Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
AVERAGE
RANKING MINNESOTA’S
ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE
Jeff Van Wychen
Minnesota 2020 Fellow
January 2010
Table of Contents___
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 6
State Performance 25
Conclusion 45
Endnotes 48
Minnesota leads the nation in terms of the decline in non-federal general revenue from 2002 to 2007,
both on a real per capita basis and per $1,000 of personal income. In fact, on all categories of revenue and
expenditures on both a per capita basis and per $1,000 of personal income, Minnesota ranks among the top
ten states in terms of the decline (or least growth) from 2002 to 2007. This is true for no other state.
This report updates a 50 state analysis of revenue, expenditure, and performance trends published in June
2008.1 It looks at where Minnesota ranks nationally on 13 key wellness indicators ranging from job and
income growth to road conditions. The report finds that to date, the economic experiment undertaken by the
advocates of “less government” and “no new taxes” has been a failure.
The baseline year for this study is 2002. In that year, Minnesota implemented a series of changes in the state-
local fiscal relationship, including a restructuring of the property tax system and a complete state takeover of
general education funding; 2002 was also the last year prior to the implementation of a “no new tax” agenda
in Minnesota.
On taxes and state and local general revenue (non-federal), also known as “own-source” revenue, Minnesota
has dropped from approximately nine percent above the national average in 2002 to less than two percent
above in 2007. The four broadest categories of government finances—general revenue, total revenue, general
expenditures, and total expenditures—are better measures of the total size of government in Minnesota
relative to other states. On each of these measures, Minnesota dropped below the national average, indicating
that we are no longer an “above average” state.
Minnesota’s rank among the 50 states in the various categories of state and local government finances per
$1,000 of personal income has also fallen significantly from 2002 to 2007. Minnesota’s rank on taxes per
$1,000 of personal income fell from 6th in 2002 to 16th in 2007, while total general revenue (non-federal) fell
from 12th to 22nd. On each of the four broadest categories of government finances, Minnesota’s rank has
dropped from eight to 15 places from 2002 to 2007; Minnesota’s rank on each of the four broadest measures
is 29th or below in 2007.
The Minnesota Department of Revenue concludes that taxes per capita are not particularly helpful in
identifying high tax and low tax states because they do not account for the higher cost of labor and cost of
living and the lower level of federal assistance in high personal income states.2 Nonetheless, because per
capita rankings are frequently called for, they are included in this report. Even on a per capita basis, Minnesota
is only modestly above the U.S. average based on 2007 data. For example, 2007 total revenue and spending
per capita in Minnesota are just 2.3 and 2.5 percent respectively above the national average.
A 2008 Revenue Department analysis concluded that Minnesota is “just about average” in terms of its
combined state and local tax burden.3 The above analysis shows that this is true for other categories of
revenues and expenditures as well. It is clear that “no new tax” leadership has reduced public investment in
Minnesota to the point where we are not a high tax, “big government” state. The more important question,
however, is how the shrinkage in government and decline in public investment has impacted Minnesota’s
economic performance and quality of life.
The principal objective of the “no new tax” policy is to freeze or shrink the level of public revenue. If this had
been the agenda of state leaders a half-century ago, the progress cited by Stinson would not have occurred.
The primary goal of state policymakers should not be to fixate upon a particular level of public revenue, but to
identify which public investments are in the long-term interest of the state and find a way to pay for them. Any
ideology that interferes with this objective must be abandoned.
The analysis of the 13 performance factors begins in 2002 and terminates in 2007, 2008, or 2009, depending
on the most recent data available for that specific indicator. The period since 2002 corresponds with the time
frame of the revenue and expenditure data examined in this report; it also corresponds with the ascendance of
the “no new tax” agenda in Minnesota.
In general, Minnesota’s performance relative to other states deteriorated since 2002. Some key findings:
• Minnesota’s performance relative to the national average in terms of unemployment rates and
employment growth (since 2001) has deteriorated.
• Somewhat smaller—but still significant—deterioration was observed on the three income and pay
measures.
• On all three education indicators—pupil-teacher ratio, students at or above “basic” level in math and
reading, and per capita state and local spending on education—Minnesota’s performance declined relative
to other states.
• Minnesota’s position in terms of road miles in poor or mediocre condition fell sharply relative to the rest
of the nation; the miles of roads in poor or mediocre condition in Minnesota more than doubled from
2002 to 2007.
• On the other four factors examined in this report (homeownership rates, health insurance coverage,
bridge deficiency percentage, and poverty rates) there was no evidence of a statistically significant decline
in Minnesota’s performance relative to other states. Nor was there evidence of improvement.
The following graph shows Minnesota’s ranking on each performance indicator in 2002 and the most recent
year data were available. A ranking of “1” denotes the best performance among the 50 states.
Minnesota is by no means an economic basket case; however, Minnesota’s performance relative to other
states is headed in the wrong direction. The decline in Minnesota’s performance has coincided with a decline
in public investment.
Of course, correlation does not equal causation. However, competing explanations do not explain the full
extent to which Minnesota’s economic performance has deteriorated since 2002. The trends highlighted in
this report leave “no new tax” proponents with a difficult question to answer: why did the reduction in the size
of government in Minnesota not produce the relative improvement in Minnesota’s economic performance that
was predicted? To this point, the economic experiment undertaken by the advocates of “less government”
and “no new taxes” has been a failure.
Proponents of sustained public investment have long argued that the failure to maintain critical public
investments would lead to deterioration in Minnesota’s economic performance relative to the national
average. This is precisely what has occurred.
Nothing in this report should be construed as an endorsement of untargeted and undisciplined public
spending. The state’s general fund budget deficit is projected to be $1.2 billion in the current biennium and
$7.4 billion in the next.4 In addition, a recent district court ruling threatens to cancel Governor Pawlenty’s July
Minnesota’s continued strong economic performance relative to the rest of the nation is not predestined;
Minnesota’s position in comparison to other states can and has deteriorated. This deterioration corresponds
with shrinkage in Minnesota’s public investment. Minnesota’s ability to restore a bright economic future lies
not in a slavish devotion to cutting public revenue, but upon our ability to identify the state’s long-term needs
and fund them appropriately.
The first edition of this report6 compared the size of state and local government in Minnesota to other
states based on commonly used measures. This edition will extend the analysis to include fiscal year 2007
information that was released in the fall of 2009. All state and local government tax, revenue, and expenditure
data in this report are from annual U.S. Census Bureau reports.7
Not all rankings of the relative size of government are equally valid. The claim that Minnesota is a “big
government” state is often based on rankings that focus exclusively on state taxes. However, a House Fiscal
Analysis Office issue brief noted that rankings based on state taxes alone are a flawed measure of the relative
size of government because some states—such as Minnesota—collect a large share of revenue at the state
level and redistribute it to local governments.8 These states tend to have above average state government
revenue but below average local government revenue.
In order to get a true measure of the relative size of government in the 50 states, it is important to look at
combined state and local government finances. In addition, focusing on taxes alone provides an incomplete
measure of the size of government in the 50 states. Based on FY 2007 data from the U.S. Census Bureau, taxes
comprise only 54.8 percent of state and local government general revenue in the United States (57.2 percent
in Minnesota). Apart from taxes, citizens pay charges, license fees, and special assessments.
A more complete measure of the cost of paying for public services borne by the residents of each state is non-
federal general revenue, commonly referred to as “own-source revenue.” Own-source revenue includes all
taxes, fees, charges, special assessments, and other miscellaneous payments made within a state to support
state and local governments.
Even total “own-source” revenue does not fully measure the total amount of revenue utilized by state and
local governments. State and local governments in all 50 states receive revenue from the federal government
for transportation, health and human services, and other public costs. On a nationwide level, transfers from
the federal government comprised 20 percent of all state and local government general revenue in 2007 (17.6
percent in Minnesota). In order to adequately gauge the relative size of government in the 50 states, it is
important to focus on “general revenue,” which includes both own-source revenue and federal transfers.
In addition to general revenue, the Census Bureau also reports an even broader category of revenue that
includes utility, liquor store, and insurance trust revenue. The following diagram shows the classification of
revenue used in Census Bureau reports.
The most inclusive category of revenue examined in this report consists of the sum of general revenue plus
utility and liquor store revenue. For shorthand purposes, this category of revenue will be referred to as “total
revenue,” even though it does not include insurance trust revenue. This represents a change from the first
edition of this report, which included insurance trust revenue in “total revenue.”
In summary, this report will examine Minnesota’s rank among the 50 states based on each of the following
categories of revenue from the U.S. Census Bureau, listed from least to most inclusive:
• Taxes
• General revenue
The first of these categories is “general expenditures.” The general expenditure category parallels general
revenue insofar as it excludes utility, liquor store, and insurance trust expenditures. The second category
is referred to herein as “total expenditures.” In order to parallel the “total revenue” category, the “total
expenditure” category will exclude insurance trust expenditures.
Government revenues and expenditures among the 50 states can be compared on a per capita basis or per
$1,000 dollars of personal income. While this report shows Minnesota’s position based on both types of
rankings, rankings based on revenue and expenditures per $1,000 of personal income generally provide a more
meaningful comparison. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP):
• Measuring revenue and spending relative to personal income shows the relative burden of state and
local taxes on state taxpayers and the relative effort states are making to fund public programs.
• By contrast, measuring revenue and spending on a per capita basis does not take into account the
differing abilities of states to raise revenues and fund programs. Two states with large differences
in average income levels could raise the same amount of revenue per resident, but the poorer state
would be placing a greater tax burden on its citizens.
• Both the overall cost-of-living and wage levels may be higher in states with above-average incomes.
Thus, wealthier states may be required to spend more per resident than poorer states to provide the
same level of services.10
A statistical analysis confirms that both cost-of-living and wage levels are higher in high personal income states,
as posited by the CBPP.11 Examining government revenues and expenditures as a percentage of personal
income is therefore a sensible way of adjusting for the higher labor costs for governments in high personal
income states.
In addition, high per capita personal income states tend to receive less federal assistance than low per capita
personal income states and thus must rely more heavily on taxes and other own-source revenue, thereby
contributing to higher per capita taxes in these states.12
Research conducted by Dr. Paul Wilson, Director of the Research Division at the Minnesota Department of
Revenue, has demonstrated that high per capita income states generally have higher per capita taxes than low
per capita income states; Wilson attributes this relationship to the factors cited above: higher wage levels and
cost of living and lower levels of federal assistance in high per capita income states.13 Based on this finding,
Wilson concludes that per capita tax levels are not particularly helpful in identifying high tax and low tax states.
A Revenue Department publication further notes that, “Rankings of total state and local tax burden measured
as a percent of income are better able to identify the states commonly perceived to be low-tax or high-tax
states.”14
The first edition of this report examined state revenue and expenditure data going back to fiscal year (FY) 1995.
In order to avoid going over ground already covered, this report will focus on data beginning with FY 2002. FY
2002 is last year before the commencement of the “no new tax” era in Minnesota (as marked by the ascension
of the Pawlenty administration) for which Census revenue and expenditure data is available. Thus, FY 2002 is
the appropriate baseline year for examining state and local revenue and spending trends during the “no new
tax” period.
This report will rank the 50 states based on revenues and expenditures for each year from FY 2002 to FY 2007,
with the exception FY 2003 for which Census Bureau state and local data is not available. FY 2007 is the most
current year for which Census Bureau state and local revenue and expenditure information is available; the
previous edition of this report extended through FY 2006.
The next section of this report examines Minnesota’s ranking based on the four categories of revenue and two
categories of expenditures per $1,000 of personal income. The subsequent section examines Minnesota’s
ranking based on the same categories of revenues and expenditures on a per capita basis.
2. State rankings expressed as a single number tell us nothing about where Minnesota compares to
specific states. For example, it was one thing to rank ahead of large states like California, New York, and
Texas. It is quite another to rank ahead of small states like Wyoming, Alaska, and Hawaii.
To address these shortcomings, this report not only presents Minnesota’s rank among the 50 states, but also
Minnesota’s position relative to the national average. In addition, the report will examine the Minnesota and
nationwide percentage change in each category of revenue and expenditures from 2002 to 2007.
Appendix A shows each state’s value and ranking for each of the revenue and spending categories so that
readers can determine how Minnesota compares to specific states. Unlike the first edition of this report, the
per capita tables in appendix A (tables A-7 to A-12) are adjusted for inflation to account for changes in the
purchasing power of the dollar over time. The inflation adjustment is based on the implicit price deflator
for state and local government purchases, which is the appropriate measure of inflation for state and local
governments.15
A deficiency of all studies that look strictly at government revenues and expenditures is that they overlook the
quality of public services being provided and the economic outcomes being produced. For example, a high
level of government spending relative to other states may be a wise investment if it is producing higher quality
This report will examine thirteen factors that measure the level of economic performance and the quality of
public services and infrastructure in each of the 50 states. These factors are:
• Unemployment rate
• Poverty rate
• Homeownership rate
• Students performing at or above “basic” level in math and reading (4th and 8th grades)
Data on each of these performance factors will be examined for each year from 2002 through the most
current year available. These factors include the same 12 factors examined in the previous edition of this
report, except that (1) all information has been updated to the most current year available and (2) the source
of information for some factors has been changed when more accurate or reliable sources were discovered.
Changes in data relative to the previous version of the report are described in the report. In addition, one new
factor is added to this version of the report: miles in poor or mediocre condition per 1,000 road miles.
As with the revenue and expenditure categories, the report will examine Minnesota’s rank and position relative
to the national average for all 13 performance measures. When survey data is used, a consideration of the
reported margin of error is included in the analysis.
Appendix B consists of tables showing the value of each factor for each state in each of the years examined.
Dollar amounts in appendix B are expressed in inflation-adjusted dollars.16
The report will conclude with an examination of the possible linkage between increases or decreases in
public investment on the one hand and the level of economic performance and quality of public services and
infrastructure on the other. Specifically, the report will address the question of whether the “no new tax”
policy that Minnesota has pursued since 2002 has produced the benefits that were promised.
Minnesota’s rank among the 50 states on state and local government taxes per $1,000 of personal income was
6th in 2002. From 2002 to 2004, Minnesota’s tax rank fell sharply to 17th, with little change since then.
In 2002, Minnesota’s state and local government taxes per $1,000 of personal income were 8.6 percent above
the U.S. average. Minnesota taxes declined dramatically over the next two years, dropping to just 1.2 percent
above the U.S. average in 2004. Minnesota taxes per $1,000 of personal income changed relatively little from
2004 to 2007.
In aggregate, nationwide state and local taxes per $1,000 of personal income increased from $101 in 2002
to $110 in 2007, a growth of 8.8 percent. Over the same period, taxes per $1,000 of personal income in
Minnesota grew from $110 to $112, a growth of 1.9 percent.
Minnesota’s rank among the 50 states on state and local government own-source revenue per $1,000 of
personal income has fallen from 12th in 2002 to 24th in 2004. Since 2004, Minnesota’s rank has changed
relatively little.
Minnesota own-source revenue per $1,000 of personal income has fallen from 9 percent above the national
average in 2002 to just 0.5 percent above the national average in 2007. Once again, the bulk of this decline
occurred from 2002 to 2004.
Minnesota’s rank on general revenue per $1,000 of personal income has fallen from 22nd in 2002 to 31st in
2004. Since 2004, Minnesota’s rank has changed little.
Minnesota’s general revenue per $1,000 of personal income fell from 4.9 percent above the national average
in 2002 to 1.9 percent below average in 2004. Since 2004, own-source revenue has declined slightly relative to
the rest of the nation, dipping to 2.4 percent below the U.S. average in 2007.
During the entire period from 2002 to 2007, total U.S. state and local general revenue per $1,000 of personal
Minnesota’s rank among the 50 states in total state and local government revenue per $1,000 of personal
income fell from 25th in 2002 to 34th in 2004. Since 2004, Minnesota’s rank has fluctuated only slightly, settling
at 33rd in 2007.
Minnesota state and local government total revenue per $1,000 of personal income fell from 3.3 percent
above the national average in 2002 to 3.2 percent below average in 2004. Over the next three years,
Minnesota total revenue dipped further to 3.6 percent below the national average.
From 2002 to 2007, U.S. state and local government total revenue per $1,000 of personal income increased
from $200 to $213, a growth of 6.3 percent; in Minnesota, it declined from $207 to $205, a drop of 0.8
percent. Both nationally and within Minnesota, the change in total revenue from 2002 to 2007 resembles the
change in general revenue.
1. It includes spending on all of the most widely recognized state and local government functions, including
those funded with federal dollars,
2. it does not include spending on utilities, insurance trusts, and liquor stores, which are broadly disparate
among states in the extent to which they are funded, if they are performed at all, and
Minnesota’s rank on general expenditures per $1,000 of personal income has fallen from 17th in 2002 to 29th in
2007. Most of the drop in Minnesota’s ranking occurred from 2002 to 2004.
Minnesota has gone from 7.4 percent above the national average in general expenditures per $1,000 of
personal income in 2002 to 0.8 percent below the national average in 2009. Once again, most of the decline
occurred from 2002 to 2004.
U.S. state and local general expenditures per $1,000 of personal income in 2007 was $194—the same as it was
in 2002. Meanwhile, in Minnesota it declined from $208 in 2002 to $192 in 2007, a drop of 7.6 percent. From
this information, it is clear that Minnesota’s public spending relative to statewide ability-to-pay declined in
both absolute terms and relative to the national average.
Minnesota’s rank in state and local government total expenditures per $1,000 of personal income fell from 19th
to 34th from 2002 to 2007. Most of the decline in Minnesota’s rank occurred between 2002 and 2004.
In terms of total expenditures per $1,000 of personal income, Minnesota has gone from 4.6 percent above the
national average in 2002 to 3.4 percent below the national average in 2007. As has been consistently the case
across other categories of revenues and expenditures, most of this decline occurred between 2002 and 2004.
On a nationwide basis, state and local government total expenditures per $1,000 of personal income increased
very slightly from $210 in 2002 to $211 in 2007. Over the same period, state and local government total
expenditures per $1,000 of personal income in Minnesota fell from $220 to $204, a drop of 7.3 percent.
From FY 2002 to 2007, Minnesota’s nominal personal income growth was nearly four percent less than the
national average. Thus, the decline in Minnesota revenues and expenditures relative to the U.S. average was
not due to above average growth in personal income. Rather, the change in Minnesota’s position relative to
the national average was due to below average growth in nominal public revenue and expenditures. Across all
six categories of revenues and expenditures, the nominal growth in Minnesota was below the U.S. average.
Nonetheless, state and local taxes per capita is commonly used in making interstate comparisons. Thus,
despite its limitations, this report includes data on taxes per capita. While taxes per capita are not particularly
useful as a basis for comparison to the national average, the examination of changes in per capita tax, revenue,
and expenditure levels within a single state over time can be useful.
Minnesota’s rank on state and local government taxes per capita was 5th in 2002. Over the next four years,
Minnesota’s rank declined steadily, hitting 13th in 2006, before rebounding to 11th in 2007.
Relative to the national average, per capita taxes in Minnesota showed an unabated decline over the last five
years, dropping from 17 percent above the national average in 2002 to 7.9 percent above in 2007. Most of this
decline occurred between 2002 and 2004.
Per capita state and local taxes in the U.S. grew from $3,962 in 2002 to $4,234 in 2007, a growth of 6.9 percent
over the five years. Over the same period, per capita taxes in Minnesota fell by 1.4 percent, from $4,633 in
2002 to $4,566 in 2007.
From 2002 to 2005, Minnesota’s rank on own-source revenue per capita declined from 7th to 10th. Minnesota’s
rank remained 10th in 2006 and 2007.
Minnesota per capita state and local own-source revenue relative to the national average has fallen
significantly during the period under examination, going from 17.4 percent above the national average in 2002
to 6.6 percent above average in 2007.
U.S. state and local government own-source revenue per capita grew from $5,797 in 2002 to $6,176 in 2007,
for total growth over the five year period of 6.5 percent. Meanwhile, in Minnesota it declined from $6,805 to
$6,585, a drop of 3.2 percent. From 2002 to 2007, no state in the nation has had a greater decline in per capita
own-source revenue than Minnesota.
Minnesota’s rank on total state and local government general revenue per capita fell from 5th in 2002 to 16th in
2006, where it remained in 2007. The largest drop in rank occurred between 2002 and 2004.
Minnesota’s position relative to the national average in per capita state and local general revenue also fell
steadily over this five year period, going from 13.0 percent above the national average in 2002 to just 3.5
percent above in 2007.
U.S. per capita state and local government general revenue grew from $7,375 in 2002 to $7,721 in 2007, a
growth of 4.7 percent. Meanwhile, in Minnesota it fell from $8,333 to $7,990, a decline of 4.1 percent.
Minnesota’s rank in state and local government total revenue per capita fell steadily from 7th in 2002 to 18th in
2007.
Minnesota’s total revenue per capita has fallen 11.3 percent above the national average in 2002 to 2.3 percent
above in 2007. Most of Minnesota’s decline relative to the national average occurred between 2002 and 2004.
U.S. state and local government total revenue per capita grew from $7,845 to $8,190 during the period from
2002 to 2007, a growth of 4.4 percent. Over the same period, total revenue per capita in Minnesota declined
from $8,730 to $8,377, a drop of 4 percent.
However, general expenditures per capita have some of the same limitations as general revenue per capita,
insofar as it does not adjust for the higher labor cost and higher cost of living in high per capita income states.
Minnesota ranked 5th among the 50 states in per capita state and local government general expenditures in
2002. Over the next four years, this rank fell to 14th in 2006 before moving to 13th in 2007.
Minnesota’s state and local government general expenditures per capita fell steadily from 15.6 percent above
the national average in 2002 to 5.2 percent above average in 2007.
Real state and local government general expenditures per capita fell both nationally and in Minnesota from
2002 to 2007, although the decline in Minnesota was much greater. Nationally, general expenditures per
capita declined from $7,583 to $7,444, a drop of 1.8 percent. In Minnesota, general expenditures per capita
declined from $8,770 to $7,832, a decline of 10.7 percent.
Minnesota’s rank among the 50 states in state and local government total expenditures per capita fell from 6th
in 2002 to 15th in 2007.
Minnesota’s total expenditures per capita were 12.7 percent above the national average in 2002. Over the
next five years, total expenditures per capita in Minnesota declined steadily relative to the national average.
By 2007, Minnesota per capita state and local government expenditures were 2.5 percent above the national
average.
The tables below summarize the change in Minnesota’s rank and position relative to the national average for
each of the six revenue and expenditure categories from fiscal year 2002 to 2007. The first table shows the
change per $1,000 of personal income, while second table shows the per capita change; the percent changes
in the second table are expressed in inflation-adjusted dollars.
As noted above, measuring revenues and expenditures per $1,000 of personal income provides a simple and
sensible way of adjusting for the higher labor costs and lower level of federal assistance in high income states.
On all six categories of revenue and expenditures per $1,000 of personal income, Minnesota’s rank declined by
For reasons explained in a preceding section, the single most meaningful measure of the relative size of
government is arguably general expenditures per $1,000 of personal income. On this measure, Minnesota’s
rank declined from 17th in 2002 to 29th in 2007. Over this period, Minnesota declined from 7.4 percent above
the national average in 2002 to 0.8 percent below the national average in 2007.
Minnesota’s per capita rankings are much higher than the per $1,000 of personal income rankings because
per capita rankings do not take into account the higher labor costs and lower level of federal assistance in high
income states such as Minnesota. Even so, Minnesota’s rank and position relative to the national average fell
significantly from 2002 to 2007 on all six categories of revenue and expenditures per capita. Relative to the
national average, Minnesota declined by nine percent to 10.8 percent on all per capita measures.
For most measures, the fastest rate of decline relative to the national average occurred from 2002 to 2004;
from 2004 to 2007, the decline generally continued, but at a slower pace.
Minnesota is a national leader in terms of the magnitude of state and local government revenue and
expenditure reductions from 2002 to 2007. The table below compares the change in all six categories of U.S.
and Minnesota revenues and expenditures both on a per capita and per $1,000 of personal income basis.
Minnesota’s rank among the 50 states in terms of revenue and spending reductions is also shown.
Per $1,000 of personal income, Minnesota has declined or increased very slightly on all six categories of
revenues and expenditures; this is in contrast to the U.S. total, which has increased on all six categories with
the exception of general expenditures. The graph below illustrates the magnitude of the change from 2002 to
2007 in revenues and expenditures per $1,000 of personal income in Minnesota versus the U.S. total.
In terms of the total size of state and local government, Minnesota is a mid-size state based on the most
current data available for all 50 states. Per $1,000 of personal income, Minnesota is approximately 3.5 percent
below the national average on the broadest finance categories used in this report: total revenues and total
expenditures. Even on a per capita basis, Minnesota total revenue and total expenditures are only about 2.5
percent above the national average. Furthermore, Minnesota leads the nation in terms of the rate of decline
in the size of government from 2002 to 2007.
Not surprisingly, 2002 marks Governor Pawlenty’s election, so it is the appropriate baseline year to use when
examining the impact of the “no new tax” policies pursued by the Pawlenty administration. (Actually, the last
budget year under Governor Pawlenty’s predecessor—Governor Ventura—is FY 2003; however, since state-by-
state Census Bureau data is not available for FY 2003, FY 2002 becomes the default baseline year.) It is clear
that Pawlenty’s “no new tax” policies have succeeded in shrinking the size of government in Minnesota both in
an absolute sense and relative to other states.
In an attempt to address this question, this report examines various indicators of Minnesota’s economic
performance and quality of life relative to other states. The thirteen factors examined in this report are listed
below.
• Unemployment rate
• Poverty rate
• Homeownership rate
• Students performing at or above “basic” level in math and reading (4th and 8th grades)
Minnesota’s rank and position relative to the national average on each of these 13 factors will be examined
for every year from 2002 to the most current year for which data is available. The period from 2002 to 2007
corresponds with the ascendance of the “no new tax” agenda, which commenced a significant decline in
Minnesota’s revenue and expenditure rankings and position relative to the U.S. average. The value and rank
for each state on each of the 13 performance measures are shown in appendix B.
In all rankings based on the performance measures, a rank of “1” will denote the state with the best
performance and “50” will denote the state with the worst performance.
Per Capita Personal Income (see table B-1 in appendix for detail)
The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) defines personal income as “income received by persons from
all sources.”19 Personal income includes “compensation of employees, supplements to wages and salaries,
proprietors’ income with inventory valuation adjustment and capital consumption adjustment (CCAdj), rental
Minnesota’s rank among the 50 states on per capita personal income was 8th in 2002, increased to 7th in 2003
and 2004, before falling to 12th in 2005; from 2005 to 2008, Minnesota’s rank changed little. Minnesota per
capita personal income was 8.3 percent
above the national average in 2002 and
improved to approximately 9.3 percent in
2003 and 2004. Minnesota’s per capita
personal income declined relative to the
national average over the next three years,
dropping to 5.9 percent above in 2007,
before rebounding to seven percent above
in 2008.
Last year’s report relied on median household income data from the Census Bureau’s “Current Population
Survey.” The median household income data in this year’s report is from the Census Bureau’s “American
Community Survey” (ACS).23 The ACS is based on a larger sample than the Current Population Survey and thus
has a smaller margin of error. In some instances, data from the ACS is significantly different than data from the
Current Population Survey.
Per capita income amounts can be distorted by a relatively small number of high income earners, which tends
to pull the per capita amount upward. Median income, on the other hand, is more representative of the
typical household, since it represents the income level which divides the population into two equal halves and
is less influenced by the presence of extremely high incomes within the population.
As with the per capita personal income amounts in the previous section, the median household income
amounts in this section and in table B-2 are converted to constant 2008 dollars using the consumer price index
(CPI).
Minnesota’s median household income was 10th highest for four years during the period from 2002 to 2008,
only dipping below tenth in 2003, 2005, and 2008. Minnesota’s median household income was 14.6 percent
From 2002 to 2007, Minnesota average annual pay increased from $43,181 to $44,375. This 2.8 percent
increase was a full two percent less than the national growth rate of 4.9 percent. As with median household
income, Minnesota’s position relative to the rest of the nation in average annual pay has deteriorated since
2002.
Minnesota had the 14th lowest unemployment rate in the nation in 2002 and 2003; that rank dropped
modestly over the next three years before hitting 18th in 2006. Minnesota’s unemployment rate rank fell
precipitously in 2007, hitting 33rd, before rebounding to 30th in 2008 and 21st in 2009.
The Minnesota and national unemployment rates both increased by approximately the same amount from
2002 to 2008. However, as a percentage of the national rate, Minnesota’s rate deteriorated somewhat
over this period. Minnesota’s unemployment rate was 21.4 percent below the national average in 2002;
Employment Growth Since 2001 (see table B-5 in appendix for detail)
A reduction in the unemployment rate does not necessarily mean that more people are working. A fall in the
unemployment rate could be due to the fact that unemployed people have stopped looking for work and have
dropped out of the labor force. For this reason, it is important to supplement unemployment rate information
with information on the growth or decline in total employment.
The annual change in
employment in this section is
measured relative to a baseline
year of 2001. This differs from
the previous version of this
report, which measured the
change in each year relative
to the previous year. With the
exception of 2009, average
employment for all 12 months
of the year was compared to
average employment for all
12 months of 2001; average
employment for 2009 is based on
the first 11 months of that year.
(December 2009 data were not
available at the time of publication of this report.) Data used in these calculations are from the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics (seasonally adjusted).
Minnesota had the 8th lowest poverty rate in the nation in 2002, before improving to 2nd lowest in 2003; since
2003, Minnesota’s rank has slipped, falling to 9th in 2008. Minnesota’s poverty rate was 31.3 percent below
the national average in 2002 and improved to 38.6 percent below in 2003. From 2003 to 2006, Minnesota’s
position relative to the rest of the nation deteriorated modestly, falling to approximately 27 percent below the
U.S. average in 2006, 2007, and 2008.
From 2002 to 2008, Minnesota’s poverty rate increased by 1.1 percent from 8.5 percent to 9.6 percent; over
the same period, the U.S. poverty rate increased by 0.8 percent from 12.4 percent to 13.2 percent. While
the growth in Minnesota’s poverty rate over this period was slightly greater than the growth in the total U.S.
poverty rate, the difference between the two was within the margin of error.
On Our Way to Average 31
The growth in Minnesota’s poverty rate relative to the U.S. average since 2002 is modest. The rate of poverty
in Minnesota is still very low relative to the rest of the nation.
The Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) indicates a significant decline in Minnesota’s
homeownership rate relative to the national average from 2002 to 2008; based on CPS data,27 Minnesota’s
rank among the 50 states has fallen from 2nd in 2002 to 14th in 2008.28 Data from the CPS is cited in the annual
State Rankings reports from CQ Press and was the source of homeownership data in the previous version of
this report.
The current version of this report relies on data from the American Community Survey (ACS) instead of the
CPS because the ACS is based on a larger sample size and thus has a smaller margin of error.29 As it pertains
to Minnesota versus the rest of the nation, homeownership rates from the ACS are significantly different than
rates from the CPS.
Based on data from the ACS, Minnesota has had the highest rate of homeownership in the nation each year
from 2002 to 2008. In each year from 2002 to 2008, Minnesota’s homeownership rate has been approximately
12 percent to 14 percent above the national average.
Percent of Population Covered by Health Insurance (see table B-8 for detail)
Information on the percent of the population covered by health insurance is from the U.S. Census Bureau’s
Current Population Survey.30 Health insurance coverage data in the previous version of this report were based
on a rolling three year average (e.g., the 2002 amount was based on the average from 2000 to 2002, the 2003
amount was based on the average from 2001 to 2003, etc.). Single year data are used in this report in order to
more accurately track current health insurance coverage.
From 2002 to 2005, Minnesota ranked 1st or 2nd in the
nation in terms of the percent of the population covered
by health insurance. In 2006 and 2007, Minnesota’s rank
fell to 4th, before rebounding to 3rd in 2008. In 2002, the
percentage of the population covered by health insurance
in Minnesota was 8.6 percent above the national average.
Over the next seven years, the health insurance coverage
percentage fluctuated within a relatively small range. By
2008, Minnesota’s health insurance coverage percentage
was 7.9 percent above the national average.
Based on this information, it appears as if the percentage of population covered by health insurance fell
0.6 percent more rapidly in Minnesota than in the nation as a whole during the period from 2002 to 2008.
However, after consideration of the margins of error of the insurance coverage estimates, these findings
become more ambiguous. While there is a 50 percent chance that the decline in Minnesota’s health insurance
coverage rate relative to the national average was more than 0.6 percent, there is about a 25 percent chance
that there was no decline relative to the national average.
The time frame of this analysis does not include the 2009 line-item veto of funding for General Assistance
Medical Care effective for FY 2011, which will cut health insurance coverage for an estimated 35,000 low-
income Minnesotans.31
Pupil-Teacher Ratios in Public Schools (see table B-9 in appendix for detail)
Research has shown a link between low pupil-teacher ratios (i.e., the number of pupils per teacher) in
elementary schools and better performance on standardized tests (although the benefit of low ratios to
secondary school students has been disputed). The public school elementary and secondary school pupil-
teacher ratio information cited here is from CQ Press annual “State Rankings” reports and is based on data
from National Education Association. (CQ Press did not report data for 2007.) Data corresponds to the Fall of
the school year (e.g., 2002 data is for the school year that began in the Fall of 2002).
Minnesota ranked 25th among the 50 states in pupil-teacher ratios in 2002 and then fell to 36th the following
year. Minnesota’s rank fell as low as 40th in 2006 before recovering to 37th in 2008. From 2002 to 2006,
Minnesota’s pupil-teacher ratio went from 3.2 percent below the national average to 7.1 percent above the
national average, before falling to two percent above the national average in 2008.
The previous version of this report contained an error in the calculation of this measure for 2002 and 2003.
This error is corrected in the current version.
Percentage of Bridges that are Deficient (see table B-12 in appendix for detail)
This report measures the quality of transportation infrastructure in the 50 states in two ways. The first of
these measures is the percentage of all bridges that are deficient.36 The information used here is from the
from CQ Press annual “State Rankings” reports and is based on data from U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration. Data for 2005 are not available.
Minnesota had the second lowest percentage of deficient bridges in the nation in 2002; Minnesota’s ranking
dropped to third in 2003, where it remained through 2007. In each year from 2002 to 2007 (excluding 2005,
for which data are not available), approximately 25 to 28 percent of all bridges nationwide were classified as
deficient; in each of these years, the percentage of deficient bridges in Minnesota was approximately half the
national average.
From 2002 to 2007, the percentage of bridges that are deficient declined by about two percent both nationally
and in Minnesota. Based on this measure, the quality of Minnesota’s bridge system is high and has not
deteriorated relative to the national average since 2002.
Miles in Poor or Mediocre Condition Per 1,000 Road Miles (see table B-13 for detail)
The second measure of the quality of transportation infrastructure used in this report is the number of road
miles in poor or mediocre condition per 1,000 road miles calculated from annual State Transportation Statistics
reports from the U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics.37
Comparing Minnesota performance relative to the national average across the thirteen factors used in this
report is problematic, because the degree of variability about the average varies significantly from factor to
factor. For example, the degree of variability about the average is much greater for road miles in poor or
mediocre condition per 1,000 road miles than for the poverty rate, so a simple comparison of the extent to
which Minnesota deviates from the national average can be misleading.
In order to provide a more meaningful comparison across factors, the previous graph shows the change in
Minnesota’s performance relative to other states from 2002 to 2007 in terms of the number of standard
On nine of the 13 measures, Minnesota’s performance relative to other states deteriorated modestly to
significantly since 2002. On two of the remaining four factors, Minnesota showed insignificant improvement
on one measure and insignificant deterioration on another. On the final two factors, further analysis revealed
that the decline—though apparently substantial—was not statistically significant after accounting for the
margin of error in the estimates that were used.
Minnesota’s performance relative to other states in the unemployment rate and employment growth
deteriorated significantly since 2002. On both measures, Minnesota’s position relative to the 50 state mean
declined by over one-half standard deviation from 2002 to 2009. This standard deviation analysis is consistent
with the analysis presented in preceding sections. Minnesota’s rank and position relative to the national
average deteriorated for the unemployment rate and employment growth.
On each of the three income and pay measures (per capita personal income, median household income, and
average annual pay), Minnesota’s performance relative to the 50 state mean deteriorated by 0.15 to 0.33
standard deviations since 2002—not as large as the decline in the two employment factors but still notable.
In addition, on all three education indicators—pupil-teacher ratio, students at or above “basic” level in
math and reading, and per capita state and local spending on education—Minnesota experienced a modest
deterioration relative to other states ranging from 0.18 to 0.44 standard deviations.
The two transportation measures reveal mixed results. There has been no significant change in Minnesota’s
position relative to the national average in the percentage of bridges that are deficient. However, Minnesota’s
position in terms of road miles in poor or mediocre condition fell sharply relative to the rest of the nation;
Minnesota’s faltering performance in this area was not due to a decline in the number of “poor and mediocre”
roads nationally, but to a substantial increase in the number of such roads in Minnesota. Minnesota
performance on this measure declined by 0.82 standard deviations—the largest decline in the standard
deviation analysis.
The standard deviation analysis indicates modest improvement in Minnesota’s homeownership rate and
modest deterioration in its poverty rate, although neither of these are statistically significant after taking into
account the margins of error in the survey data that was used.
In terms of the percentage of the population with health insurance, Minnesota has declined by 0.31 standard
deviations from 2002 to 2008. While this is larger than many of the other declines in the standard deviation
analysis, it needs to be evaluated in the context of the margin or error for the insurance coverage data. This
data is drawn from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, which is based on a smaller sample than
the American Community Survey and thus typically has a larger margin of error. While there is a 50 percent
chance that Minnesota’s decline on this factor was more than 0.31 standard deviations, there is about a 25
percent chance that there was no decline at all in Minnesota relative to the 50 state mean.
In general, the standard deviation analysis reveals a disturbing trend: Minnesota is losing ground relative to the
rest of the nation on most of the 13 factors, while showing significant improvement in none.
On 12 of the 13 measures, Minnesota’s rank has declined since 2002, although in some instances the drop
in ranking was slight. For the remaining factor, Minnesota’s rank remained the same. In no instance did
Minnesota’s rank improve.
The above analysis compares Minnesota’s rank on each factor in 2002 to the rank based on data for the most
current year available. An alternative way of ranking states would be on the change in each factor over this
period. For example, it is possible to rank each state in terms of the percent change in median household
income from 2002 to 2008. The state with the highest percentage growth over this period would be ranked
number 1, while the state with the greatest percentage decline or least percentage increase would be ranked
50th.
The graph on the following page shows Minnesota’s rank among the 50 states based on the change in each
factor from 2002 to the most current year available. Once again, a rank of “1” denotes the most improvement
among the 50 states, while “50” denotes the greatest decline.
In terms of the change since 2002, Minnesota ranks among the bottom ten states in the nation on four of
the 13 factors and among the bottom 20 on 11. Minnesota breaks into the top 25 states on only one factor.
(Minnesota ranks 23rd in terms of improvement in the deficient bridge percentage since 2002.)
However, in other areas—such as average annual pay and pupil-teacher ratios—Minnesota’s performance
in 2002 was not particulary strong relative to the rest of the nation and thus there was certainly room for
improvement. Even in these areas, Minnesota’s performance change ranking since 2002 is discouraging.
Minnesota’s performance relative to other states was never so strong that there was no room for
improvement. The fact the Minnesota failed to break into the top 20 states on even one of the 13 factors
should give cause for concern, if not embarrassment.
Minnesota is by no means an economic basket case; we still compare favorably to other states on most of the
13 indicators. However, Minnesota’s performance relative to other states on most factors has deteriorated
since 2002. This is true regardless of whether we examine Minnesota’s rank or its position relative to the
national average.
However, correlation does not equal causation. Simply because deterioration in Minnesota’s economic
performance relative to other states corresponded with a relative decline in public investment does not
necessarily mean that the decline in investment caused the decline in performance.
Proponents of “less government” could argue that factors other than the decline in public investment have
led to the decline in Minnesota’s relative performance. For example, Minnesota’s deteriorating economic
performance relative to other states has been attributed to the fact that the national defense and energy
sectors of the economy have done well in recent years. These sectors are not particularly large components of
Minnesota’s economy in comparison to other states and thus other states have benefited more from the boom
in these sectors than Minnesota.
While Minnesota is not a “big player” in sectors that have done well, the state’s economy is fairly heavily
into two sectors that have done poorly in recent years: forestry and wood product manufacturing and
air transportation. The forestry and wood product industry has been hurt by the slump in new home
construction, while the air transportation industry has been hurt by a combination of factors, including
In an attempt to quantify the contribution of trends in national defense, energy production, forestry and wood
product manufacturing, and air transportation industries to Minnesota’s lackluster economic performance
from 2002 to 2007, a recent Minnesota 2020 analysis compared Minnesota and U.S. total GDP growth to the
rate of GDP growth excluding these four sectors.40
From 2002 to 2007, Minnesota total real GDP growth lagged 4.1 percent behind the national average.
After factoring out national defense, energy extraction and manufacturing, forestry and wood product
manufacturing, and air transportation, Minnesota’s “adjusted GDP” growth was still 2.3 percent below the
national average. Even after factoring out the impact of these categories, over half of the gap between
Minnesota and the rest of the nation in terms of GDP growth remains. In other words, trends in defense
spending, energy, and the other categories described above explain some—but not all or even most—of
Minnesota’s lackluster GDP growth.
Proponents of “less government” might also argue that Minnesota’s relative decline in public investment
did not cause a decline in relative economic performance, but rather that the relative decline in economic
performance caused a relative decline in public revenue. This is a variation of the old conundrum: what came
first, the chicken or the egg?
It is well understood that an economic slump can lead to a reduction in government revenue. However,
this simply begs a different question: why was Minnesota’s economic performance slumping relative to the
national average in the first place?
Advocates of “less government” tend to focus on taxes and other own-source revenue, since these represent
dollars that are being diverted from the state’s private economy into its public sector. During the period from
1995 to 2007—and particularly during the period from 2002 to 2007—the level of taxes and other own-source
revenue in Minnesota declined relative to the national average. If proponents of less government are correct,
the decline in own-source revenue in Minnesota relative to the national average should have contributed to an
improvement in Minnesota’s economy relative to the national average. This did not occur.
Admittedly, this report is dealing with complicated economic forces in a simple way that overlooks potentially
important interactions. Nonetheless, the trends highlighted in this report leave “small government”
proponents with a difficult question to answer. Why did the reduction in the relative size of government in
Minnesota not produce the relative improvement in Minnesota’s economic performance that was predicted?
To this point, the economic experiment undertaken by the advocates of “less government” and “no new taxes”
has been a failure.
Proponents of sustained public investment have long argued that the failure to maintain these investments
would lead to deterioration in Minnesota’s economic performance relative to the national average. This is
precisely what has occurred.
It must be noted that not all government spending is created equal. Not all public expenditures will contribute
to long-term economic growth. Public dollars that are spent wastefully or inefficiently will ultimately do more
harm than good to the state’s economy. Nothing in this report should be construed as an endorsement of
public spending simply for the sake of public spending.
The shrinkage in real per capita public revenue in Minnesota since 2002 has jeopardized critical public
investments. As noted above, the state’s road infrastructure has deteriorated and the pupil-teacher ratio in
public schools has increased. In addition, per pupil current spending in Minnesota public elementary and
secondary schools has dropped below the national average.43 Moreover, per capita public employment in
Minnesota has dropped below the national average44 and total Minnesota government revenue has not only
declined relative to other states, but also in real per capita dollars.45
In the past, Minnesotans have demonstrated an ability to identify critical public investments and fund them in
a way that would promote long-term prosperity. As State Economist Tom Stinson observed in MinnPost:
Minnesota’s economic record over the last half-century is one most states envy. The reason that occurred
was because far-sighted public and private sector leaders figured out they were going to invest in the
education of the baby boom generation. Now it seems like an obvious decision to have made, but if it was,
other states would have done it too and we wouldn’t have done as well.46
The importance of funding education was underscored by State Demographer Tom Gillaspy in a recent Star
Tribune column.
“Investment in the future has to be at the absolute core” of what a society considers essential if that
society is going to prosper, he said. “Our ancestors saw that. Many people aren’t seeing that right now.
They haven’t noticed that the height of the [educational] bar is increasing. A high school diploma only
gets you to first base. You haven’t scored yet.”47
While there are some efficiencies to be gained through spending reform in the education area, other critical
investments cannot be funded simply by “belt-tightening.” The Star Tribune column goes on to note that
“existing budgets can’t be stretched far enough to pay for two things that could make the biggest difference—
early childhood education for at-risk preschoolers and more affordable access to grades 13 and 14 at
community and technical colleges.”48
The principal objective of the “no new tax” policy is to freeze or shrink the level of public revenue. If this had
been the agenda of state leaders a half-century ago, the progress cited by Stinson and Gillaspy would not
have occurred. The primary goal of state policymakers should not be to fixate upon a particular level of public
revenue, but to identify which public investments are in the long-term interest of the state and find a way to
pay for them. Any ideology or political priority that interferes with this objective must be abandoned.
Minnesota continued strong economic performance relative to the rest of the nation is by no means
predestined; Minnesota’s position in comparison to other states can and has deteriorated. This deterioration
has corresponded with shrinkage in Minnesota’s public investment. Minnesota’s ability to restore a bright
economic future lies not in a slavish devotion to shrinking public revenue, but upon our ability to identify the
state’s long-term investment needs and fund them appropriately.
2 The Revenue Department’s analysis of this subject is summarized in “Comparing Minnesota’s Taxes to the 50 States,”
Minnesota 2020, November 7, 2008. (http://tinyurl.com/yblrbmf)
3 Ibid.
4 “How to Reduce Minnesota’s Red Ink and Move Forward,” Minnesota 2020 Hindsight, December 2, 2009. (http://www.
mn2020hindsight.org/?p=3382)
5 “Minnesota’s School Investment Drops Below National Average,” Minnesota 2020, September 29, 2009. (http://tinyurl.
com/ybm4ycp)
6 “Minnesota’s Slip Toward Mediocrity: Less Investment, Less Return,” Minnesota 2020, June 4, 2008. (http://tinyurl.
com/5fodn4)
7 The annual U.S. Census Bureau data for state and local governments in all fifty states can be found at: http://www.
census.gov/govs/estimate/
8 “FAQs on Tax Rankings & Minnesota,” Money Matters Number 08-01, January 2008. (http://www. house.leg.state.
mn.us/fiscal/files/08taxrankings.pdf)
9 For example, from FY 2000 to FY 2002, U.S. state and local government per capita revenue from all sources fell from
$7,867 to $6,745 and then increased to $8,314 in FY 2004. (Data for FY 2001 and 2003 are not available.) The large
dip in revenue in FY 2002 was not due to contraction of public services, but to a large decline in public insurance
trust revenue driven by a sharp decline in financial markets. Excluding insurance trust revenue, U.S. state and local
government per capita revenue increased from $6,606 in FY 2000 to $6,691 in FY 2002 to $6,841 in FY 2004. For
Minnesota, state and local government per capita revenue from all sources fell from $8,987 in FY 2000 to $7,522 in FY
2002 and then increased to $8,459 in FY 2004; excluding insurance trust revenue, Minnesota state and local government
per capita revenue went from $7,494 in FY 2000 to $7,446 in FY 2002 to $7,261 in FY 2004. All amounts in this footnote
are in constant FY 2004 dollars.
10 “State and Local Government Revenue for Fiscal Year 1999-2000: State-by-State Census Data,” Center for Budget and
Policy Priorities, p. 3, 2002.
11 The relationship between state per capita personal income and state cost-of-living indices (http://ded.mo. gov/
researchandplanning/indicators/cost_of_living/index.stm) is statistically significant at the .01 level. Furthermore, the
relationship between state per capita personal income and annual mean wages for 12 common public sector occupations
(e.g., school teachers, fire fighters, police and sheriff patrol officers, etc.) also indicates a statistically significant at the .01
level for each occupation.
12 A statistical analysis confirms that high per capita personal income states receive less federal assistance per capita
than low per capita personal income states. After excluding Alaska and Wyoming, the negative relationship between per
capita personal income and per capita federal assistance is statistically significant at the .05 level. Alaska and Wyoming
are outliers because they are (1) the top two per capita energy producing states in the nation and thus tend to have high
per capita income and (2) the top two recipients of per capita federal assistance, largely because of the large amount of
federal land within their borders.
13 Dr. Wilson’s research on this subject is summarized in “Comparing Minnesota’s Taxes to the 50 States,” Minnesota
14 “Frequently Asked Questions,” Minnesota Department of Revenue, December 17, 2007. (http://www. taxes.state.
mn.us/taxes/legal_policy/research_reports/content/04_FAQ.pdf)
15 “Taking the Spin out of Inflation Estimates,” Minnesota 2020, September 9, 2008. (http://tinyurl.com/ yfo2zgo)
16 In appendix B, factors that represent income for consumers (i.e., per capita personal income, median household
income, and average annual pay) were adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers. The
factor that represents income for government (i.e., state and local education spending per capita) is adjusted for inflation
using the Implicit Price Deflator for State and Local Government Purchases.
17 “Taking the Spin out of Inflation Estimates,” Minnesota 2020, September 9, 2008. (http://tinyurl.com/ yfo2zgo)
18 Wilson’s research on this subject is summarized in “Comparing Minnesota’s Taxes to the 50 States,” Minnesota 2020,
November 7, 2008. (http://tinyurl.com/yblrbmf)
19 “Bureau of Economic Analysis Glossary,” U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, October 2, 2006. (http:// www.bea.gov/
glossary/glossary.cfm?letter=P)
20 Per capita personal income information (prior to conversion to constant dollars) was compiled from the following BEA
website: http://www.bea.gov/regional/spi/default.cfm?selTable=summary.
21 “State and County QuickFacts: Household Income and Persons Below Poverty,” U.S. Census Bureau. (http://quickfacts.
census.gov/qfd/meta/long_IPE010204.htm)
22 “Alternative Measures of Household Income,” U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, February 27, 2004. (http://www.bea.
gov/regional/docs/spi2001/household_income.cfm#footnotes)
23 ACS median household income data was compiled from the following website: http://tinyurl.com/l3we7x
24 ACS poverty rates were compiled from the following website: http://tinyurl.com/l3we7x.
25 “Housing Vacancies and Homeownership,” U.S. Census Bureau, January 29, 2008. (http://www.census. gov/hhes/
www/housing/hvs/qtr407/q407def.html)
26 “A Dream Deferred: The 50/30 Housing Research Initiative Final Report,” The Urban Coalition, p. v., July 1999.
27 “Table 15. Homeownership Rates by State: 1984 to 2008,” U.S. Census Bureau. (http://www.census. gov/hhes/www/
housing/hvs/annual08/ann08t15.xls)
29 “Homeownership Revisited,” Minnesota 2020 Hindsight, January 12, 2010. (http://www. mn2020hindsight.
org/?p=3627)
30 “Table HIA-4. Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by State All People: 1999 to 2008”, U.S. Census
Bureau. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/historic/hihistt4.xls)
31 For more on the GAMC cuts, see “Minnesota Health Cuts Defy All Logic,” Minnesota 2020, May 22, 2009. (http://
tinyurl.com/yhhzvf9)
32 The education expenditure data used here is from annual U.S. Census Bureau data for state and local governments in
33 “Taking the Spin out of Inflation Estimates,” Minnesota 2020, September 9, 2008. (http://tinyurl.com/ yfo2zgo)
34 “Minnesota’s School Investment Drops Below National Average,” Minnesota 2020, September 29, 2009. (http://
tinyurl.com/ybm4ycp)
35 NAEP math and reading data for all states are available for 2003, 2005, and 2007; no data is available for 2004 and
2006. Fourth and 8th grade reading data are available for most states for 2002; for those states in which 2002 reading
data is not available, 2003 data is substituted for 2002 data. No NAEP math data is available for 2002. Fourth and 8th
grade math data for 2002 were interpolated based on data from 2000 and 2003; when 2000 math data was not available,
2003 data were substituted for 2002 data. Raw data used in this analysis was compiled from NAEP reports (http://nces.
ed.gov/nationsreportcard/).
36 Bridges classified as “deficient” are either functionally obsolete or structurally deficient, but not necessarily unsafe.
37 “State Transportation Statistics” (annual reports), U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation
Statistics. (http://www.bts.gov/publications/state_transportation_statistics/)
38 For more on this, see “Why Minnesota’s Roads are Literally Falling Apart,” Minnesota 2020, November 23, 2009.
(http://tinyurl.com/ydarfss)
39 The standard deviation is a widely used measure of dispersion or variability. A low standard deviation indicates that
the data points are close to the mean, whereas a high standard deviation indicates that the data are widely distributed
about the mean. For a normal distribution of values (i.e., the symmetrical bell-shaped curve), about 68 percent of scores
will be within one standard deviation of the mean.
40 “Another Look at Minnesota’s Underperforming Economy,” Minnesota 2020, December 14, 2009. (http://tinyurl.com/
yekexr6)
41 “How to Reduce Minnesota’s Red Ink and Move Forward,” Minnesota 2020 Hindsight, December 2, 2009. (http://
www.mn2020hindsight.org/?p=3382)
42 “Unallotment Verdict: An Opportunity to ‘Get it Right’,” Minnesota 2020 Hindsight, January 4, 2010. (http://www.
mn2020hindsight.org/?p=3584)
43 “Minnesota’s School Investment Drops Below National Average,” Minnesota 2020, September 29, 2009. (http://
tinyurl.com/ybm4ycp)
44 “Minnesota’s Public Employment and Payroll Shrinking,” Minnesota 2020, October 5, 2009. (http://tinyurl.com/
ychz9wj)
45 “Minnesota Communities Continue Bearing Brunt of State Budget Problems,” Minnesota 2020, August 25, 2009.
(http://tinyurl.com/ydupzxl)
46 “Minnesota’s economist worries about the future of the state’s sputtering economic engine,” MinnPost, November
19, 2007. (http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2007/11/19/134/minnesotas_economist_worries_ about_future_of_the_
states_sputtering_economic_engine)
47 “Let’s peer into the demographic crystal ball,” Star Tribune, January 3, 2010. (http://tinyurl.com/ ydywxya)
48 Ibid.
FY 2002 State FY 2004 State FY 2005 State FY 2006 State FY 2007 State
United States Total $3,962 Rank $4,054 Rank $4,128 Rank $4,198 Rank $4,234 Rank
Alabama $2,738 50 $2,748 50 $2,866 50 $2,916 50 $2,909 50
Alaska $4,058 16 $4,224 16 $4,905 6 $5,678 5 $7,268 1
Arizona $3,333 36 $3,369 37 $3,422 35 $3,382 39 $3,673 30
Arkansas $2,988 46 $2,991 47 $3,237 44 $3,269 44 $3,242 43
California $4,344 10 $4,417 11 $4,547 12 $4,750 9 $4,754 9
Colorado $3,888 19 $3,726 25 $3,742 27 $3,798 28 $3,848 27
Connecticut $5,524 2 $5,824 2 $6,045 2 $5,970 3 $6,044 4
Delaware $4,210 13 $4,262 14 $4,349 14 $4,459 14 $4,245 16
Florida $3,395 34 $3,651 27 $3,763 26 $3,879 26 $4,009 26
Georgia $3,530 28 $3,384 36 $3,363 38 $3,489 35 $3,481 34
Hawaii $4,350 9 $4,519 8 $4,861 7 $5,094 6 $5,139 6
Idaho $3,090 43 $3,217 41 $3,268 41 $3,229 45 $3,185 45
Illinois $4,175 14 $4,194 17 $4,304 15 $4,282 15 $4,290 13
Indiana $3,480 29 $3,534 29 $3,800 25 $3,821 27 $3,332 40
Iowa $3,581 26 $3,602 28 $3,659 30 $3,622 31 $3,665 31
Kansas $3,703 25 $3,977 22 $3,809 24 $3,974 22 $4,088 21
Kentucky $3,322 38 $3,257 39 $3,275 40 $3,383 38 $3,235 44
Louisiana $3,436 31 $3,422 33 $3,540 31 $3,883 25 $4,020 24
Maine $4,421 8 $4,478 10 $4,431 13 $4,632 11 $4,280 14
Maryland $4,602 7 $4,739 6 $4,770 8 $4,824 8 $4,817 8
Massachusetts $4,678 4 $4,932 5 $4,974 5 $4,982 7 $4,966 7
Michigan $3,851 22 $3,900 24 $3,891 23 $3,743 30 $3,691 29
Minnesota $4,633 5 $4,496 9 $4,568 11 $4,582 13 $4,566 11
Mississippi $2,875 48 $2,888 49 $2,876 49 $2,959 49 $2,989 49
Missouri $3,356 35 $3,327 38 $3,342 39 $3,290 43 $3,265 42
Montana $2,956 47 $3,086 45 $3,241 43 $3,347 41 $3,419 36
Nebraska $3,883 20 $4,257 15 $4,186 18 $4,093 21 $4,034 23
Nevada $3,743 24 $4,032 20 $4,190 17 $4,119 20 $4,089 20
New Hampshire $3,567 27 $3,702 26 $3,696 29 $3,616 32 $3,614 32
New Jersey $5,102 3 $5,393 3 $5,485 4 $5,737 4 $5,944 5
New Mexico $3,322 37 $3,387 35 $3,531 32 $3,771 29 $3,797 28
New York $5,842 1 $6,176 1 $6,394 1 $6,691 1 $6,898 2
North Carolina $3,421 32 $3,449 31 $3,509 33 $3,555 33 $3,586 33
North Dakota $3,437 30 $3,512 30 $3,716 28 $3,898 24 $4,085 22
Ohio $3,992 18 $4,021 21 $4,054 22 $3,955 23 $4,012 25
Oklahoma $3,176 42 $3,158 43 $3,175 45 $3,306 42 $3,312 41
Oregon $3,220 41 $3,442 32 $3,413 36 $3,531 34 $3,413 37
Pennsylvania $3,853 21 $4,070 19 $4,146 19 $4,150 17 $4,208 17
Rhode Island $4,280 12 $4,611 7 $4,704 9 $4,631 12 $4,545 12
South Carolina $2,994 45 $3,130 44 $3,090 46 $3,015 46 $3,134 46
South Dakota $3,045 44 $3,063 46 $3,004 47 $2,982 47 $3,009 47
Tennessee $2,818 49 $2,974 48 $2,975 48 $2,977 48 $3,005 48
Texas $3,421 33 $3,393 34 $3,373 37 $3,396 37 $3,441 35
Utah $3,251 40 $3,190 42 $3,250 42 $3,357 40 $3,337 39
Vermont $4,024 17 $4,345 13 $4,627 10 $4,651 10 $4,714 10
Virginia $3,830 23 $3,942 23 $4,079 21 $4,129 19 $4,205 18
Washington $4,058 15 $4,075 18 $4,088 20 $4,146 18 $4,269 15
West Virginia $3,257 39 $3,238 40 $3,424 34 $3,412 36 $3,371 38
Wisconsin $4,305 11 $4,361 12 $4,300 16 $4,196 16 $4,169 19
Wyoming $4,608 6 $5,248 4 $5,876 3 $6,411 2 $6,205 3
% MN above or
17.0% 10.9% 10.7% 9.2% 7.9%
below U.S. average
FY 2002 State FY 2004 State FY 2005 State FY 2006 State FY 2007 State
United States Total $5,797 Rank $5,875 Rank $5,959 Rank $6,089 Rank $6,176 Rank
Alabama $4,748 45 $4,881 43 $4,945 41 $5,001 41 $5,071 43
Alaska $10,625 1 $10,862 1 $12,102 1 $13,351 1 $15,330 1
Arizona $4,577 47 $4,621 46 $4,767 45 $4,692 48 $5,131 40
Arkansas $4,458 49 $4,490 49 $4,700 47 $4,736 46 $4,654 50
California $6,435 8 $6,517 8 $6,684 8 $6,865 9 $6,990 8
Colorado $6,124 10 $5,858 19 $5,892 20 $6,020 20 $6,129 18
Connecticut $6,854 5 $7,232 5 $7,412 4 $7,315 6 $7,409 5
Delaware $7,021 4 $7,341 4 $7,244 5 $7,364 5 $7,390 6
Florida $5,472 28 $5,671 24 $5,718 26 $5,813 26 $6,084 19
Georgia $5,136 35 $4,937 41 $4,847 43 $4,993 42 $5,096 42
Hawaii $6,035 14 $5,998 17 $6,680 9 $6,949 7 $7,012 7
Idaho $4,886 41 $4,973 39 $5,019 40 $4,944 43 $4,988 44
Illinois $5,660 25 $5,625 27 $5,725 25 $5,874 24 $5,780 29
Indiana $5,343 31 $5,367 32 $5,684 27 $6,384 11 $5,296 37
Iowa $5,694 21 $5,628 26 $5,671 29 $5,696 30 $5,792 28
Kansas $5,355 30 $5,655 25 $5,486 31 $5,646 31 $5,760 30
Kentucky $4,875 43 $4,758 45 $4,732 46 $4,883 44 $4,776 48
Louisiana $5,518 27 $5,312 34 $5,453 32 $5,804 27 $5,968 23
Maine $6,013 15 $6,147 13 $6,117 14 $6,261 15 $5,874 24
Maryland $6,111 11 $6,263 10 $6,334 11 $6,350 12 $6,349 14
Massachusetts $6,422 9 $6,775 7 $6,906 7 $6,913 8 $6,846 9
Michigan $5,733 17 $5,870 18 $5,820 23 $5,640 32 $5,834 26
Minnesota $6,805 7 $6,497 9 $6,558 10 $6,555 10 $6,585 10
Mississippi $4,701 46 $4,593 48 $4,528 49 $4,644 49 $4,791 47
Missouri $4,823 44 $4,905 42 $4,880 42 $4,831 45 $4,917 45
Montana $4,889 40 $4,970 40 $5,101 38 $5,207 37 $5,388 35
Nebraska $5,732 18 $6,164 12 $6,097 15 $6,134 17 $6,162 17
Nevada $5,693 22 $5,739 23 $6,086 16 $5,984 22 $6,016 21
New Hampshire $5,065 36 $5,338 33 $5,210 36 $5,156 38 $5,230 39
New Jersey $6,823 6 $7,043 6 $7,193 6 $7,476 4 $7,724 4
New Mexico $5,275 33 $5,396 31 $5,672 28 $6,100 18 $6,040 20
New York $7,845 2 $8,141 3 $8,338 3 $8,967 3 $9,133 3
North Carolina $5,141 34 $5,083 37 $5,117 37 $5,208 36 $5,309 36
North Dakota $5,642 26 $5,605 28 $5,738 24 $5,999 21 $6,315 15
Ohio $5,707 20 $5,746 22 $5,829 22 $5,757 28 $5,821 27
Oklahoma $4,935 39 $4,818 44 $4,805 44 $5,004 40 $5,108 41
Oregon $5,434 29 $5,532 29 $5,552 30 $5,739 29 $5,676 31
Pennsylvania $5,728 19 $5,766 21 $5,836 21 $5,868 25 $5,992 22
Rhode Island $5,754 16 $6,186 11 $6,316 12 $6,292 14 $6,353 13
South Carolina $4,884 42 $5,182 35 $5,374 34 $5,356 35 $5,503 32
South Dakota $4,550 48 $4,593 47 $4,503 50 $4,595 50 $4,671 49
Tennessee $4,317 50 $4,405 50 $4,575 48 $4,729 47 $4,824 46
Texas $4,989 38 $5,050 38 $5,041 39 $5,103 39 $5,241 38
Utah $5,334 32 $5,112 36 $5,247 35 $5,381 34 $5,482 33
Vermont $5,673 24 $6,082 15 $6,310 13 $6,347 13 $6,495 11
Virginia $5,675 23 $5,799 20 $5,989 18 $6,064 19 $6,166 16
Washington $6,094 12 $6,090 14 $6,038 17 $6,135 16 $6,398 12
West Virginia $4,994 37 $5,531 30 $5,431 33 $5,384 33 $5,451 34
Wisconsin $6,037 13 $6,031 16 $5,951 19 $5,880 23 $5,863 25
Wyoming $7,729 3 $8,606 2 $9,388 2 $10,185 2 $9,997 2
% MN above or
17.4% 10.6% 10.0% 7.6% 6.6%
below U.S. average
FY 2002 State FY 2004 State FY 2005 State FY 2006 State FY 2007 State
United States Total $7,375 Rank $7,583 Rank $7,609 Rank $7,677 Rank $7,721 Rank
Alabama $6,512 41 $6,660 40 $6,769 38 $6,758 39 $6,749 38
Alaska $14,133 1 $15,167 1 $16,352 1 $17,080 1 $19,033 1
Arizona $5,899 50 $6,172 50 $6,305 48 $6,188 50 $6,495 44
Arkansas $6,157 48 $6,324 47 $6,444 45 $6,428 45 $6,227 50
California $8,175 7 $8,309 11 $8,376 11 $8,501 9 $8,507 10
Colorado $7,318 22 $7,187 27 $7,109 30 $7,196 29 $7,303 27
Connecticut $8,329 6 $8,755 5 $8,835 4 $8,696 6 $8,710 9
Delaware $8,525 4 $8,896 4 $8,816 5 $8,893 5 $8,839 6
Florida $6,603 37 $6,973 31 $7,044 32 $7,190 30 $7,342 24
Georgia $6,509 42 $6,244 49 $6,141 50 $6,275 48 $6,539 41
Hawaii $7,623 15 $7,720 18 $8,409 10 $8,601 8 $8,739 8
Idaho $6,215 47 $6,558 42 $6,485 42 $6,351 47 $6,281 48
Illinois $6,934 29 $7,077 29 $7,073 31 $7,183 31 $7,095 33
Indiana $6,631 36 $6,755 36 $6,965 34 $7,631 19 $6,579 40
Iowa $7,253 24 $7,348 25 $7,322 26 $7,289 26 $7,308 26
Kansas $6,794 30 $7,005 30 $6,867 35 $6,970 36 $6,948 35
Kentucky $6,543 38 $6,532 44 $6,366 47 $6,566 41 $6,356 47
Louisiana $7,347 21 $7,308 26 $7,396 23 $8,283 14 $9,003 5
Maine $7,863 11 $8,553 8 $8,364 12 $8,409 12 $7,778 18
Maryland $7,483 18 $7,804 15 $7,839 16 $7,824 17 $7,782 17
Massachusetts $7,631 14 $8,613 7 $8,497 9 $8,497 10 $8,491 11
Michigan $7,308 23 $7,630 19 $7,385 24 $7,092 32 $7,258 28
Minnesota $8,333 5 $8,154 12 $8,151 13 $8,023 16 $7,990 16
Mississippi $6,739 33 $6,892 34 $6,827 36 $7,313 25 $8,100 15
Missouri $6,449 44 $6,546 43 $6,529 41 $6,379 46 $6,387 46
Montana $7,090 28 $7,357 24 $7,485 22 $7,459 21 $7,467 22
Nebraska $7,174 26 $7,876 14 $7,793 17 $7,692 18 $7,674 20
Nevada $6,643 35 $6,710 38 $7,124 29 $6,993 35 $6,979 34
New Hampshire $6,349 45 $6,768 35 $6,600 40 $6,478 43 $6,511 43
New Jersey $8,142 8 $8,397 10 $8,562 7 $8,900 4 $9,081 4
New Mexico $7,402 19 $7,762 17 $8,149 14 $8,312 13 $8,302 14
New York $10,223 3 $10,923 3 $10,968 3 $11,343 3 $11,456 3
North Carolina $6,692 34 $6,725 37 $6,796 37 $6,776 38 $6,878 36
North Dakota $7,940 9 $8,032 13 $8,035 15 $8,138 15 $8,362 12
Ohio $7,237 25 $7,421 23 $7,499 21 $7,408 22 $7,404 23
Oklahoma $6,531 39 $6,431 46 $6,438 46 $6,593 40 $6,676 39
Oregon $7,739 13 $7,155 28 $7,167 28 $7,282 27 $7,169 29
Pennsylvania $7,369 20 $7,492 22 $7,571 19 $7,400 23 $7,516 21
Rhode Island $7,841 12 $8,516 9 $8,518 8 $8,448 11 $8,342 13
South Carolina $6,521 40 $6,921 32 $7,233 27 $6,997 34 $7,097 32
South Dakota $6,452 43 $6,659 41 $6,459 43 $6,435 44 $6,424 45
Tennessee $5,969 49 $6,300 48 $6,262 49 $6,224 49 $6,271 49
Texas $6,318 46 $6,501 45 $6,454 44 $6,497 42 $6,535 42
Utah $6,743 32 $6,664 39 $6,680 39 $6,807 37 $6,770 37
Vermont $7,899 10 $8,683 6 $8,670 6 $8,637 7 $8,786 7
Virginia $6,754 31 $6,910 33 $7,011 33 $7,044 33 $7,134 31
Washington $7,559 16 $7,562 21 $7,521 20 $7,582 20 $7,775 19
West Virginia $7,095 27 $7,773 16 $7,615 18 $7,350 24 $7,329 25
Wisconsin $7,531 17 $7,580 20 $7,378 25 $7,220 28 $7,140 30
Wyoming $10,737 2 $13,238 2 $15,401 2 $14,365 2 $13,504 2
% MN above or
13.0% 7.5% 7.1% 4.5% 3.5%
below U.S. average
FY 2002 State FY 2004 State FY 2005 State FY 2006 State FY 2007 State
United States Total $7,583 Rank $7,637 Rank $7,567 Rank $7,452 Rank $7,444 Rank
Alabama $6,933 30 $7,065 29 $7,120 26 $7,017 26 $6,571 37
Alaska $16,553 1 $15,108 1 $14,639 1 $14,501 1 $15,061 1
Arizona $5,965 50 $6,147 49 $6,147 49 $6,063 48 $6,164 46
Arkansas $6,091 49 $6,252 48 $6,231 47 $6,197 45 $5,949 48
California $8,496 7 $8,608 6 $8,550 6 $8,514 7 $8,611 5
Colorado $7,616 20 $7,262 25 $6,919 31 $6,788 35 $6,903 30
Connecticut $8,838 4 $8,461 8 $8,385 10 $8,257 9 $8,236 10
Delaware $8,391 8 $8,813 5 $9,054 4 $9,192 4 $8,905 4
Florida $6,585 41 $6,841 36 $7,081 27 $7,131 24 $7,113 24
Georgia $6,786 35 $6,623 42 $6,204 48 $6,096 47 $6,642 35
Hawaii $8,506 6 $8,145 13 $8,210 12 $8,090 11 $8,465 7
Idaho $6,388 46 $6,374 44 $6,300 44 $6,043 49 $5,910 49
Illinois $7,399 23 $7,377 21 $7,205 25 $6,914 30 $7,016 25
Indiana $6,713 39 $6,726 38 $6,803 37 $6,642 36 $6,582 36
Iowa $7,389 25 $7,348 22 $7,335 21 $7,277 22 $7,165 23
Kansas $6,905 32 $7,008 32 $6,816 36 $6,860 33 $6,658 34
Kentucky $6,641 40 $6,634 41 $6,262 46 $6,318 41 $6,331 41
Louisiana $6,768 37 $7,137 28 $7,062 28 $7,525 16 $7,813 14
Maine $7,738 17 $8,341 12 $8,074 14 $7,951 13 $7,546 16
Maryland $7,397 24 $7,238 26 $7,316 23 $7,366 21 $7,532 18
Massachusetts $8,286 9 $8,845 4 $8,602 5 $8,525 6 $8,296 9
Michigan $7,655 19 $7,879 15 $7,399 20 $6,914 31 $6,919 29
Minnesota $8,770 5 $8,480 7 $8,286 11 $7,897 14 $7,832 13
Mississippi $6,779 36 $7,041 30 $6,852 34 $6,964 27 $7,537 17
Missouri $6,445 44 $6,349 45 $6,274 45 $6,205 43 $6,186 44
Montana $6,991 28 $7,040 31 $6,840 35 $6,900 32 $6,848 32
Nebraska $7,118 27 $7,273 24 $6,968 29 $6,960 28 $6,968 28
Nevada $6,846 33 $6,888 34 $6,919 30 $6,791 34 $6,704 33
New Hampshire $6,287 48 $6,867 35 $6,703 39 $6,522 39 $6,373 40
New Jersey $8,014 12 $8,347 11 $8,505 7 $8,633 5 $8,589 6
New Mexico $7,790 16 $7,849 16 $8,198 13 $8,039 12 $8,154 11
New York $10,591 2 $10,706 2 $10,596 3 $10,536 3 $10,436 3
North Carolina $6,749 38 $6,687 40 $6,758 38 $6,623 38 $6,497 39
North Dakota $7,726 18 $7,680 18 $7,620 17 $7,434 19 $7,270 21
Ohio $7,400 22 $7,645 20 $7,573 19 $7,503 17 $7,341 20
Oklahoma $6,565 42 $6,074 50 $6,015 50 $6,118 46 $6,237 43
Oregon $8,230 10 $7,332 23 $7,290 24 $7,209 23 $6,974 27
Pennsylvania $7,507 21 $7,655 19 $7,775 16 $7,560 15 $7,489 19
Rhode Island $7,983 13 $8,387 9 $8,409 9 $8,161 10 $8,086 12
South Carolina $7,313 26 $7,167 27 $7,333 22 $7,040 25 $7,014 26
South Dakota $6,423 45 $6,279 47 $6,349 42 $6,209 42 $6,164 45
Tennessee $6,288 47 $6,284 46 $6,304 43 $5,938 50 $5,796 50
Texas $6,459 43 $6,502 43 $6,407 41 $6,200 44 $6,146 47
Utah $6,938 29 $6,699 39 $6,461 40 $6,328 40 $6,242 42
Vermont $7,792 15 $8,358 10 $8,497 8 $8,301 8 $8,392 8
Virginia $6,796 34 $6,772 37 $6,872 32 $6,922 29 $6,864 31
Washington $8,037 11 $8,098 14 $7,893 15 $7,442 18 $7,675 15
West Virginia $6,910 31 $6,911 33 $6,853 33 $6,632 37 $6,500 38
Wisconsin $7,866 14 $7,833 17 $7,579 18 $7,417 20 $7,165 22
Wyoming $9,766 3 $10,599 3 $11,166 2 $10,976 2 $11,430 2
% MN above or
15.6% 11.0% 9.5% 6.0% 5.2%
below U.S. average
2002 State 2003 State 2004 State 2005 State 2006 State 2007 State 2008 State
United States 37,656 Rank 37,762 Rank 38,621 Rank 39,065 Rank 40,281 Rank 40,928 Rank 40,208 Rank
Alabama 30,891 44 31,293 41 32,362 42 32,940 42 33,614 43 34,132 43 33,768 42
Alaska 39,678 13 39,235 15 39,759 17 40,569 15 41,530 16 42,716 14 44,039 8
Arizona 32,537 38 32,587 38 33,686 38 34,784 36 35,765 35 35,720 36 34,335 41
Arkansas 29,076 49 29,798 48 30,653 47 30,837 48 31,574 48 32,848 47 32,397 46
California 40,691 9 40,848 10 41,961 9 42,617 8 44,206 7 44,863 8 43,641 9
Colorado 41,918 7 41,126 8 41,754 10 42,472 9 43,680 10 44,056 10 42,985 12
Connecticut 51,867 1 51,151 1 52,883 1 53,434 1 56,268 1 57,721 1 56,272 1
Delaware 39,741 12 39,628 13 40,734 14 40,845 14 41,818 15 41,590 18 40,519 18
Florida 36,531 21 36,686 22 38,348 20 39,420 19 40,900 19 40,693 19 39,267 21
Georgia 35,026 28 34,720 32 34,907 34 35,460 33 35,738 36 35,966 35 34,893 38
Hawaii 36,535 20 36,869 21 38,494 19 39,510 18 41,127 17 42,461 16 42,055 15
Idaho 31,146 41 30,964 44 32,417 41 32,667 43 33,811 42 34,155 42 33,074 44
Illinois 40,320 11 40,435 11 40,966 13 40,962 13 42,225 13 43,148 13 42,347 14
Indiana 34,143 33 34,609 33 34,914 33 34,497 38 35,106 40 35,038 41 34,605 40
Iowa 34,500 32 34,441 35 36,086 26 35,603 30 36,144 29 37,055 29 37,402 28
Kansas 35,609 27 36,052 25 36,364 25 36,511 26 38,176 22 38,809 23 38,820 23
Kentucky 30,917 43 30,819 45 31,351 45 31,472 47 32,168 47 32,391 48 32,076 47
Louisiana 31,049 42 31,240 42 31,976 43 33,172 41 36,034 31 36,706 30 36,424 31
Maine 34,579 31 35,020 30 35,858 30 35,290 35 36,018 32 36,410 33 36,457 30
Maryland 44,469 4 44,696 4 46,284 4 46,949 4 48,174 4 48,837 5 48,378 6
Massachusetts 47,279 3 46,976 3 47,991 3 48,377 3 50,533 3 51,780 3 51,254 3
Michigan 36,122 23 36,511 23 36,059 27 35,558 32 35,444 38 35,487 39 34,949 37
Minnesota 40,774 8 41,277 7 42,244 7 41,869 12 42,723 11 43,350 12 43,037 11
Mississippi 27,698 50 28,072 50 28,675 50 29,575 49 29,905 50 30,671 50 30,399 50
Missouri 35,019 29 35,370 29 35,814 31 35,572 31 36,367 28 36,649 31 36,631 29
Montana 30,734 45 31,582 39 32,599 40 33,217 40 34,383 41 35,237 40 34,644 39
Nebraska 36,291 22 37,595 19 37,915 21 37,835 21 38,143 23 39,348 21 39,150 22
Nevada 37,496 18 38,261 17 40,274 15 42,133 11 42,040 14 42,708 15 41,182 17
New Hampshire 42,031 6 41,757 6 42,851 6 42,332 10 43,773 9 44,458 9 43,623 10
New Jersey 47,820 2 47,377 2 48,313 2 48,484 2 50,880 2 52,174 2 51,358 2
New Mexico 29,990 47 30,147 47 31,103 46 31,884 45 32,657 45 33,385 44 33,430 43
New York 42,379 5 42,302 5 43,747 5 44,830 5 46,949 6 49,420 4 48,753 4
North Carolina 34,077 34 33,897 37 34,847 35 35,339 34 35,916 33 36,280 34 35,344 35
North Dakota 32,749 37 34,811 31 34,565 36 35,655 29 35,876 34 38,089 26 39,870 20
Ohio 35,724 25 35,907 26 36,021 28 35,815 27 36,400 27 36,648 32 36,021 33
Oklahoma 31,389 39 31,499 40 32,823 39 33,604 39 35,532 37 35,640 37 35,985 34
Oregon 35,611 26 35,733 27 36,000 29 35,804 28 36,966 26 37,068 28 36,297 32
Pennsylvania 37,699 17 37,930 18 38,568 18 38,548 20 39,852 20 40,542 20 40,140 19
Rhode Island 38,479 15 39,149 16 39,978 16 39,931 17 40,990 18 41,747 17 41,368 16
South Carolina 31,207 40 31,236 43 31,824 44 32,257 44 33,131 44 33,283 45 32,666 45
South Dakota 33,591 36 35,620 28 36,657 24 36,533 25 36,052 30 37,875 27 38,661 25
Tennessee 33,675 35 33,952 36 34,517 37 34,561 37 35,218 39 35,589 38 34,976 36
Texas 34,623 30 34,601 34 35,402 32 36,558 24 37,662 25 38,228 25 37,774 26
Utah 30,690 46 30,213 46 30,564 48 31,518 46 32,372 46 32,945 46 31,944 48
Vermont 35,913 24 36,276 24 37,270 23 36,827 23 38,458 21 39,150 22 38,686 24
Virginia 40,416 10 40,973 9 42,054 8 42,958 7 44,166 8 44,919 7 44,224 7
Washington 39,615 14 39,616 14 40,999 12 40,526 16 42,304 12 43,616 11 42,857 13
West Virginia 29,182 48 29,144 49 29,376 49 29,407 50 30,666 49 31,289 49 31,641 49
Wisconsin 36,865 19 37,028 20 37,296 22 37,127 22 38,078 24 38,414 24 37,767 27
Wyoming 38,389 16 39,687 12 41,327 11 43,492 6 47,725 5 48,516 6 48,608 5
% MN above or
8.3% 9.3% 9.4% 7.2% 6.1% 5.9% 7.0%
below U.S. avg.
2002 State 2003 State 2004 State 2005 State 2006 State 2007 State 2008 State
United States 51,521 Rank 50,957 Rank 50,909 Rank 50,962 Rank 51,730 Rank 52,667 Rank 52,029 Rank
Alabama 42,373 44 41,124 43 41,823 42 40,643 46 41,407 46 42,094 46 42,666 46
Alaska 67,650 3 61,408 6 64,971 4 61,973 7 63,412 7 66,777 4 68,460 4
Arizona 49,265 25 47,679 29 47,845 28 48,802 25 50,463 22 51,784 22 50,958 22
Arkansas 41,165 47 40,057 47 37,578 48 38,571 48 39,076 48 39,582 48 38,815 48
California 59,515 9 58,742 11 58,315 9 59,103 9 60,478 8 62,225 8 61,021 9
Colorado 57,773 12 59,114 10 54,912 14 55,822 13 55,535 14 57,309 12 56,993 13
Connecticut 67,658 2 66,442 3 68,960 2 67,161 3 67,714 3 68,473 3 68,595 3
Delaware 59,859 8 59,167 9 57,324 11 57,857 10 56,408 12 56,684 15 57,989 11
Florida 46,984 35 46,637 34 46,980 35 46,764 33 48,574 27 49,620 27 47,778 33
Georgia 50,339 22 49,995 23 49,032 23 50,259 23 50,001 24 51,002 23 50,861 23
Hawaii 60,505 7 59,405 8 61,014 7 64,043 4 65,299 4 66,167 5 67,214 5
Idaho 44,586 39 46,194 36 45,497 36 45,673 36 45,766 35 48,010 34 47,576 34
Illinois 55,674 13 56,118 14 55,772 12 55,390 14 55,525 15 56,180 16 56,235 16
Indiana 50,144 23 49,206 24 48,073 26 48,483 26 48,466 30 49,250 30 47,966 32
Iowa 47,011 34 47,403 32 47,110 34 48,060 28 47,502 33 49,088 31 48,980 29
Kansas 47,924 31 48,045 28 47,438 32 47,301 31 48,555 28 49,253 29 50,177 25
Kentucky 41,848 46 40,200 46 40,182 45 41,183 44 42,036 44 41,796 47 41,538 47
Louisiana 39,859 48 39,935 48 40,001 47 40,478 47 41,999 45 42,480 45 43,733 41
Maine 47,851 32 46,598 35 48,036 27 47,169 32 46,378 34 47,631 35 46,581 36
Maryland 66,589 4 66,928 2 65,423 3 67,878 2 69,552 1 70,666 1 70,545 1
Massachusetts 66,130 5 62,707 5 63,411 5 63,020 5 64,021 5 64,734 7 65,401 6
Michigan 52,404 20 51,943 19 51,160 20 50,738 21 50,375 23 49,771 26 48,591 30
Minnesota 59,053 10 58,602 12 57,945 10 57,334 11 57,679 10 57,921 10 57,288 12
Mississippi 37,919 49 37,975 49 36,050 49 36,300 50 36,806 50 37,718 50 37,790 50
Missouri 48,100 30 47,636 30 47,250 33 46,258 35 45,740 36 46,828 36 46,867 35
Montana 42,188 45 41,406 42 40,148 46 43,312 41 43,376 42 45,184 39 43,654 42
Nebraska 47,748 33 48,432 26 47,460 31 48,324 27 48,551 29 48,873 32 49,693 28
Nevada 52,563 18 53,098 18 50,865 21 54,187 17 56,584 11 57,153 14 56,361 15
New Hampshire 64,884 6 63,058 4 63,322 6 62,562 6 63,722 6 64,738 6 63,731 7
New Jersey 70,310 1 68,530 1 69,907 1 67,966 1 68,833 2 69,581 2 70,378 2
New Mexico 43,099 42 40,711 45 41,064 43 41,319 43 43,378 41 43,026 44 43,508 44
New York 53,754 17 54,034 17 53,945 16 54,530 15 54,861 17 55,547 18 56,033 17
North Carolina 45,714 36 44,722 40 44,920 39 44,886 38 45,509 38 46,367 37 46,549 37
North Dakota 43,360 41 43,927 41 44,942 38 45,218 37 44,756 39 45,415 38 45,685 39
Ohio 48,697 28 48,367 27 48,124 25 47,932 29 47,545 32 48,367 33 47,988 31
Oklahoma 42,560 43 41,090 44 40,282 44 40,846 45 41,393 47 43,146 43 42,822 45
Oregon 48,315 29 47,161 33 47,616 29 47,327 30 49,358 26 50,581 24 50,169 26
Pennsylvania 49,264 26 48,517 25 48,923 24 49,083 24 49,389 25 50,421 25 50,713 24
Rhode Island 54,604 16 57,144 13 55,509 13 56,710 12 55,320 16 55,603 17 55,701 18
South Carolina 45,393 37 44,995 37 45,386 37 43,329 40 43,881 40 44,975 41 44,625 40
South Dakota 44,575 40 44,934 38 43,831 41 44,424 39 45,687 37 45,073 40 46,032 38
Tennessee 44,609 38 44,737 39 44,198 40 42,842 42 43,043 43 43,976 42 43,614 43
Texas 49,509 24 47,576 31 47,576 30 46,440 34 47,962 31 49,354 28 50,043 27
Utah 55,573 14 54,827 15 53,632 17 52,826 18 54,781 18 57,202 13 56,633 14
Vermont 52,546 19 51,112 21 53,027 18 50,349 22 50,890 20 51,803 21 52,104 20
Virginia 58,615 11 59,426 7 58,889 8 59,776 8 60,085 9 61,824 9 61,233 8
Washington 55,091 15 54,821 16 54,298 15 54,290 16 56,141 13 57,702 11 58,078 10
West Virginia 37,072 50 36,270 50 35,893 50 36,866 49 37,431 49 38,468 49 37,989 49
Wisconsin 52,191 21 51,565 20 51,628 19 51,913 19 52,072 19 52,499 20 52,094 21
Wyoming 49,178 27 50,685 22 50,443 22 50,918 20 50,632 21 53,696 19 53,207 19
% MN above or
14.6% 15.0% 13.8% 12.5% 11.5% 10.0% 10.1%
below U.S. avg.
2002 State 2003 State 2004 State 2005 State 2006 State 2007 State 2008 State 2009 State
United States 5.8% Rank 6.0% Rank 5.5% Rank 5.1% Rank 4.6% Rank 4.6% Rank 5.8% Rank 9.3% Rank
Alabama 5.4% 26 5.4% 21 5.0% 24 3.8% 10 3.5% 11 3.5% 11 5.0% 23 9.7% 37
Alaska 7.1% 48 7.7% 49 7.4% 50 6.9% 49 6.5% 48 6.2% 48 6.7% 45 8.2% 27
Arizona 6.0% 40 5.7% 30 5.0% 21 4.6% 21 4.1% 19 3.8% 17 5.5% 32 8.4% 29
Arkansas 5.3% 25 5.8% 32 5.6% 37 5.1% 30 5.2% 42 5.1% 40 5.1% 24 7.0% 15
California 6.7% 46 6.8% 46 6.2% 45 5.4% 39 4.9% 37 5.4% 44 7.2% 48 11.6% 47
Colorado 5.7% 30 6.1% 36 5.6% 36 5.1% 32 4.4% 24 3.9% 18 4.9% 21 7.3% 18
Connecticut 4.4% 11 5.5% 22 4.9% 19 4.9% 25 4.4% 25 4.6% 31 5.7% 33 7.9% 22
Delaware 4.0% 5 4.2% 6 3.9% 8 4.0% 13 3.5% 12 3.4% 10 4.8% 18 7.9% 23
Florida 5.7% 32 5.3% 18 4.7% 17 3.8% 11 3.4% 10 4.1% 22 6.2% 36 10.4% 42
Georgia 4.8% 17 4.8% 13 4.7% 18 5.2% 34 4.6% 31 4.6% 32 6.2% 37 9.7% 36
Hawaii 4.0% 7 3.9% 3 3.2% 1 2.7% 1 2.5% 1 2.6% 1 3.9% 8 7.0% 16
Idaho 5.4% 27 5.2% 17 4.6% 13 3.7% 9 3.0% 5 3.0% 7 4.9% 20 8.0% 24
Illinois 6.5% 44 6.7% 45 6.2% 43 5.8% 42 4.6% 29 5.1% 41 6.5% 42 9.8% 38
Indiana 5.2% 20 5.3% 19 5.3% 29 5.4% 37 5.0% 40 4.6% 30 5.9% 34 10.0% 39
Iowa 3.9% 4 4.4% 8 4.6% 16 4.3% 17 3.8% 15 3.7% 15 4.1% 10 5.9% 6
Kansas 5.1% 19 5.6% 24 5.5% 33 5.1% 31 4.3% 23 4.1% 20 4.4% 14 6.6% 10
Kentucky 5.7% 34 6.3% 39 5.6% 35 6.1% 44 5.9% 46 5.5% 45 6.4% 41 10.4% 43
Louisiana 5.9% 37 6.2% 38 5.5% 32 6.7% 46 3.9% 17 3.8% 16 4.6% 16 6.6% 11
Maine 4.4% 10 5.0% 15 4.6% 14 4.9% 24 4.6% 30 4.6% 34 5.4% 28 8.2% 26
Maryland 4.5% 12 4.5% 12 4.3% 11 4.1% 14 3.8% 16 3.5% 13 4.4% 13 7.0% 17
Massachusetts 5.3% 22 5.8% 31 5.2% 26 4.8% 23 4.8% 35 4.5% 27 5.3% 25 8.4% 30
Michigan 6.2% 42 7.1% 47 7.1% 48 6.8% 48 6.9% 50 7.1% 50 8.4% 50 14.0% 50
Minnesota 4.5% 14 4.9% 14 4.6% 15 4.2% 16 4.1% 18 4.6% 33 5.4% 30 7.9% 21
Mississippi 6.7% 47 6.4% 40 6.3% 46 7.8% 50 6.8% 49 6.3% 49 6.9% 46 9.4% 35
Missouri 5.2% 21 5.6% 23 5.8% 39 5.4% 36 4.8% 36 5.1% 39 6.1% 35 9.0% 34
Montana 4.5% 13 4.3% 7 4.0% 10 3.7% 7 3.3% 9 3.4% 9 4.5% 15 6.3% 7
Nebraska 3.7% 3 4.0% 4 3.9% 7 3.9% 12 3.0% 4 2.9% 5 3.3% 4 4.7% 2
Nevada 5.7% 31 5.2% 16 4.4% 12 4.5% 18 4.3% 22 4.7% 36 6.6% 44 11.6% 48
New Hampshire 4.5% 15 4.5% 9 3.9% 6 3.6% 5 3.5% 13 3.5% 12 3.8% 7 6.5% 9
New Jersey 5.8% 36 5.9% 33 4.9% 20 4.5% 19 4.6% 32 4.3% 23 5.5% 31 8.9% 33
New Mexico 5.5% 28 5.9% 34 5.8% 38 5.2% 33 4.2% 21 3.5% 14 4.2% 11 6.7% 12
New York 6.2% 41 6.4% 41 5.8% 40 5.0% 28 4.6% 27 4.5% 28 5.4% 29 8.3% 28
North Carolina 6.6% 45 6.5% 42 5.5% 34 5.3% 35 4.8% 34 4.7% 37 6.3% 38 10.8% 44
North Dakota 3.5% 2 3.6% 2 3.5% 2 3.4% 2 3.2% 7 3.1% 8 3.2% 3 4.2% 1
Ohio 5.7% 33 6.2% 37 6.1% 42 5.9% 43 5.4% 45 5.6% 47 6.5% 43 10.3% 41
Oklahoma 4.8% 16 5.6% 25 5.0% 22 4.5% 20 4.1% 20 4.1% 21 3.8% 6 6.4% 8
Oregon 7.6% 50 8.1% 50 7.3% 49 6.2% 45 5.3% 44 5.1% 42 6.4% 39 11.4% 45
Pennsylvania 5.6% 29 5.7% 28 5.4% 30 5.0% 27 4.5% 26 4.4% 25 5.4% 27 8.2% 25
Rhode Island 5.1% 18 5.4% 20 5.2% 27 5.1% 29 5.0% 41 5.2% 43 7.8% 49 11.9% 49
South Carolina 6.0% 39 6.7% 43 6.8% 47 6.7% 47 6.3% 47 5.6% 46 6.9% 47 11.6% 46
South Dakota 3.3% 1 3.5% 1 3.7% 3 3.6% 6 3.1% 6 2.9% 3 3.0% 1 4.8% 3
Tennessee 5.3% 24 5.7% 29 5.4% 31 5.6% 41 5.2% 43 4.8% 38 6.4% 40 10.1% 40
Texas 6.4% 43 6.7% 44 6.0% 41 5.4% 38 4.9% 39 4.4% 26 4.9% 22 7.4% 19
Utah 5.8% 35 5.7% 27 5.1% 25 4.2% 15 3.0% 2 2.7% 2 3.4% 5 5.7% 5
Vermont 4.0% 6 4.5% 11 3.7% 5 3.5% 4 3.7% 14 4.0% 19 4.8% 19 6.9% 14
Virginia 4.2% 9 4.1% 5 3.7% 4 3.5% 3 3.0% 3 3.0% 6 4.0% 9 6.7% 13
Washington 7.3% 49 7.4% 48 6.2% 44 5.5% 40 4.9% 38 4.5% 29 5.3% 26 8.9% 32
West Virginia 5.9% 38 6.0% 35 5.3% 28 4.9% 26 4.6% 28 4.3% 24 4.3% 12 7.9% 20
Wisconsin 5.3% 23 5.6% 26 5.0% 23 4.8% 22 4.7% 33 4.7% 35 4.7% 17 8.4% 31
Wyoming 4.1% 8 4.5% 10 3.9% 9 3.7% 8 3.3% 8 2.9% 4 3.1% 2 5.6% 4
% MN above or
-21.4% -18.7% -16.2% -17.8% -11.6% 0.0% -6.2% -15.0%
below U.S. avg.
Gap between
0.1% -0.8% -1.8% -3.4% -4.8% -5.9% -5.5% -3.3%
MN & U.S. avg.
2002 State 2003 State 2004 State 2005 State 2006 State 2007 State 2008 State
United States 12.4% Rank 12.7% Rank 13.1% Rank 13.3% Rank 13.3% Rank 13.0% Rank 13.2% Rank
Alabama 16.6% 46 17.1% 45 16.1% 43 17.0% 44 16.6% 42 16.9% 44 15.7% 42
Alaska 7.7% 4 9.7% 10 8.2% 3 11.2% 17 10.9% 13 8.9% 7 8.4% 3
Arizona 14.2% 37 15.4% 41 14.2% 35 14.2% 36 14.2% 36 14.2% 37 14.7% 38
Arkansas 15.3% 43 16.0% 42 17.9% 46 17.2% 45 17.3% 46 17.9% 47 17.3% 47
California 13.0% 33 13.4% 32 13.3% 32 13.3% 30 13.1% 29 12.4% 29 13.3% 30
Colorado 9.7% 10 9.8% 12 11.1% 20 11.1% 15 12.0% 21 12.0% 22 11.4% 19
Connecticut 7.5% 2 8.1% 3 7.6% 2 8.3% 3 8.3% 3 7.9% 2 9.3% 6
Delaware 8.2% 6 8.7% 6 9.9% 11 10.4% 12 11.1% 16 10.5% 13 10.0% 11
Florida 12.8% 32 13.1% 31 12.2% 25 12.8% 27 12.6% 25 12.1% 25 13.2% 29
Georgia 12.7% 31 13.4% 33 14.8% 39 14.4% 37 14.7% 38 14.3% 38 14.7% 37
Hawaii 10.1% 13 10.9% 20 10.6% 14 9.8% 7 9.3% 5 8.0% 3 9.1% 5
Idaho 13.8% 36 13.8% 36 14.5% 38 13.9% 34 12.6% 25 12.1% 25 12.6% 27
Illinois 11.6% 25 11.3% 24 11.9% 23 12.0% 23 12.3% 23 11.9% 21 12.2% 24
Indiana 10.9% 17 10.6% 16 10.8% 16 12.2% 24 12.7% 27 12.3% 28 13.1% 28
Iowa 11.2% 22 10.1% 13 9.9% 10 10.9% 13 11.0% 14 11.0% 16 11.5% 20
Kansas 12.1% 29 10.8% 18 10.5% 13 11.7% 20 12.4% 24 11.2% 17 11.3% 17
Kentucky 15.6% 44 17.4% 46 17.4% 45 16.8% 43 17.0% 44 17.3% 46 17.3% 48
Louisiana 18.8% 48 20.3% 50 19.4% 49 19.8% 49 19.0% 49 18.6% 49 17.3% 49
Maine 11.1% 21 10.5% 15 12.3% 27 12.6% 26 12.9% 28 12.0% 22 12.3% 25
Maryland 8.1% 5 8.2% 4 8.8% 6 8.2% 2 7.8% 1 8.3% 4 8.1% 2
Massachusetts 8.9% 9 9.4% 8 9.2% 8 10.3% 11 9.9% 9 9.9% 10 10.0% 10
Michigan 11.0% 20 11.4% 26 12.3% 26 13.2% 29 13.5% 32 14.0% 35 14.4% 35
Minnesota 8.5% 8 7.8% 2 8.3% 4 9.2% 5 9.8% 8 9.5% 8 9.6% 9
Mississippi 19.9% 50 19.9% 49 21.6% 50 21.3% 50 21.1% 50 20.6% 50 21.2% 50
Missouri 11.9% 28 11.7% 29 11.8% 22 13.3% 30 13.6% 33 13.0% 31 13.4% 32
Montana 14.6% 41 14.2% 40 14.2% 34 14.4% 37 13.6% 33 14.1% 36 14.8% 39
Nebraska 11.0% 18 10.8% 19 11.0% 18 10.9% 13 11.5% 19 11.2% 17 10.8% 15
Nevada 11.8% 26 11.5% 27 12.6% 29 11.1% 15 10.3% 10 10.7% 14 11.3% 16
New Hampshire 6.4% 1 7.7% 1 7.6% 1 7.5% 1 8.0% 2 7.1% 1 7.6% 1
New Jersey 7.5% 3 8.4% 5 8.5% 5 8.7% 4 8.7% 4 8.6% 5 8.7% 4
New Mexico 18.9% 49 18.6% 48 19.3% 48 18.5% 48 18.5% 48 18.1% 48 17.1% 46
New York 13.1% 34 13.5% 34 14.2% 36 13.8% 33 14.2% 36 13.7% 34 13.6% 33
North Carolina 14.2% 38 14.0% 38 15.2% 40 15.1% 39 14.7% 38 14.3% 38 14.6% 36
North Dakota 12.5% 30 11.7% 28 12.1% 24 11.2% 17 11.4% 18 12.1% 25 12.0% 22
Ohio 11.9% 27 12.1% 30 12.5% 28 13.0% 28 13.3% 30 13.1% 32 13.4% 31
Oklahoma 15.0% 42 16.1% 43 15.3% 41 16.5% 42 17.0% 44 15.9% 41 15.9% 44
Oregon 13.2% 35 13.9% 37 14.1% 33 14.1% 35 13.3% 30 12.9% 30 13.6% 34
Pennsylvania 10.5% 15 10.9% 21 11.7% 21 11.9% 21 12.1% 22 11.6% 20 12.1% 23
Rhode Island 10.7% 16 11.3% 25 12.8% 30 12.3% 25 11.1% 16 12.0% 22 11.7% 21
South Carolina 14.2% 39 14.1% 39 15.7% 42 15.6% 41 15.7% 40 15.0% 40 15.7% 41
South Dakota 11.4% 23 11.1% 23 11.0% 19 13.6% 32 13.6% 33 13.1% 32 12.5% 26
Tennessee 14.5% 40 13.8% 35 14.5% 37 15.5% 40 16.2% 41 15.9% 41 15.5% 40
Texas 15.6% 45 16.3% 44 16.6% 44 17.6% 46 16.9% 43 16.3% 43 15.8% 43
Utah 10.5% 14 10.6% 17 10.9% 17 10.2% 9 10.6% 12 9.7% 9 9.6% 8
Vermont 8.5% 7 9.7% 9 9.0% 7 11.5% 19 10.3% 10 10.1% 12 10.6% 14
Virginia 9.9% 12 9.0% 7 9.5% 9 10.0% 8 9.6% 7 9.9% 10 10.2% 12
Washington 11.4% 24 11.0% 22 13.1% 31 11.9% 21 11.8% 20 11.4% 19 11.3% 18
West Virginia 17.2% 47 18.5% 47 17.9% 47 18.0% 47 17.3% 46 16.9% 44 17.0% 45
Wisconsin 9.7% 11 10.5% 14 10.7% 15 10.2% 9 11.0% 14 10.8% 15 10.4% 13
Wyoming 11.0% 19 9.7% 11 10.3% 12 9.5% 6 9.4% 6 8.7% 6 9.4% 7
% MN above or
-31.3% -38.6% -36.1% -30.8% -26.3% -26.9% -27.0%
below U.S. average
2002 State 2003 State 2004 State 2005 State 2006 State 2007 State 2008 State
United States 66.4 Rank 66.8 Rank 67.1 Rank 66.9 Rank 67.3 Rank 67.2 Rank 66.6 Rank
Alabama 72.5 7 71.7 12 71.9 11 70.5 16 71.8 11 70.9 14 71.0 11
Alaska 64.2 42 62.4 46 65.5 40 63.0 45 64.5 45 63.0 46 65.0 42
Arizona 68.6 30 68.3 32 68.7 31 68.2 33 68.5 34 68.1 35 68.1 34
Arkansas 67.9 33 67.8 35 65.5 41 67.8 37 68.3 35 67.7 38 67.4 37
California 57.0 48 58.1 48 58.6 49 58.4 49 58.4 49 58.0 49 57.0 49
Colorado 68.0 32 70.4 15 68.6 32 67.8 35 68.7 31 68.8 30 67.5 35
Connecticut 69.0 27 67.7 37 69.7 20 69.5 24 69.5 28 70.0 22 69.0 29
Delaware 73.4 5 72.8 8 72.9 7 72.4 6 74.4 4 72.5 8 73.5 4
Florida 70.4 16 70.2 18 70.5 14 69.6 23 70.3 19 70.6 17 69.7 20
Georgia 67.9 34 68.3 33 67.7 38 66.8 40 67.7 38 68.5 32 67.4 36
Hawaii 56.1 49 56.6 49 58.9 48 59.7 48 59.5 48 59.6 48 59.1 48
Idaho 74.6 2 74.4 3 72.4 10 71.4 11 71.3 13 72.1 9 70.9 12
Illinois 67.6 37 68.6 30 69.2 27 69.9 21 69.9 25 70.1 20 69.3 25
Indiana 71.8 9 71.8 10 71.8 12 72.0 7 72.1 7 71.6 12 71.8 9
Iowa 72.7 6 73.6 5 73.8 4 73.1 4 73.3 5 73.7 6 72.9 5
Kansas 69.6 20 68.6 29 69.5 24 69.5 25 69.9 21 70.2 18 69.4 23
Kentucky 70.8 15 70.2 17 70.1 15 70.6 14 70.7 16 70.7 15 69.5 21
Louisiana 65.7 40 67.1 39 66.2 39 67.8 36 68.5 33 67.9 37 68.5 31
Maine 72.0 8 70.6 14 72.9 6 71.8 8 72.8 6 74.0 5 72.1 8
Maryland 69.1 26 69.4 23 69.5 25 69.0 30 69.4 29 69.9 25 69.5 22
Massachusetts 64.0 44 64.5 41 64.6 43 64.0 43 64.9 43 65.1 43 64.5 44
Michigan 74.0 4 74.5 2 74.7 2 74.7 3 75.2 2 74.8 3 74.0 2
Minnesota 74.9 1 76.6 1 75.3 1 75.8 1 76.3 1 75.2 1 74.7 1
Mississippi 71.4 13 70.1 20 69.6 23 69.9 20 70.7 14 71.3 13 70.1 17
Missouri 70.0 19 70.4 16 70.8 13 70.6 13 70.7 15 70.7 16 70.1 16
Montana 70.2 18 68.9 28 68.5 33 69.1 28 69.9 23 69.6 27 68.5 32
Nebraska 67.7 36 67.8 36 68.4 34 68.2 31 67.9 37 68.8 31 69.3 24
Nevada 60.1 47 61.9 47 61.2 47 60.7 47 62.0 47 60.4 47 59.7 47
New Hampshire 71.7 11 72.9 7 72.6 9 73.0 5 72.1 8 74.1 4 72.3 6
New Jersey 65.9 39 66.7 40 68.1 36 67.3 39 67.3 39 67.3 39 67.0 39
New Mexico 69.3 24 69.5 22 69.3 26 69.3 26 69.7 26 70.0 23 69.2 27
New York 53.8 50 54.2 50 55.6 50 55.3 50 55.6 50 55.5 50 55.3 50
North Carolina 68.6 31 68.3 31 69.0 30 68.2 32 68.1 36 68.3 33 68.2 33
North Dakota 65.9 38 67.2 38 68.1 37 67.5 38 66.7 40 65.7 41 66.6 40
Ohio 69.3 23 70.2 19 69.8 19 69.9 19 70.0 20 69.7 26 69.0 28
Oklahoma 68.7 28 68.0 34 68.2 35 67.9 34 68.6 32 68.2 34 67.2 38
Oregon 63.7 45 63.2 44 63.0 45 63.8 44 64.8 44 64.6 44 64.3 45
Pennsylvania 71.7 12 71.8 11 72.8 8 71.5 10 71.7 12 71.6 11 70.8 13
Rhode Island 61.4 46 63.0 45 61.8 46 62.7 46 63.0 46 63.6 45 62.4 46
South Carolina 70.2 17 69.8 21 69.7 21 70.1 18 70.3 18 70.0 21 70.6 14
South Dakota 69.4 21 69.2 25 69.1 29 69.0 29 69.2 30 68.1 36 69.2 26
Tennessee 69.2 25 69.3 24 70.0 16 69.3 27 69.9 22 69.9 24 69.8 19
Texas 64.2 43 64.4 42 65.1 42 64.7 41 65.2 42 65.2 42 64.9 43
Utah 71.7 10 73.3 6 69.7 22 70.6 15 72.0 9 71.7 10 71.7 10
Vermont 71.0 14 71.2 13 73.3 5 71.1 12 71.9 10 72.8 7 72.2 7
Virginia 67.8 35 69.1 26 69.2 28 69.6 22 69.9 24 69.5 28 68.7 30
Washington 64.3 41 64.3 43 64.1 44 64.7 42 65.5 41 66.1 40 65.3 41
West Virginia 74.1 3 73.9 4 74.0 3 75.4 2 74.7 3 74.9 2 73.7 3
Wisconsin 68.7 29 69.1 27 69.9 18 70.1 17 70.5 17 70.1 19 70.1 15
Wyoming 69.3 22 72.4 9 69.9 17 71.5 9 69.5 27 69.3 29 70.1 18
% MN above or
12.7% 14.8% 12.2% 13.3% 13.4% 12.0% 12.0%
below U.S. avg.
2002 State 2003 State 2004 State 2005 State 2006 State 2007 State 2008 State
United States 85.3 Rank 84.9 Rank 85.1 Rank 84.7 Rank 84.2 Rank 84.7 Rank 84.6 Rank
Alabama 87.8 22 86.8 25 87.5 20 85.5 28 84.8 29 88.0 19 88.1 16
Alaska 81.5 47 81.3 45 83.5 40 82.8 40 83.5 34 81.8 43 80.2 46
Arizona 83.7 39 83.3 37 83.3 41 80.4 47 79.1 46 81.7 45 80.5 45
Arkansas 84.0 37 82.9 39 83.8 38 82.5 42 81.1 42 83.9 35 82.2 40
California 82.3 45 82.1 42 82.0 44 81.2 46 81.2 41 81.8 43 81.4 43
Colorado 84.9 34 83.4 36 84.1 35 83.4 36 82.8 36 83.6 36 84.1 36
Connecticut 90.2 9 89.9 8 89.1 13 89.1 12 90.6 6 90.6 7 90.0 8
Delaware 90.6 3 89.6 12 86.7 25 87.8 19 87.9 17 88.8 13 89.2 11
Florida 83.3 41 82.5 40 80.6 48 79.8 48 78.8 47 79.8 48 80.0 47
Georgia 84.3 36 84.0 33 83.1 43 81.7 45 82.3 38 82.5 41 82.2 40
Hawaii 90.2 9 90.5 3 91.7 1 91.4 3 91.2 2 92.5 2 92.2 2
Idaho 82.7 44 81.9 43 85.5 32 85.2 31 84.6 30 86.1 29 84.4 34
Illinois 86.5 29 86.1 29 87.0 23 86.3 27 86.0 26 86.6 25 87.1 25
Indiana 87.7 23 87.1 23 86.2 30 86.4 25 88.2 14 88.6 16 87.7 20
Iowa 91.0 2 89.1 17 90.8 4 91.7 2 89.5 11 90.7 6 90.5 5
Kansas 90.1 11 89.7 11 89.3 12 89.7 8 87.7 19 87.3 21 87.9 18
Kentucky 86.9 27 86.9 24 86.4 29 87.7 20 84.4 32 86.4 26 84.0 37
Louisiana 82.2 46 80.5 47 84.0 36 82.3 43 78.1 48 81.5 46 79.9 48
Maine 89.0 18 90.0 7 91.1 3 89.7 8 90.7 5 91.2 5 89.6 10
Maryland 87.7 23 86.7 26 86.6 27 86.6 24 86.2 25 86.3 28 87.9 18
Massachusetts 90.5 6 89.8 9 88.7 17 90.8 4 89.6 10 94.6 1 94.5 1
Michigan 89.1 16 89.8 9 88.9 15 89.7 8 89.5 11 88.4 17 88.3 13
Minnesota 92.6 1 91.7 1 91.5 2 92.1 1 90.8 4 91.7 4 91.3 3
Mississippi 83.9 38 82.4 41 83.3 41 83.1 37 79.2 45 81.2 47 82.1 42
Missouri 88.9 19 89.2 16 88.1 18 88.3 17 86.7 21 87.4 20 87.4 24
Montana 85.4 33 81.1 46 81.8 45 84.4 33 82.9 35 84.4 33 83.9 38
Nebraska 90.5 6 89.5 13 89.6 9 89.5 11 87.7 19 86.8 23 88.1 16
Nevada 80.6 48 81.8 44 81.6 46 82.9 39 80.4 44 82.8 40 81.2 44
New Hampshire 90.5 6 90.3 4 89.9 5 90.3 6 88.5 13 89.5 11 89.8 9
New Jersey 86.6 28 86.6 27 86.1 31 85.5 28 84.5 31 84.2 34 85.9 29
New Mexico 79.4 49 78.1 49 80.2 49 79.7 49 77.1 49 77.5 49 76.3 49
New York 84.7 35 85.3 30 87.4 21 87.0 22 86.0 26 86.8 23 85.9 29
North Carolina 83.6 40 83.1 38 85.2 33 84.7 32 82.1 39 83.6 36 84.6 33
North Dakota 90.0 12 90.3 4 89.9 5 89.0 13 87.8 18 90.0 9 88.2 14
Ohio 88.9 19 88.5 19 89.4 11 88.6 14 89.9 8 88.3 18 88.5 12
Oklahoma 83.0 43 80.0 48 80.8 47 82.1 44 81.1 42 82.2 42 86.0 28
Oregon 85.9 31 83.5 35 83.7 39 84.4 33 82.1 39 83.2 39 83.7 39
Pennsylvania 89.5 15 89.3 15 89.1 13 90.3 6 90.0 7 90.5 8 90.1 7
Rhode Island 90.6 3 90.1 6 89.7 8 88.5 15 91.4 1 89.2 12 88.2 14
South Carolina 87.9 21 86.3 28 85.2 33 82.7 41 84.1 33 83.6 36 84.2 35
South Dakota 89.1 16 88.6 18 88.8 16 88.3 17 88.2 14 89.9 10 87.5 23
Tennessee 89.6 14 87.3 22 86.9 24 86.4 25 86.3 24 85.6 31 84.9 32
Texas 74.6 50 76.0 50 75.8 50 76.4 50 75.5 50 74.8 50 74.9 50
Utah 87.3 25 87.7 20 86.7 25 83.6 35 82.6 37 87.2 22 86.8 26
Vermont 89.7 13 90.8 2 89.5 10 88.5 15 89.8 9 88.8 13 90.8 4
Virginia 87.3 25 87.5 21 86.6 27 87.2 21 86.7 21 85.2 32 87.6 21
Washington 86.1 30 84.7 32 87.6 19 86.7 23 88.2 14 88.7 15 87.6 21
West Virginia 85.7 32 83.6 34 83.9 37 83.1 37 86.5 23 85.9 30 85.0 31
Wisconsin 90.6 3 89.5 13 89.9 5 90.7 5 91.2 2 91.8 3 90.4 6
Wyoming 83.2 42 84.9 31 87.2 22 85.4 30 85.4 28 86.4 26 86.4 27
% MN above or
8.6% 8.0% 7.5% 8.7% 7.8% 8.3% 7.9%
below U.S. avg.
†These states did not report 8th grade math data for 2000. Because of this, for these states the 8th grade reading component of the 2002 value reported in this table is based on 2003 data rather than on
*These states did not report 4th grade math data for 2000. Because of this, for these states the 4th grade reading component of the 2002 value reported in this table is based on 2003 data rather than on
(http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/). The amounts reported here are based on the average for: 4th grade
math, 8th grade math, 4th grade reading, and 8th grade reading.
2002 State 2003 State 2005 State 2007 State
‡These states did not report 4th grade reading data for 2002. Because of this, for these states the 4th grade reading component of the 2002 value reported in this table is based on 2003 data.
•These states did not report 8th grade reading data for 2002. Because of this, for these states the 8th grade reading component of the 2002 value reported in this table is based on 2003 data.
United States 69.6 Rank 70.5 Rank 71.5 Rank 73.5 Rank
Alabama 57.7 47 58.8 47 58.8 48 62.3 47
Alaska*†‡• 67.5 35 67.5 37 68.5 36 71.3 34
Arizona 61.3 43 62.8 43 62.8 43 65.3 43
Arkansas 62.7 42 64.8 40 68.5 36 70.0 37
California 56.6 48 58.5 48 59.5 47 61.0 49
Colorado*†‡• 74.5 21 74.5 18 73.8 22 76.5 21
Connecticut 75.5 12 76.5 11 74.8 21 76.8 19
Delaware*† 75.3 14 74.3 19 77.3 10 77.8 16
Florida*† 67.5 35 67.3 38 69.5 34 73.8 29
Georgia 63.3 40 64.8 40 65.8 41 69.8 38
Hawaii 58.5 46 59.5 45 60.0 46 64.3 44
Idaho 73.5 23 73.3 24 76.0 16 77.0 18
Illinois‡• 68.5 32 69.3 32 69.8 31 72.3 32
Indiana 74.8 19 74.8 16 73.8 22 77.3 17
Iowa†• 76.1 10 77.0 9 76.5 14 79.5 12
Kansas 76.8 9 76.0 12 77.3 10 80.8 7
Kentucky 68.3 33 69.8 31 69.8 31 72.3 32
Louisiana 58.8 45 59.3 46 62.5 44 63.3 46
Maine 77.0 8 76.8 10 77.5 9 79.8 11
Maryland 67.3 38 68.3 35 69.8 31 74.8 25
Massachusetts 79.2 2 78.5 3 83.0 1 85.8 1
Michigan 71.0 29 71.0 29 70.8 30 71.0 36
Minnesota• 78.4 3 78.3 5 79.5 4 80.3 8
Mississippi 53.4 50 55.8 50 57.3 50 58.8 50
Missouri 73.3 24 74.3 19 72.5 27 74.0 28
Montana 78.3 4 77.8 7 79.5 4 81.8 4
Nebraska 74.9 18 74.3 19 75.8 19 76.0 23
Nevada 59.9 44 60.8 44 61.8 45 63.5 45
New Hampshire*†‡• 80.5 1 80.5 1 80.0 3 81.8 4
New Jersey*†‡• 75.3 14 75.3 15 77.0 12 81.3 6
New Mexico 56.3 49 56.0 49 57.8 49 61.8 48
New York 71.3 28 72.8 26 73.8 22 74.8 25
North Carolina 73.6 22 73.8 23 71.5 29 73.3 30
North Dakota 78.0 5 78.5 3 81.3 2 84.0 2
Ohio 75.5 13 75.5 14 76.3 15 78.8 14
Oklahoma 67.9 34 68.3 35 68.5 36 71.3 34
Oregon 72.7 25 71.8 28 72.0 28 72.8 31
Pennsylvania*† 72.5 26 72.0 27 75.0 20 78.5 15
Rhode Island 67.3 37 67.0 39 68.0 39 69.8 38
South Carolina 65.3 39 68.8 33 69.0 35 69.8 38
South Dakota*†‡• 77.8 7 77.8 7 79.5 4 80.3 8
Tennessee 63.0 41 63.8 42 66.3 40 68.0 42
an interpolation of 2000 and 2003 data.