 44 64.7 42 65.5 41 66.1 40 65.3 41
West Virginia 74.1 3 73.9 4 74.0 3 75.4 2 74.7 3 74.9 2 73.7 3
Wisconsin 68.7 29 69.1 27 69.9 18 70.1 17 70.5 17 70.1 19 70.1 15
Wyoming 69.3 22 72.4 9 69.9 17 71.5 9 69.5 27 69.3 29 70.1 18
% MN above or
12.7% 14.8% 12.2% 13.3% 13.4% 12.0% 12.0%
below U.S. avg.

On Our Way to Average 69


Table B-8: Percent of Population Covered by Health Insurance
Percent of population covered by health insurance from U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey
(http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/historic/hihistt4.xls).

2002 State 2003 State 2004 State 2005 State 2006 State 2007 State 2008 State
United States 85.3 Rank 84.9 Rank 85.1 Rank 84.7 Rank 84.2 Rank 84.7 Rank 84.6 Rank
Alabama 87.8 22 86.8 25 87.5 20 85.5 28 84.8 29 88.0 19 88.1 16
Alaska 81.5 47 81.3 45 83.5 40 82.8 40 83.5 34 81.8 43 80.2 46
Arizona 83.7 39 83.3 37 83.3 41 80.4 47 79.1 46 81.7 45 80.5 45
Arkansas 84.0 37 82.9 39 83.8 38 82.5 42 81.1 42 83.9 35 82.2 40
California 82.3 45 82.1 42 82.0 44 81.2 46 81.2 41 81.8 43 81.4 43
Colorado 84.9 34 83.4 36 84.1 35 83.4 36 82.8 36 83.6 36 84.1 36
Connecticut 90.2 9 89.9 8 89.1 13 89.1 12 90.6 6 90.6 7 90.0 8
Delaware 90.6 3 89.6 12 86.7 25 87.8 19 87.9 17 88.8 13 89.2 11
Florida 83.3 41 82.5 40 80.6 48 79.8 48 78.8 47 79.8 48 80.0 47
Georgia 84.3 36 84.0 33 83.1 43 81.7 45 82.3 38 82.5 41 82.2 40
Hawaii 90.2 9 90.5 3 91.7 1 91.4 3 91.2 2 92.5 2 92.2 2
Idaho 82.7 44 81.9 43 85.5 32 85.2 31 84.6 30 86.1 29 84.4 34
Illinois 86.5 29 86.1 29 87.0 23 86.3 27 86.0 26 86.6 25 87.1 25
Indiana 87.7 23 87.1 23 86.2 30 86.4 25 88.2 14 88.6 16 87.7 20
Iowa 91.0 2 89.1 17 90.8 4 91.7 2 89.5 11 90.7 6 90.5 5
Kansas 90.1 11 89.7 11 89.3 12 89.7 8 87.7 19 87.3 21 87.9 18
Kentucky 86.9 27 86.9 24 86.4 29 87.7 20 84.4 32 86.4 26 84.0 37
Louisiana 82.2 46 80.5 47 84.0 36 82.3 43 78.1 48 81.5 46 79.9 48
Maine 89.0 18 90.0 7 91.1 3 89.7 8 90.7 5 91.2 5 89.6 10
Maryland 87.7 23 86.7 26 86.6 27 86.6 24 86.2 25 86.3 28 87.9 18
Massachusetts 90.5 6 89.8 9 88.7 17 90.8 4 89.6 10 94.6 1 94.5 1
Michigan 89.1 16 89.8 9 88.9 15 89.7 8 89.5 11 88.4 17 88.3 13
Minnesota 92.6 1 91.7 1 91.5 2 92.1 1 90.8 4 91.7 4 91.3 3
Mississippi 83.9 38 82.4 41 83.3 41 83.1 37 79.2 45 81.2 47 82.1 42
Missouri 88.9 19 89.2 16 88.1 18 88.3 17 86.7 21 87.4 20 87.4 24
Montana 85.4 33 81.1 46 81.8 45 84.4 33 82.9 35 84.4 33 83.9 38
Nebraska 90.5 6 89.5 13 89.6 9 89.5 11 87.7 19 86.8 23 88.1 16
Nevada 80.6 48 81.8 44 81.6 46 82.9 39 80.4 44 82.8 40 81.2 44
New Hampshire 90.5 6 90.3 4 89.9 5 90.3 6 88.5 13 89.5 11 89.8 9
New Jersey 86.6 28 86.6 27 86.1 31 85.5 28 84.5 31 84.2 34 85.9 29
New Mexico 79.4 49 78.1 49 80.2 49 79.7 49 77.1 49 77.5 49 76.3 49
New York 84.7 35 85.3 30 87.4 21 87.0 22 86.0 26 86.8 23 85.9 29
North Carolina 83.6 40 83.1 38 85.2 33 84.7 32 82.1 39 83.6 36 84.6 33
North Dakota 90.0 12 90.3 4 89.9 5 89.0 13 87.8 18 90.0 9 88.2 14
Ohio 88.9 19 88.5 19 89.4 11 88.6 14 89.9 8 88.3 18 88.5 12
Oklahoma 83.0 43 80.0 48 80.8 47 82.1 44 81.1 42 82.2 42 86.0 28
Oregon 85.9 31 83.5 35 83.7 39 84.4 33 82.1 39 83.2 39 83.7 39
Pennsylvania 89.5 15 89.3 15 89.1 13 90.3 6 90.0 7 90.5 8 90.1 7
Rhode Island 90.6 3 90.1 6 89.7 8 88.5 15 91.4 1 89.2 12 88.2 14
South Carolina 87.9 21 86.3 28 85.2 33 82.7 41 84.1 33 83.6 36 84.2 35
South Dakota 89.1 16 88.6 18 88.8 16 88.3 17 88.2 14 89.9 10 87.5 23
Tennessee 89.6 14 87.3 22 86.9 24 86.4 25 86.3 24 85.6 31 84.9 32
Texas 74.6 50 76.0 50 75.8 50 76.4 50 75.5 50 74.8 50 74.9 50
Utah 87.3 25 87.7 20 86.7 25 83.6 35 82.6 37 87.2 22 86.8 26
Vermont 89.7 13 90.8 2 89.5 10 88.5 15 89.8 9 88.8 13 90.8 4
Virginia 87.3 25 87.5 21 86.6 27 87.2 21 86.7 21 85.2 32 87.6 21
Washington 86.1 30 84.7 32 87.6 19 86.7 23 88.2 14 88.7 15 87.6 21
West Virginia 85.7 32 83.6 34 83.9 37 83.1 37 86.5 23 85.9 30 85.0 31
Wisconsin 90.6 3 89.5 13 89.9 5 90.7 5 91.2 2 91.8 3 90.4 6
Wyoming 83.2 42 84.9 31 87.2 22 85.4 30 85.4 28 86.4 26 86.4 27
% MN above or
8.6% 8.0% 7.5% 8.7% 7.8% 8.3% 7.9%
below U.S. avg.

70 On Our Way to Average


Table B-9: Pupil-Teacher Ratio in Public Schools
Estimated pupil-teacher ratio in public elementary and secondary schools, from CQ Press Annual "State Rankings" report
based on data from National Education Association. Data corresponds to the Fall of the school year (e.g., 2002 data is for
the school year that began in the Fall of 2002). CQ Press data for 2007 is not available.
2002 State 2003 State 2004 State 2005 State 2006 State 2008 State
United States 15.7 Rank 15.8 Rank 15.6 Rank 15.6 Rank 15.4 Rank 15.3 Rank
Alabama 15.5 29 15.2 28 15.7 31 14.9 26 14.8 26 14.9 30
Alaska 16.6 39 16.7 40 16.8 41 16.7 41 16.6 41 16.5 40
Arizona 20.9 50 21.2 48 21.5 49 21.8 49 22.0 49 21.2 49
Arkansas 14.0 14 13.6 13 13.8 13 13.5 11 13.3 11 12.9 10
California 19.8 48 19.8 46 19.9 47 20.0 48 20.7 48 20.7 48
Colorado 16.6 39 16.2 36 17.1 42 16.6 40 16.9 42 17.1 42
Connecticut 13.7 10 13.3 10 13.3 9 13.1 8 13.5 14 13.2 11
Delaware 15.2 25 15.1 26 14.9 23 15.6 32 15.2 31 15.4 35
Florida 18.0 44 18.0 43 16.6 39 16.4 39 15.9 38 14.9 30
Georgia 15.6 31 15.7 33 14.8 22 14.8 23 14.4 21 14.0 20
Hawaii 16.5 38 16.3 38 16.1 36 16.0 36 15.7 36 15.4 35
Idaho 17.9 43 17.7 42 17.6 43 17.6 43 18.1 44 18.3 44
Illinois 15.5 29 15.4 31 15.7 31 15.4 31 16.1 39 15.9 39
Indiana 16.4 37 16.6 39 16.7 40 17.1 42 16.9 42 17.0 41
Iowa 14.0 14 13.8 16 13.8 13 13.7 15 13.6 16 13.6 16
Kansas 14.4 18 14.4 19 14.3 18 14.4 19 13.7 17 13.8 17
Kentucky 16.2 36 17.0 41 15.8 34 16.2 37 15.6 34 15.3 33
Louisiana 14.5 19 14.4 19 14.2 17 14.8 23 14.6 22 14.3 24
Maine 12.6 3 12.5 5 12.7 5 12.5 4 11.9 3 11.3 3
Maryland 15.6 31 15.3 30 15.4 29 15.1 29 14.3 20 13.9 18
Massachusetts 17.6 42 13.3 10 15.0 26 14.3 18 13.2 10 12.7 9
Michigan 17.0 41 NA NA 17.9 44 17.8 44 15.8 37 18.0 43
Minnesota 15.2 25 16.2 36 16.1 36 16.3 38 16.5 40 15.6 37
Mississippi 16.1 35 15.9 34 15.8 34 15.7 34 14.8 26 14.3 24
Missouri 13.3 8 13.7 14 13.3 9 13.6 13 13.4 13 13.4 13
Montana 14.3 17 14.4 19 14.3 18 14.1 16 13.7 17 13.4 13
Nebraska 13.7 10 13.7 14 13.8 13 13.6 13 13.5 14 13.4 13
Nevada 19.0 45 19.2 44 19.4 46 19.0 45 19.3 47 19.3 46
New Hampshire 13.9 12 13.5 12 13.5 11 13.3 10 13.0 7 12.6 8
New Jersey 13.2 7 13.0 7 12.7 5 12.6 5 12.1 4 12.0 5
New Mexico 15.1 24 15.1 26 15.0 26 14.9 26 15.2 31 15.0 32
New York 12.6 3 12.5 5 12.7 5 12.3 3 12.3 5 13.3 12
North Carolina 15.6 31 15.6 32 15.7 31 14.7 20 14.7 23 14.4 26
North Dakota 13.3 8 13.2 9 12.9 8 12.8 7 12.6 6 12.1 6
Ohio 14.7 22 1.5 1 14.9 23 15.6 32 15.6 34 15.8 38
Oklahoma 15.4 28 16.0 35 16.1 36 15.2 30 15.1 30 15.3 33
Oregon 19.1 46 20.1 47 19.9 47 19.5 47 19.2 46 19.4 47
Pennsylvania 15.3 27 15.0 25 15.3 28 14.7 20 14.8 26 14.5 27
Rhode Island 11.8 2 11.7 3 11.3 2 11.1 2 10.9 2 10.4 2
South Carolina 14.7 22 14.6 23 14.6 21 14.8 23 14.7 23 14.2 22
South Dakota 13.9 12 13.8 16 13.6 12 13.5 11 13.3 11 13.9 18
Tennessee 15.6 31 15.2 28 15.6 30 15.7 34 15.4 33 14.0 20
Texas 14.6 20 14.6 23 14.9 23 14.9 26 14.7 23 14.5 27
Utah 20.8 49 22.0 49 22.6 50 23.0 50 22.3 50 21.4 50
Vermont 11.3 1 10.9 2 10.9 1 10.5 1 10.2 1 9.8 1
Virginia 12.6 3 12.1 4 11.8 3 13.2 9 13.1 8 11.6 4
Washington 19.4 47 19.3 45 19.3 45 19.3 46 19.1 45 19.0 45
West Virginia 14.1 16 14.1 18 14.1 16 14.1 16 14.1 19 14.2 22
Wisconsin 14.6 20 14.4 19 14.4 20 14.7 20 14.8 26 14.7 29
Wyoming 13.0 6 13.1 8 12.6 4 12.6 5 13.1 8 12.4 7
% MN above or
-3.2% 2.5% 3.2% 4.5% 7.1% 2.0%
below U.S. avg.

On Our Way to Average 71


Table B-10: Per Capita State & Local Spending for Education (constant FY '07 dollars)
Per capita state and local government expenditures for education based on data from U.S. Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/govs/
estimate/). Direct general expenditures for higher, secondary, elementary, and "other" education. Includes capital outlays. Converted to constant
FY 2007 dollars based on the Implicit Price Deflator for State and Local Government Purchases. Data for FY 2003 is not available.
2002 State 2004 State 2005 State 2006 State 2007 State
United States 2,603 Rank 2,630 Rank 2,596 Rank 2,557 Rank 2,578 Rank
Alabama 2,344 37 2,461 34 2,422 33 2,492 27 2,536 25
Alaska 4,130 1 4,089 1 3,930 1 3,806 1 3,826 2
Arizona 2,033 49 2,059 48 2,031 48 2,001 49 2,042 47
Arkansas 2,230 45 2,328 39 2,377 38 2,385 37 2,394 34
California 2,771 16 2,784 13 2,748 14 2,680 16 2,738 11
Colorado 2,520 29 2,479 33 2,418 35 2,412 31 2,384 38
Connecticut 2,868 9 2,960 8 2,910 8 2,983 7 3,059 7
Delaware 3,034 4 3,119 7 3,179 5 3,260 5 3,144 5
Florida 1,951 50 1,996 49 2,014 49 2,055 47 2,171 46
Georgia 2,548 28 2,538 29 2,437 31 2,394 34 2,442 30
Hawaii 2,316 39 2,336 38 2,331 40 2,393 35 2,536 26
Idaho 2,275 41 2,229 43 2,166 46 2,062 46 1,985 49
Illinois 2,601 24 2,656 23 2,511 27 2,418 30 2,388 36
Indiana 2,498 30 2,577 26 2,603 22 2,478 29 2,441 31
Iowa 2,781 14 2,804 12 2,737 15 2,747 10 2,715 14
Kansas 2,554 27 2,670 21 2,549 26 2,561 22 2,545 24
Kentucky 2,106 47 2,202 45 2,204 43 2,171 43 2,299 42
Louisiana 2,255 42 2,256 42 2,223 42 2,255 42 2,296 43
Maine 2,425 35 2,573 27 2,432 32 2,393 36 2,350 39
Maryland 2,845 10 2,657 22 2,704 17 2,692 14 2,786 10
Massachusetts 2,632 20 2,676 20 2,784 12 2,769 9 2,596 21
Michigan 2,979 7 3,142 6 2,995 7 2,737 12 2,807 9
Minnesota 2,828 12 2,766 14 2,659 19 2,660 17 2,679 15
Mississippi 2,248 44 2,286 41 2,250 41 2,326 41 2,300 41
Missouri 2,342 38 2,218 44 2,170 45 2,144 45 2,177 45
Montana 2,481 33 2,456 35 2,356 39 2,395 33 2,439 32
Nebraska 2,773 15 2,727 16 2,628 20 2,589 21 2,666 16
Nevada 2,140 46 2,103 47 2,078 47 2,164 44 2,223 44
New Hampshire 2,418 36 2,505 31 2,476 28 2,512 26 2,481 28
New Jersey 3,027 5 3,369 2 3,425 3 3,370 4 3,422 4
New Mexico 2,844 11 2,897 9 2,839 9 2,820 8 2,826 8
New York 3,137 3 3,146 5 3,099 6 3,094 6 3,132 6
North Carolina 2,313 40 2,377 37 2,394 36 2,365 39 2,387 37
North Dakota 2,607 23 2,818 11 2,803 10 2,742 11 2,734 12
Ohio 2,607 22 2,718 17 2,673 18 2,630 20 2,611 20
Oklahoma 2,496 31 2,316 40 2,382 37 2,358 40 2,405 33
Oregon 2,700 17 2,482 32 2,421 34 2,374 38 2,316 40
Pennsylvania 2,488 32 2,735 15 2,720 16 2,659 18 2,655 19
Rhode Island 2,576 25 2,678 19 2,791 11 2,681 15 2,656 18
South Carolina 2,573 26 2,520 30 2,557 25 2,560 23 2,587 22
South Dakota 2,249 43 2,161 46 2,170 44 2,048 48 2,030 48
Tennessee 2,056 48 1,941 50 1,913 50 1,882 50 1,859 50
Texas 2,651 19 2,605 25 2,577 24 2,513 25 2,475 29
Utah 2,803 13 2,618 24 2,457 29 2,407 32 2,388 35
Vermont 2,990 6 3,347 4 3,423 4 3,428 3 3,471 3
Virginia 2,622 21 2,539 28 2,593 23 2,643 19 2,724 13
Washington 2,676 18 2,706 18 2,617 21 2,529 24 2,564 23
West Virginia 2,463 34 2,436 36 2,446 30 2,483 28 2,510 27
Wisconsin 2,906 8 2,852 10 2,773 13 2,698 13 2,657 17
Wyoming 3,237 2 3,359 3 3,510 2 3,461 2 3,841 1
% MN above or below
8.7% 5.2% 2.4% 4.0% 3.9%
U.S. average

72 On Our Way to Average


Table B-11: Students At or Above "Basic" in Math and Reading
Average number of students per 100 students achieving at the "basic" level or above based on NAEP reports

†These states did not report 8th grade math data for 2000. Because of this, for these states the 8th grade reading component of the 2002 value reported in this table is based on 2003 data rather than on
*These states did not report 4th grade math data for 2000. Because of this, for these states the 4th grade reading component of the 2002 value reported in this table is based on 2003 data rather than on
(http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/). The amounts reported here are based on the average for: 4th grade
math, 8th grade math, 4th grade reading, and 8th grade reading.
2002 State 2003 State 2005 State 2007 State
‡These states did not report 4th grade reading data for 2002. Because of this, for these states the 4th grade reading component of the 2002 value reported in this table is based on 2003 data.

•These states did not report 8th grade reading data for 2002. Because of this, for these states the 8th grade reading component of the 2002 value reported in this table is based on 2003 data.
United States 69.6 Rank 70.5 Rank 71.5 Rank 73.5 Rank
Alabama 57.7 47 58.8 47 58.8 48 62.3 47
Alaska*†‡• 67.5 35 67.5 37 68.5 36 71.3 34
Arizona 61.3 43 62.8 43 62.8 43 65.3 43
Arkansas 62.7 42 64.8 40 68.5 36 70.0 37
California 56.6 48 58.5 48 59.5 47 61.0 49
Colorado*†‡• 74.5 21 74.5 18 73.8 22 76.5 21
Connecticut 75.5 12 76.5 11 74.8 21 76.8 19
Delaware*† 75.3 14 74.3 19 77.3 10 77.8 16
Florida*† 67.5 35 67.3 38 69.5 34 73.8 29
Georgia 63.3 40 64.8 40 65.8 41 69.8 38
Hawaii 58.5 46 59.5 45 60.0 46 64.3 44
Idaho 73.5 23 73.3 24 76.0 16 77.0 18
Illinoisॠ68.5 32 69.3 32 69.8 31 72.3 32
Indiana 74.8 19 74.8 16 73.8 22 77.3 17
Iowa†• 76.1 10 77.0 9 76.5 14 79.5 12
Kansas 76.8 9 76.0 12 77.3 10 80.8 7
Kentucky 68.3 33 69.8 31 69.8 31 72.3 32
Louisiana 58.8 45 59.3 46 62.5 44 63.3 46
Maine 77.0 8 76.8 10 77.5 9 79.8 11
Maryland 67.3 38 68.3 35 69.8 31 74.8 25
Massachusetts 79.2 2 78.5 3 83.0 1 85.8 1
Michigan 71.0 29 71.0 29 70.8 30 71.0 36
Minnesota• 78.4 3 78.3 5 79.5 4 80.3 8
Mississippi 53.4 50 55.8 50 57.3 50 58.8 50
Missouri 73.3 24 74.3 19 72.5 27 74.0 28
Montana 78.3 4 77.8 7 79.5 4 81.8 4
Nebraska 74.9 18 74.3 19 75.8 19 76.0 23
Nevada 59.9 44 60.8 44 61.8 45 63.5 45
New Hampshire*†‡• 80.5 1 80.5 1 80.0 3 81.8 4
New Jersey*†‡• 75.3 14 75.3 15 77.0 12 81.3 6
New Mexico 56.3 49 56.0 49 57.8 49 61.8 48
New York 71.3 28 72.8 26 73.8 22 74.8 25
North Carolina 73.6 22 73.8 23 71.5 29 73.3 30
North Dakota 78.0 5 78.5 3 81.3 2 84.0 2
Ohio 75.5 13 75.5 14 76.3 15 78.8 14
Oklahoma 67.9 34 68.3 35 68.5 36 71.3 34
Oregon 72.7 25 71.8 28 72.0 28 72.8 31
Pennsylvania*† 72.5 26 72.0 27 75.0 20 78.5 15
Rhode Island 67.3 37 67.0 39 68.0 39 69.8 38
South Carolina 65.3 39 68.8 33 69.0 35 69.8 38
South Dakota*†‡• 77.8 7 77.8 7 79.5 4 80.3 8
Tennessee 63.0 41 63.8 42 66.3 40 68.0 42
an interpolation of 2000 and 2003 data.

an interpolation of 2000 and 2003 data.

Texas 70.8 30 70.3 30 73.0 26 76.0 23


Utah 72.4 27 73.3 24 73.8 22 74.8 25
Vermont 77.9 6 79.0 2 79.0 7 82.0 3
Virginia 74.9 17 75.8 13 77.0 12 79.3 13
Washington*† 75.3 14 74.0 22 76.0 16 76.5 21
West Virginia 68.8 31 68.8 33 65.8 41 68.3 41
Wisconsin*†‡• 74.8 20 74.8 16 76.0 16 76.8 19
Wyoming 75.5 11 78.0 6 78.8 8 80.3 8
% MN above or below
12.7% 11.0% 11.2% 9.2%
U.S. average

On Our Way to Average 73


Table B-12: Percent of Bridges that are Deficient
Deficient bridges by state and highway system, from CQ Press Annual "State Rankings" report based on data from U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Bridges classified as deficient are either functionally
obsolete or structurally deficient and are not necessarily unsafe.
2002 State 2003 State 2004 State 2006 State 2007 State
United States 27.5 Rank 26.6 Rank 26.6 Rank 25.7 Rank 25.3 Rank
Alabama 31.1 36 30.2 36 29.9 34 27.1 31 25.5 27
Alaska 29.7 31 29.4 34 29.7 33 26.3 27 27.2 33
Arizona 10.6 1 10.1 1 10.1 1 10.2 1 10.6 1
Arkansas 27.2 26 26.3 26 25.1 22 23.8 21 23.2 22
California 28.5 29 27.8 28 28.0 30 28.4 34 28.8 35
Colorado 17.9 5 16.4 5 17.0 5 16.8 7 16.8 7
Connecticut 31.5 37 31.2 37 32.7 38 33.6 41 33.5 41
Delaware 16.2 4 14.2 4 14.4 4 15.5 5 15.4 5
Florida 18.8 8 18.2 9 18.5 10 17.6 8 17.1 8
Georgia 22.9 15 20.7 12 20.4 12 20.0 12 20.0 12
Hawaii 47.9 48 46.3 48 46.7 48 46.2 48 44.8 48
Idaho 18.6 7 17.7 7 18.0 8 19.0 11 19.5 11
Illinois 18.1 6 17.0 6 17.0 5 16.5 6 16.7 6
Indiana 23.1 17 22.5 17 22.1 16 22.1 18 21.8 18
Iowa 28.2 27 28.4 30 27.9 28 26.8 30 26.7 30
Kansas 24.9 21 23.1 18 23.1 18 21.3 16 21.1 17
Kentucky 29.7 31 29.3 33 30.4 36 31.5 37 31.5 39
Louisiana 33.5 38 32.2 38 32.4 37 30.4 36 29.7 36
Maine 35.8 41 35.2 41 35.6 42 34.5 42 34.2 42
Maryland 28.9 30 28.1 29 29.2 32 27.3 32 26.7 30
Massachusetts 50.9 49 50.1 49 51.4 49 51.7 49 51.3 49
Michigan 30.7 34 28.8 32 28.9 31 28.1 33 26.4 29
Minnesota 13.9 2 13.0 3 12.5 3 12.2 3 12.1 3
Mississippi 29.7 31 29.7 35 27.9 28 26.3 27 25.4 26
Missouri 36.5 42 34.9 40 34.7 40 32.2 39 31.3 37
Montana 21.9 14 20.8 14 21.3 15 20.8 15 20.4 14
Nebraska 27.1 25 26.3 26 25.7 26 24.2 22 23.4 23
Nevada 14.3 3 12.5 2 12.3 2 12.0 2 11.9 2
New Hampshire 33.6 39 33.4 39 33.4 39 31.7 38 31.3 37
New Jersey 36.6 43 35.5 43 36.6 43 35.7 44 34.9 43
New Mexico 19.1 9 18.8 10 18.9 11 18.0 10 18.1 10
New York 37.4 44 36.9 44 37.9 46 38.1 46 38.3 46
North Carolina 30.7 34 28.6 31 30.0 35 28.7 35 28.4 34
North Dakota 24.8 20 24.0 21 23.6 20 23.0 20 22.3 19
Ohio 25.3 22 25.2 23 25.4 23 24.8 24 24.5 24
Oklahoma 40.1 46 38.7 46 37.6 45 33.5 40 31.5 39
Oregon 23.5 18 23.8 20 25.5 25 24.7 23 22.8 21
Pennsylvania 42.5 47 41.5 47 42.3 47 42.9 47 43.6 47
Rhode Island 52.6 50 51.2 50 54.1 50 56.4 50 52.9 50
South Carolina 22.9 15 21.7 16 23.1 18 22.6 19 22.4 20
South Dakota 28.3 28 24.9 22 25.0 21 25.6 25 24.9 25
Tennessee 23.7 19 23.3 19 22.9 17 21.4 17 20.7 16
Texas 21.8 13 20.8 14 20.8 14 20.5 14 20.0 12
Utah 19.6 11 17.8 8 18.0 8 17.6 8 17.1 8
Vermont 35.3 40 35.3 42 35.5 41 34.6 43 35.7 44
Virginia 26.4 23 25.9 25 25.4 23 25.6 25 25.7 28
Washington 26.6 24 25.5 24 27.3 27 26.7 29 26.9 32
West Virginia 38.8 45 37.0 45 37.1 44 37.3 45 36.8 45
Wisconsin 19.2 10 18.8 10 17.2 7 15.4 4 15.2 4
Wyoming 21.5 12 20.7 12 20.7 13 20.2 13 20.5 15
% MN above or
-49.5% -51.1% -53.0% -52.5% -52.2%
below U.S. average

74 On Our Way to Average


Table B-13: Miles in Poor or Mediocre Condition Per 1,000 Road Miles
Road miles that are in poor or mediocre condition per 1,000 road miles calculated from annual State Transportation Statistics reports
from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation
(http://www.bts.gov/publications/state_transportation_statistics/).
2002 State 2003 State 2004 State 2005 State 2006 State 2007 State
United States 180 Rank 183 Rank 186 Rank 174 Rank 173 Rank 176 Rank
Alabama 152 25 151 20 137 18 103 15 130 21 91 13
Alaska 248 38 238 37 317 44 210 33 227 33 192 31
Arizona 54 5 65 6 68 7 87 10 104 14 105 16
Arkansas 385 49 347 46 253 36 254 40 251 38 254 39
California 441 50 432 49 396 49 388 49 385 48 399 48
Colorado 148 23 189 29 187 28 116 17 121 18 109 17
Connecticut 162 27 191 30 171 25 143 22 139 22 148 23
Delaware 184 31 177 27 177 26 172 25 159 26 157 26
Florida 40 4 37 3 37 2 30 2 34 2 36 2
Georgia 2 1 2 1 2 1 10 1 47 4 64 6
Hawaii 292 42 215 34 137 19 222 34 423 49 433 49
Idaho 355 47 352 47 340 47 351 48 347 47 356 47
Illinois 159 26 155 24 163 24 178 26 170 28 179 30
Indiana 174 28 179 28 179 27 182 28 183 30 115 18
Iowa 84 13 71 8 195 30 159 24 152 25 153 25
Kansas 319 46 312 44 313 43 317 45 313 45 329 45
Kentucky 81 10 60 4 56 5 44 3 32 1 31 1
Louisiana 257 39 274 41 267 38 250 38 263 41 260 40
Maine 56 6 205 32 248 35 246 37 260 40 210 33
Maryland 308 45 346 45 358 48 347 47 302 43 328 44
Massachusetts 378 48 372 48 338 46 337 46 53 6 124 20
Michigan 238 37 235 36 243 34 226 35 213 31 211 34
Minnesota 70 8 100 13 108 12 92 13 98 13 160 27
Mississippi 233 36 244 38 198 32 196 31 175 29 171 28
Missouri 193 33 193 31 318 45 189 30 232 34 245 36
Montana 83 12 90 10 91 9 61 8 59 8 64 7
Nebraska 136 20 156 25 158 23 136 21 107 15 101 15
Nevada 71 9 97 12 97 10 80 9 73 9 95 14
New Hampshire 121 17 153 22 153 21 125 19 240 36 196 32
New Jersey 227 35 522 50 503 50 499 50 504 50 491 50
New Mexico 193 34 232 35 310 41 314 44 318 46 305 43
New York 150 24 146 19 190 29 179 27 220 32 244 35
North Carolina 134 19 134 18 128 16 128 20 123 19 86 11
North Dakota 68 7 66 7 135 17 97 14 97 12 89 12
Ohio 100 16 103 14 117 13 91 12 45 3 54 3
Oklahoma 302 43 305 43 294 40 295 42 312 44 349 46
Oregon 89 15 90 11 60 6 56 6 48 5 60 4
Pennsylvania 263 40 272 40 272 39 258 41 260 39 252 38
Rhode Island 183 29 211 33 312 42 299 43 296 42 298 42
South Carolina 140 21 121 16 124 15 150 23 140 23 141 22
South Dakota 184 30 152 21 195 31 197 32 129 20 149 24
Tennessee 35 2 60 5 43 3 61 7 55 7 65 8
Texas 188 32 159 26 120 14 120 18 118 17 116 19
Utah 89 14 76 9 76 8 51 5 91 11 63 5
Vermont 285 41 285 42 224 33 252 39 244 37 249 37
Virginia 83 11 107 15 100 11 89 11 77 10 72 9
Washington 125 18 125 17 143 20 108 16 152 24 127 21
West Virginia 304 44 249 39 259 37 240 36 234 35 289 41
Wisconsin 145 22 154 23 156 22 186 29 163 27 172 29
Wyoming 36 3 34 2 49 4 46 4 111 16 77 10
% MN above or
-61.3% -45.4% -42.0% -47.1% -43.5% -9.3%
below U.S. avg.

On Our Way to Average 75