All Defense Contracts Are Local

I really liked this piece at National Defense Magazine by Jon Harper about which states actually get the lion’s share of defense spending and contracts if for no other reason than it reminds us of the states whose economies benefit most from it:

The top 10 states were: California, $66.2 billion; Virginia, $60.3 billion; Texas, $54.8 billion; Florida, $29.8 billion; Maryland, $26.1 billion; Connecticut, $19.7 billion; Pennsylvania, $18.1 billion; Washington, $17.8 billion; Alabama, $16 billion; and Massachusetts, $15.8 billion. That adds up to a whopping $324.7 billion.

If you look at it based on how reliant the states’ economies are on defense spending the list looks a little different:

The 10 states whose economies are most dependent on military outlays — measured by defense spending as a percentage of their GDP — were: Virginia, 10.6; Hawaii, 7.7; Alabama, 6.9; Connecticut, 6.8; Alaska, 6.4; Maryland, 6; Maine, 5.8; Kentucky, 5.7; New Mexico, 5.7; and Mississippi, 5.3.

while if you look at it through the prism of defense contracts alone the list is different yet:

The top 10 states for defense contract spending were: California, $50.2 billion; Texas, $43.4 billion; Virginia, $41.6 billion; Florida, $22.3 billion; Connecticut, $19 billion; Maryland, $18.4 billion; Pennsylvania, $15.3 billion; Massachusetts, $14.7 billion; Missouri, $13.4 billion; and Arizona, $12.9 billion. That adds up to $251.3 billion, more than 60 percent of the total value of defense contract obligations across the nation.

One of the effects of the budget “reforms” of the last 30 or so years, the end of “earmarks”, etc. is that defense spending is concentrated in a handful of mostly coastal states. Red States vs. Blue States, conservative vs. progressive, and rich vs. poor have a lot less to do with it than where the state is located coupled with historical defense spending.

Location, location, location.