Texas vs Wisconsin on USAspending: $72.7B vs $10.0B

A $72.7B file against a $10.0B Midwest file

Texas’s $72.7B stacked stock sits well above Wisconsin’s $10.0B. Census population explains part of the gap: 31,290,831 versus 5,960,975. Intensity still favors Texas. $686.1 per capita versus $407.2 is a real gap, not a wash after population. Cite those packet ratios beside the Census counts; they are not a second copy of $72.7B and $10.0B.

Award volume follows the larger state. Texas’s 530,634 awards versus Wisconsin’s 181,419 is a thicker action log. Row count is not average award size. Cite USAspending.gov. Do not invent a mean from 530,634 or 181,419.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing versus direct health insurance carriers

Texas’s lead NAICS is pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing. Wisconsin’s is direct health and medical insurance carriers. A drug-manufacturing peak is a first read on Texas’s $72.7B mix. An insurance-carrier peak is a first read on Wisconsin’s $10.0B mix. Both sit in a health-adjacent orbit; they are not the same label.

The 530,634 Texas awards and 181,419 Wisconsin awards include many actions outside those two industries. Use the Texas and Wisconsin state hubs for agencies and recipients. Both peaks are USAspending.gov obligation mixes. Outlays are not in the packet.

Wisconsin’s 181,419 awards and $2.4B FY2026 slice sit on 5,960,975 residents. Texas’s 530,634 awards and $21.5B sit on 31,290,831. Direct health and medical insurance carriers versus pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing remains a health-adjacent contrast on $10.0B and $72.7B, not a matched mix. Cite USAspending.gov.

FY2026: Texas’s $21.5B versus Wisconsin’s $2.4B

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $21.5B in Texas and $2.4B in Wisconsin. Recency preserves Texas’s stacked dollar lead. Treat the year as a recency slice of obligations, not as Treasury cash already paid.

Do not divide $21.5B or $2.4B by 530,634 or 181,419 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $686.1 and $407.2 already sits beside Census counts of 31,290,831 and 5,960,975. Cite USAspending.gov for both cuts.

What $407.2 looks like on 5,960,975 residents

Wisconsin’s $10.0B on 5,960,975 people produces $407.2 per capita, cooler than Texas’s $686.1 on 31,290,831. The insurance-carrier peak sits on that cooler ratio and on 181,419 awards. The $2.4B FY2026 slice is the recency cut on the smaller stock.

Texas’s pharmaceutical peak, 530,634 awards, and $21.5B latest-year amount remain the larger file. Read a national-scale obligation stock against a Midwest $10.0B file. Keep every dollar figure labeled as a USAspending.gov obligation.

How to read Texas versus Wisconsin

Read Texas first on stacked dollars ($72.7B vs $10.0B), population (31,290,831 vs 5,960,975), awards (530,634 vs 181,419), spending per capita ($686.1 vs $407.2), and FY2026 ($21.5B vs $2.4B). Note pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing versus direct health and medical insurance carriers.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Texas and Wisconsin hubs hold agencies and recipients. Outlays are a different series. Cite USAspending.gov. Keep $686.1 and $407.2 labeled as Census-based obligation ratios.

Health-adjacent peaks that are not the same mix

Pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing on Texas’s $72.7B file and direct health and medical insurance carriers on Wisconsin’s $10.0B file both sit near health markets. They are not the same NAICS label. Texas also leads population 31,290,831 to 5,960,975, awards 530,634 to 181,419, spending per capita $686.1 to $407.2, and FY2026 $21.5B to $2.4B. Wisconsin’s $10.0B stock is still a large Midwest file; it is not a peer of $72.7B.

Cite USAspending.gov. Keep $686.1 and $407.2 labeled as Census-based obligation ratios. Outlays are not in the packet. The comparison hub holds the tables. The Texas and Wisconsin hubs hold agencies and recipients. Do not invent a mean from 530,634 or 181,419.

Questions

Does Texas or Wisconsin have more federal spending?

Texas leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $72.7B to Wisconsin’s $10.0B, spending per capita $686.1 to $407.2, awards 530,634 to 181,419, and FY2026 obligations $21.5B to $2.4B. Population is 31,290,831 in Texas and 5,960,975 in Wisconsin.

What industries lead in Texas and Wisconsin?

Texas’s top industry is pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing. Wisconsin’s is direct health and medical insurance carriers. Those labels are the largest NAICS slices on $72.7B and $10.0B. Award counts are 530,634 in Texas and 181,419 in Wisconsin.

Does Texas’s larger population fully explain the dollar gap?

Population is 31,290,831 in Texas and 5,960,975 in Wisconsin. Stacked stocks are $72.7B versus $10.0B, and spending per capita is $686.1 versus $407.2. The packet ratios show intensity still favors Texas. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

Are Texas vs Wisconsin figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $72.7B and $10.0B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $21.5B and $2.4B, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($686.1 vs $407.2) uses Census population where present. This packet does not publish outlays or average award size.