Nebraska vs New Hampshire on USAspending: $1.24B vs $2.48B

New Hampshire’s doubled stock on fewer people

New Hampshire’s $2.48B is about twice Nebraska’s $1.24B. Census counts run the other way: 1,409,032 versus 2,005,465. Intensity therefore favors New Hampshire: $284.15 per capita versus $175.68. Nebraska’s extra people do not produce the larger USAspending.gov file.

Award volume favors Nebraska, 36,000 versus 9,224. Nebraska’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 stays closer than the all-years stocks: $352.3M in Nebraska versus $400.4M in New Hampshire. Cite USAspending.gov for both cuts.

Nebraska’s $1.24B on 2,005,465 residents and 36,000 awards trails New Hampshire’s $2.48B on 1,409,032 residents and 9,224 awards. Intensity of $175.68 versus $284.15 follows. FY2026 of $352.3M versus $400.4M is the closer recency cut. All dollar cuts are USAspending.gov obligations.

Other computer related services versus small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing is mix. Outlays are not in the packet. Cite USAspending.gov. Keep per-capita labeled as Census-based obligation ratios.

Other computer related services versus ordnance

Nebraska’s lead NAICS is other computer related services. New Hampshire’s lead NAICS is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing. Those peaks sit on $1.24B and $2.48B. Computer-related services are a first read on Nebraska’s mix; ordnance is a first read on New Hampshire’s mix.

The 36,000 Nebraska awards and 9,224 New Hampshire awards include many actions outside those labels. Use the Nebraska and New Hampshire state hubs for agencies and recipients. Both peaks are USAspending.gov obligation mixes.

FY2026: $352.3M versus $400.4M

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $352.3M in Nebraska and $400.4M in New Hampshire. Recency preserves New Hampshire’s stacked dollar lead without matching the all-years gap. Treat the year as a recency slice of obligations, not as Treasury cash.

Do not divide $352.3M or $400.4M by 36,000 or 9,224 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $175.68 and $284.15 already sits beside Census counts of 2,005,465 and 1,409,032.

Computer-related services on a smaller Nebraska stock

Nebraska’s $1.24B on 2,005,465 residents trails New Hampshire’s $2.48B on 1,409,032. Intensity follows: $175.68 versus $284.15. Nebraska still files 36,000 awards against 9,224. All dollar cuts are USAspending.gov obligations.

Other computer related services lead Nebraska. Small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing lead New Hampshire. FY2026 of $352.3M versus $400.4M is closer than the all-years stocks.

An obligation is a commitment. Outlays can lag. Cite USAspending.gov. Recency is a slice, not cash paid.

Why FY2026 looks closer than the stacked ranking

A $352.3M versus $400.4M latest-year gap is narrower than $1.24B versus $2.48B. Read both. Do not let recency erase the stacked ranking or convert either figure into an outlay.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Nebraska and New Hampshire hubs hold agencies and recipients. Keep $175.68 and $284.15 labeled as Census-based obligation ratios.

How to read Nebraska versus New Hampshire

Read New Hampshire first on stacked dollars ($2.48B vs $1.24B), spending per capita ($284.15 vs $175.68), and FY2026 ($400.4M vs $352.3M). Read Nebraska first on population (2,005,465 vs 1,409,032) and awards (36,000 vs 9,224). Note other computer related services versus small arms and ordnance.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Nebraska 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.

Nebraska’s 36,000 awards and 2,005,465 residents sit against New Hampshire’s $2.48B stock, $284.15 per capita, and $400.4M FY2026 slice. Cite USAspending.gov. Keep $1.24B and $2.48B labeled as obligations, not outlays.

Questions

Does Nebraska or New Hampshire have more federal spending?

New Hampshire leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $2.48B to Nebraska’s $1.24B. New Hampshire also leads spending per capita, $284.15 versus $175.68, on 1,409,032 residents against Nebraska’s 2,005,465. Nebraska has more awards (36,000 vs 9,224). FY2026 obligations are $352.3M in Nebraska and $400.4M in New Hampshire.

Why does Nebraska have more awards than New Hampshire?

The packet reports 36,000 awards in Nebraska and 9,224 in New Hampshire. Nebraska’s stacked stock is smaller ($1.24B vs $2.48B). Population is 2,005,465 versus 1,409,032. Award count is a row total, not average size. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

What industries lead in Nebraska and New Hampshire?

Nebraska’s top industry is other computer related services. New Hampshire’s is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing. Those labels are the largest NAICS slices on $1.24B and $2.48B. Award counts are 36,000 in Nebraska and 9,224 in New Hampshire.

Are Nebraska vs New Hampshire figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $1.24B and $2.48B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $352.3M and $400.4M, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($175.68 vs $284.15) uses Census population where present.