Georgia vs Michigan on USAspending: $9.7B vs $8.4B

Georgia’s $9.7B versus Michigan’s $8.4B

These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays. Georgia’s $9.7B is about 1.2 times Michigan’s $8.4B. The comparison scores place of performance in the award file. Among two large states with similar Census counts, the award-dollar lead belongs to Georgia in this aggregate even though Michigan’s row count is higher.

Award counts favor Michigan. Michigan has 416,538 awards; Georgia has 278,028. Michigan’s file is busier in rows and lighter in dollars. Georgia’s $9.7B on 278,028 actions implies a heavier typical booking than Michigan’s $8.4B on 416,538 records. Dollars and rows do not tell the same story.

Michigan’s $175.18 versus Georgia’s $95.66

Georgia’s 11,180,878 residents and Michigan’s 10,140,459 residents sit in the same band. After dividing the obligation stocks by those Census counts, Michigan shows $175.18 per capita and Georgia shows $95.66. Intensity favors Michigan even though Georgia holds the larger $9.7B stock.

A $175.18 per-person reading in Michigan on 10,140,459 residents is an intensity fact attached to $8.4B. Georgia’s $95.66 on 11,180,878 residents is attached to $9.7B. This table scores USAspending place of performance, not GDP. Two similar populations do not produce identical intensity.

Aircraft in Georgia, automobiles in Michigan

Georgia’s top industry is aircraft manufacturing. Michigan’s is automobile manufacturing. Those labels mark the largest NAICS slice in each state’s file, not a full industrial census. Aircraft awards and auto-manufacturing awards are different production lead products sitting on $9.7B and $8.4B.

An aircraft-manufacturing lead can concentrate airframe production inside Georgia’s 278,028-award file. An automobile-manufacturing lead can concentrate vehicle production inside Michigan’s 416,538-award file. Mix and scale both differ. Neither industry name explains every dollar.

FY2026: Michigan’s $1.8B leads Georgia’s $1.1B

FY2026 obligations are $1.1B in Georgia and $1.8B in Michigan. The latest year reverses the stacked ranking. Michigan’s $1.8B is a large slice of its $8.4B stock; Georgia’s $1.1B is a smaller slice of $9.7B. Recency questions belong in FY2026. The all-years totals remain the comparison’s headline stock.

Do not divide those FY figures by Georgia’s 278,028 or Michigan’s 416,538 all-years awards. Those row counts cover the stacked file, not a single fiscal year. Both cuts are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays can lag award dates, so a $1.8B versus $1.1B latest-year reading is a commitment scoreboard, not a cash-flow statement.

Two production states, inverted recency

Georgia leads stacked dollars ($9.7B vs $8.4B) and population (11,180,878 vs 10,140,459). Michigan leads award count (416,538 vs 278,028), per capita ($175.18 vs $95.66), and FY2026 ($1.8B vs $1.1B). Those splits are why Georgia versus Michigan cannot be reduced to two similar large-state files.

Aircraft manufacturing versus automobile manufacturing is mix inside files that contain many other industries. Use the Georgia and Michigan hubs for agencies and recipients. Keep $9.7B and $8.4B labeled as obligations.

How to use the Georgia and Michigan hubs

Georgia’s $9.7B versus Michigan’s $8.4B sits on similar Census counts of 11,180,878 and 10,140,459. Michigan still leads award count (416,538 vs 278,028), per capita ($175.18 vs $95.66), and FY2026 ($1.8B vs $1.1B). Open the Georgia hub and the Michigan hub for agencies and recipients. Aircraft manufacturing versus automobile manufacturing are production lead slices, not identical files.

These are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays. Do not divide latest-year dollars by all-years award counts. Place of performance can differ from the paying agency’s location. Use the hubs when the next question is who received the awards. Keep $9.7B and $8.4B labeled as obligations so similar populations are not mistaken for similar intensity or similar recency.

Georgia versus Michigan is similar Census counts of 11,180,878 and 10,140,459 on $9.7B versus $8.4B. Aircraft manufacturing and automobile manufacturing sit on 278,028 and 416,538 awards. FY2026 of $1.1B versus $1.8B favors Michigan. Per capita of $95.66 versus $175.18 is the intensity inversion. Obligations are not outlays. The Georgia and Michigan hubs hold agencies and recipients. Georgia’s $9.7B on 11,180,878 residents versus Michigan’s $8.4B on 10,140,459 residents is a close large-state pair. Michigan’s 416,538 awards, $175.18 per capita, and $1.8B in FY2026 invert stock on rows, intensity, and recency. Aircraft versus automobiles is mix. Keep $9.7B and $8.4B labeled as USAspending.gov obligations. Similar Census counts do not produce similar intensity on this pair.

Questions

Which state has more federal spending, Georgia or Michigan?

Georgia leads in stacked USAspending.gov obligations: $9.7B versus Michigan’s $8.4B. Michigan has more awards (416,538 vs 278,028). Populations are 11,180,878 in Georgia and 10,140,459 in Michigan. Spending per capita is $95.66 in Georgia and $175.18 in Michigan. FY2026 obligations are $1.1B in Georgia and $1.8B in Michigan. These are obligations, not Treasury outlays.

Why is Michigan’s per-capita federal spending higher than Georgia’s?

Michigan’s $8.4B on 10,140,459 residents produces $175.18 per capita. Georgia’s $9.7B on 11,180,878 residents produces $95.66. Georgia still leads the stacked file. Michigan leads award count (416,538 vs 278,028) and FY2026 ($1.8B vs $1.1B). Intensity and stock are different rankings in this pair.

What industries lead Georgia and Michigan federal awards?

Georgia’s top industry is aircraft manufacturing. Michigan’s is automobile manufacturing. Those slices sit on $9.7B and $8.4B in obligations. They mark the largest grouping in each file, not every award in either state. Award counts are 278,028 in Georgia and 416,538 in Michigan.

Are Georgia vs Michigan figures Treasury outlays?

No. SpendingVault uses USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. The $9.7B and $8.4B stacked totals and FY2026 amounts of $1.1B and $1.8B measure award commitments by place of performance, not Monthly Treasury Statement payments. Place of performance can differ from where the paying agency sits.