Idaho vs New Hampshire on USAspending: $1.20B vs $2.48B

Idaho’s extra people, New Hampshire’s extra dollars

Idaho’s 2,001,619 residents exceed New Hampshire’s 1,409,032. New Hampshire still holds the larger obligation stock: $2.48B versus $1.20B. Intensity follows: $284.15 per capita versus $80.33. The Mountain Census count does not produce the larger USAspending.gov file.

Award volume favors Idaho, 29,667 versus 9,224. Idaho’s file is denser in rows on a smaller stock. New Hampshire’s 9,224 actions sit on $2.48B beside the $284.15 reading.

FY2026 widens New Hampshire’s dollar lead on recency: $400.4M versus $160.8M. Cite USAspending.gov for the stacked stocks and the latest-year amounts.

Idaho’s $1.20B on 2,001,619 residents trails New Hampshire’s $2.48B on 1,409,032. Spending per capita of $80.33 versus $284.15 is the wide gap. Idaho’s 29,667 awards exceed 9,224. FY2026 of $160.8M versus $400.4M widens New Hampshire’s recency lead. All dollar cuts are USAspending.gov obligations.

Commercial and institutional building construction versus small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing is mix. Outlays are not listed. Cite USAspending.gov. The comparison hub holds the tables.

Construction in Idaho, ordnance in New Hampshire

Idaho’s lead NAICS is commercial and institutional building construction. New Hampshire’s lead NAICS is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing. Those peaks sit on $1.20B and $2.48B. Construction is a first read on Idaho’s mix; ordnance is a first read on New Hampshire’s mix.

The 29,667 Idaho awards and 9,224 New Hampshire awards include many actions outside those labels. Use the Idaho and New Hampshire state hubs for agencies and recipients. Both peaks are USAspending.gov obligation mixes.

FY2026: $160.8M versus $400.4M

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $160.8M in Idaho and $400.4M in New Hampshire. Recency preserves New Hampshire’s stacked dollar lead and opens a wider gap than the all-years stocks. Treat the year as a recency slice of obligations, not as Treasury cash.

Do not divide $160.8M or $400.4M by 29,667 or 9,224 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $80.33 and $284.15 already sits beside Census counts of 2,001,619 and 1,409,032.

Mountain construction versus New England ordnance

Idaho’s $1.20B on 2,001,619 residents trails New Hampshire’s $2.48B on 1,409,032. Spending per capita of $80.33 versus $284.15 is the wide intensity gap. Idaho files 29,667 awards against 9,224. All dollar cuts are USAspending.gov obligations.

Commercial and institutional building construction leads Idaho. Small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing lead New Hampshire. FY2026 of $160.8M versus $400.4M widens New Hampshire’s lead on recency.

Outlays are not in the packet. Do not treat $1.20B or $2.48B as cash already paid. Award counts remain row totals.

More people in Idaho, a cooler ratio

Idaho’s 2,001,619 residents exceed New Hampshire’s 1,409,032. The USAspending.gov stock still favors New Hampshire. Headcount does not set the dollar ranking on this pair.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Idaho and New Hampshire hubs hold agencies and recipients. Cite USAspending.gov. Keep $80.33 and $284.15 labeled as Census-based obligation ratios.

How to read Idaho versus New Hampshire

Read New Hampshire first on stacked dollars ($2.48B vs $1.20B), spending per capita ($284.15 vs $80.33), and FY2026 ($400.4M vs $160.8M). Read Idaho first on population (2,001,619 vs 1,409,032) and awards (29,667 vs 9,224). Note construction versus small arms and ordnance.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Idaho and New Hampshire hubs hold agencies and recipients. Outlays are a different series. Keep per-capita figures labeled as Census-based packet figures on USAspending.gov obligations.

Questions

Does Idaho or New Hampshire have more federal spending?

New Hampshire leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $2.48B to Idaho’s $1.20B. New Hampshire also leads spending per capita, $284.15 versus $80.33, on 1,409,032 residents against Idaho’s 2,001,619. Idaho has more awards (29,667 vs 9,224). FY2026 obligations are $160.8M in Idaho and $400.4M in New Hampshire.

Why is New Hampshire’s per-capita figure so much higher than Idaho’s?

The packet reports $284.15 per capita in New Hampshire on 1,409,032 residents and $80.33 in Idaho on 2,001,619. Stacked stocks are $2.48B versus $1.20B. Award counts are 9,224 versus 29,667. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

What industries lead in Idaho and New Hampshire?

Idaho’s top industry is commercial and institutional building construction. New Hampshire’s is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing. Those labels are the largest NAICS slices on $1.20B and $2.48B. Award counts are 29,667 in Idaho and 9,224 in New Hampshire.

Are Idaho vs New Hampshire figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $1.20B and $2.48B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $160.8M and $400.4M, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($80.33 vs $284.15) uses Census population where present.