DOD Spending by State – USA Gov Policy

On January 13, the Department of Defense’s (DoD) Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation (formerly the Office of Economic Adjustment) released its Fiscal Year 2019 Defense Spending by State report, usable by states and communities to better understand defense personnel and contract spending in their localities. The analysis helps state and local leaders assess a region’s dependence on defense spending and target assistance.

Defense spending rose in Fiscal Year 2019. DoD contract obligations and payroll spending in the 50 states and the District of Columbia increased by $64.3 billion, or 19 percent, over the prior year. This was driven by a 19 percent increase in DoD contract obligations. Personnel spending in the 50 states and the District of Columbia increased by 4 percent.

DoD contract obligations and payroll spending in the 50 states and the District of Columbia totaled $550.9 billion, which is 2.5 percent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP). If the total spending were divided across every U.S. resident, it would amount to $1,678 per U.S. citizen. Of those funds, $403.9 billion (73 percent) were spent on contracts for products and services, while the remaining $146.9 billion (27 percent) paid the salaries of DOD personnel.

California, Virginia, and Texas topped the list of recipients for overall defense spending. However, Virginia, Hawaii, and Alabama ranked highest when considering defense spending’s impact on their states’ GDP.

Websites cialis 10 mg often create affiliate programs. Initially a dosage regencygrandenursing.com levitra no prescription of 25 mg is usually recommended. In this type of male impotence remedies, the effect is immediately experienced. levitra 60 mg regencygrandenursing.com It is a feature that I love about my Columbia River Knife & Tool and I am sure that you would be happy with one as well. cialis without prescription

The top ten states for total Defense spending in Fiscal Year 2019 were:

RANK   STATE       DEFENSE SPENDING (billions)
1. California $66.2
2.   Virginia $60.3
3. Texas $54.8
4. Florida     $29.8
5. Maryland    $26.1
6. Connecticut   $19.7
7. Pennsylvania $18.1
8. Washington $17.8
9. Alabama $16.0
10. Massachusetts $15.8

West Virginia, Maine and Wisconsin had the largest increases in DoD spending from Fiscal Year 2018 to 2019. This was driven by large contracts to Northrop Grumman in West Virginia, General Dynamics in Maine, and Oshkosh Corp. and Fincantieri Marine Systems in Wisconsin. These contracts were related to rocket motor production, shipbuilding and military vehicle production.

The top ten recipients of Defense contracts in Fiscal Year 2019 were:

RANK   COMPANY DEFENSE SPENDING (billions)
1.     Lockheed Martin $45.6
2.     Boeing       $25.7
3.     Northrop Grumman $19.5
4.     General Dynamics $18.6
5.     Raytheon    $15.7
6.    United Technologies $10.3
7.     BAE Systems $7.3
8.     Huntington Ingalls $6.7
9.     Humana $6.7
10.     L3 Technologies $4.9

All ten companies were on this list in Fiscal Year 2018. United Technologies (47 percent), Northrop Grumman (41 percent), and General Dynamics (29 percent) had the largest year over year increases.

“The report compiled by the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation can be a great tool to state and local officials,” said Ellen Lord, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment. “All of our work is aimed at supporting the National Defense Strategy and this report is key as we look to continue defense reform and modernization efforts.”

Patrick O’Brien, the Director of the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation, states the report is an opportunity for governors and local officials to use its data to strengthen their defense presence and supply chains. Mr. O’Brien further indicates “state and local officials need to use this information to better understand the essential continuum of investments across people, equipment, weapons systems, real estate, and services required to maintain our National Defense. Across these areas, they should determine if there are opportunities to further develop workforce skills, enhance and improve innovativeness and buying power, and partner to strengthen the resilience of our installations and industrial base.”

Conducted between March and December 2020, the analysis primarily entailed an examination of DoDfunded prime- and sub-award contract data and defense personnel and payroll figures.

Photo: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

What does the Reversal of Harvey Weinstein’s Conviction Portend for Donald Trump?

In 2020, the New York County District Attorney’s Office scored a major conviction against a powerful Hollywood Producer – Harvey Weinstein. As described by Forbes, “Weinstein has faced scores of sexual harassment and assault accusations since 2017…[d]uring his New York trial, Weinstein was cleared of predatory sexual assault and rape in the first degree.” He was, however, convicted of Sexual Assault in the First Degree, and Rape in the Third Degree, and was sentenced to 23 years in prison. Recently, the New York State Court of Appeals has reversed Weinstein’s conviction, and sent the case back to the lower court for a retrial. While “Weinstein lawyer Arthur Aidala called the Court of Appeals ruling ‘a tremendous victory for every criminal defendant in the state of New York,’” the usual groups made the usual complaints. “Attorney Douglas H. Wigdor, who has represented eight Harvey Weinstein accusers including two witnesses at the New York criminal trial, called it ‘a major step back’…Debra Katz, a prominent civil rights and #MeToo attorney who represented several Weinstein accusers, said her clients are ‘feeling gutted’ by the ruling… “Allegations against Weinstein, the once powerful and feared studio boss behind such Oscar winners as ‘Pulp Fiction’ and ‘Shakespeare in Love,’ ushered in the #MeToo movement. Dozens of women came forward to accuse Weinstein, including stars such as Ashley Judd and Uma Thurman. His New York trial drew intense publicity, with protesters chanting ‘rapist’ outside the courthouse. ‘This is what it’s like to be a woman in America, living with male entitlement to our bodies,’ Judd said…” The New York Court of Appeals is known for being a left-of-center, activist court. Why would it reverse a conviction for rape entered against a character as reportedly heinous as Harvey Weinstein? Because despite its overall Progressive stance, even a notoriously leftist court knows an injustice when they see one. The decision to reverse Weinstein’s conviction is an important one. It underlines the necessity for fairness to all defendants, even unpopular ones accused of egregious crimes. The decision also has application to the ongoing case proceeding in New York County Supreme Court against former President Donald Trump. In May of 2023, we discussed the issue of whether or not Donald Trump’s indictment in New York County for actions that occurred in 2017 was beyond New York’s Statute of Limitations for prosecution of the criminal offenses with which he is charged. At that time, we noted the language of CPL Section 30.10(4)(A)(i), which excluded the time during which a defendant “was continuously outside this state.” This issue is also discussed in Chapter 6 of our book, The Making of a Marty – An Analysis of the Indictments of Donald Trump. We also stated that “it is entirely possible that the time Donald Trump spent in the White House, serving his country as the President of the United States, could be used against him in New York State Supreme Court.” Like Trump, Weinstein also spent many years outside the State of New York. “Prosecutors charged Weinstein with multiple crimes, including rape in the third degree for an alleged assault that occurred in March 2013. Weinstein was charged in May 2018, two months after the five-year statute of limitations on that offense would have expired. Weinstein challenged the charge, arguing it fell outside the statute of limitations and as a resident of New York state the extension wouldn’t apply to him. Prosecutors used records from ‘United States Customs and Border Control’ to show that Weinstein had been out of New York for 193 days during that five-year period– more than the 68 days needed to capture the earlier conduct. The judge rejected Weinstein’s argument and allowed the charge to stand.” Judge Wilson’s article concludes tomorrow Photo: Pixabay