New Hampshire vs Oregon on USAspending: $2.48B vs $2.67B

Oregon’s stock, New Hampshire’s ratio and recency

Oregon’s $2.67B is the larger stacked total. New Hampshire’s $2.48B sits on 1,409,032 residents against 4,272,371. Intensity therefore favors New Hampshire: $284.15 per capita versus $56.06. The Pacific Census count produces the larger stock and the cooler ratio.

Award volume favors Oregon, 36,965 versus 9,224. Oregon’s file is busier in rows and larger in stock. New Hampshire’s 9,224 actions sit on $2.48B beside the $284.15 reading.

FY2026 is New Hampshire’s recency win: $400.4M versus $239.5M. Cite USAspending.gov for the stacked stocks and the latest-year amounts.

Oregon’s $2.67B stacked lead and New Hampshire’s $400.4M versus $239.5M FY2026 lead are one USAspending.gov obligation series, sliced. Spending per capita of $56.06 versus $284.15 uses Census counts of 4,272,371 and 1,409,032.

Award counts of 36,965 and 9,224 stay row totals. Support activities for forestry versus small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing is mix. Outlays are not in the packet. The comparison hub holds the tables.

Ordnance versus forestry support

New Hampshire’s lead NAICS is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing. Oregon’s lead NAICS is support activities for forestry. Those peaks sit on $2.48B and $2.67B. Ordnance is a first read on New Hampshire’s mix; forestry support is a first read on Oregon’s mix.

The 9,224 New Hampshire awards and 36,965 Oregon awards include many actions outside those labels. Use the New Hampshire and Oregon state hubs for agencies and recipients. Both peaks are USAspending.gov obligation mixes.

FY2026: $400.4M versus $239.5M

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $400.4M in New Hampshire and $239.5M in Oregon. Recency does not preserve Oregon’s stacked dollar lead. Treat the year as a recency slice of obligations, not as Treasury cash.

Do not divide $400.4M or $239.5M by 9,224 or 36,965 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $284.15 and $56.06 already sits beside Census counts of 1,409,032 and 4,272,371.

Ordnance intensity against a Pacific Census count

Oregon’s $2.67B on 4,272,371 residents exceeds New Hampshire’s $2.48B on 1,409,032. New Hampshire still posts $284.15 per capita against $56.06 and $400.4M in FY2026 against $239.5M. Oregon files more awards, 36,965 versus 9,224.

Small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing lead New Hampshire. Support activities for forestry lead Oregon. Those peaks sit on USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are not listed.

An obligation is a commitment. Cash can lag. Cite USAspending.gov. Keep $284.15 and $56.06 labeled as Census-based obligation ratios.

Why the latest year disagrees with the stacked stock

Oregon leads the all-years ranking. New Hampshire leads FY2026. Both cuts are the same obligation series, sliced. Recency is not a rewrite of $2.67B versus $2.48B.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The New Hampshire and Oregon hubs hold agencies and recipients. Award counts of 9,224 and 36,965 stay row totals, not averages.

How to read New Hampshire versus Oregon

Read Oregon first on stacked dollars ($2.67B vs $2.48B), population (4,272,371 vs 1,409,032), and awards (36,965 vs 9,224). Read New Hampshire first on spending per capita ($284.15 vs $56.06) and FY2026 ($400.4M vs $239.5M). Note small arms and ordnance versus forestry support.

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

Oregon’s $2.67B stacked lead and New Hampshire’s $284.15 per capita and $400.4M FY2026 slice split this pair. Award counts of 36,965 and 9,224 stay row totals. Cite USAspending.gov. Outlays are not listed.

Questions

Does New Hampshire or Oregon have more federal spending?

Oregon leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $2.67B to New Hampshire’s $2.48B. New Hampshire leads spending per capita, $284.15 versus $56.06, on 1,409,032 residents against Oregon’s 4,272,371. Oregon has more awards (36,965 vs 9,224). FY2026 obligations are $400.4M in New Hampshire and $239.5M in Oregon.

Does New Hampshire outspend Oregon in FY2026?

Yes on the latest-year slice. The packet reports FY2026 obligations of $400.4M in New Hampshire and $239.5M in Oregon. The all-years stocks still favor Oregon, $2.67B versus $2.48B. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

What industries lead in New Hampshire and Oregon?

New Hampshire’s top industry is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing. Oregon’s is support activities for forestry. Those labels are the largest NAICS slices on $2.48B and $2.67B. Award counts are 9,224 in New Hampshire and 36,965 in Oregon.

Are New Hampshire vs Oregon figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $2.48B and $2.67B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $400.4M and $239.5M, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($284.15 vs $56.06) uses Census population where present.