Visualizations : 2005 Earmarks by State Per Capita : This visualization begs the question(s)...

This view is part of a comment in the discussion below.

Jump to the comment | Go back to the default view

Can't see the visualization? Download the latest Java plugin here. On Macs: best viewed in Safari.

Created by: Josh@Sunlight Created on: Tuesday May 22, 8:37 PM

Data file: 2005 Earmarks by State / Per Capita (OMB Data)

Data source: Sunlight Labs (2005 OMB Earmarks Database)

This data set
has not yet been rated.

| cancel

	If you "watch" a visualization or dataset, you'll be notified of new comments on your watchlist page. Please log in to "watch" this.	Clicking this icon will let you add this to one of your hubs. This is a good way to organize a set of visualizations or datasets on a particular topic or theme. You need to be logged in and be a member of at least one topic hub to be able to add visualizations and data sets to topic hubs.	Give this a thumbs-up or thumbs-down. Please login to rate this.
		Please wait...

This visualization
has 2 positive ratings

You can add this visualization to a topic hub!

Being watched by:

Fernanda B. Viegas

Learn more:

About the Bubble Chart

Comments (12)

Martin Wattenberg says:

I'm curious about the patterns here. Does it all come down the the seniority of the senators from the states?

Posted Wednesday May 23, 10:33 AM
see view for this comment

Anonymous says:

I think the pattern is due more to population. The chart shows earmarks (i.e. millions of dollars) per capita (i.e. divided by population). Thus, states with small population (for instance Alaska and Haawii) will have a small number in the denominator, which tends to result in a larger circle. Note the relatively small size of populous states such as Florida, Illinois and New York. Senate seniority will tend to influence the numerator (dollars).

Posted Friday May 25, 12:54 AM
see view for this comment

Anonymous says:

5/25 Anonymous: Not a statistician here, but isn't the relatively small size of the populous states the point? That those states do have a larger population (denominator) and receive fewer earmarked dollars (numerator)? Therefore the salient pattern is spending per person, and the impulse is to ask what causes that pattern, above and beyond population. However, if that's an over-simplification and the math is more complex, I'd be interested in hearing how and why.

Posted Wednesday June 20, 11:06 AM
see view for this comment

Anonymous says:

I think there may be a combination of forces at work here...First, population. Second, geographic (Size of land mass and distance from main land)and I would be curious to know how it compares to results of education testing.

Posted Friday July 20, 2:37 AM
see view for this comment

Anonymous says:

Seems like too much money is spent in AK.

Posted Monday July 30, 10:28 AM
see view for this comment

Anonymous says:

See this paper for an analysis of the determinants of earmarks across US states (using the 2005 Transportation Authorization bill as an example). Small states get more dollars because they are overrepresented in the Senate.

Posted Tuesday August 14, 2:14 AM
Last edited Tuesday August 14, 2:16 AM
see view for this comment

currently showing
	Anonymous says: This visualization begs the question(s): how does this fit with federal tax revenue per capita? how about personal income per capita? In other words, who is subsidizing whom? Then, why? Posted Tuesday August 14, 7:23 AM see view for this comment

Anonymous says:

"Earmarks" is a pretty broad term that covers a lot of project expenses. Transportation costs are highest in Hawaii and Alaska. Material costs are high in AK because things designed for the harsh climate just cost more. For example, isn't the cost per foot of highway surface greater in AK than in, say, FL? Also, how many of Alabama's earmarks are for the federally-subsidized aerospace industry, or related to it? I think that in order to get a real understanding of pork processing in these earmarks you have to get very, very specific. Accounting is a very slippery business. -- Eric

Posted Tuesday August 14, 8:22 AM
Last edited Tuesday August 14, 8:23 AM
see view for this comment

Anonymous says:

Damn, I expect more than $37 from my congressman, He better deliver at least $40 next term or I might not vote for him again!!
-A Flabbergasted Floridian

Posted Tuesday August 14, 10:09 AM
see view for this comment

Martin Wattenberg says:

See also the Talking Points Memo post on this visualization.

Posted Tuesday August 14, 2:29 PM

Anonymous says:

As someone who grew up in Hawaii, I find this damn nauseating. When it comes to schools, hospitals, public transportation, public parks, libraries, and services for the disabled, Hawaii is failing miserably. The citizens of Hawaii get almost nothing in terms of public services. Where's all this money going?

Posted Tuesday August 14, 3:16 PM
see view for this comment

Anonymous says:

Do Americans realize that the price of gasoline is $1.00/gallon higher since Democrats have controlled Congress?? I hope I live to see Cong. Murtha, Dennis Hastert, Cong. Kanjorski, and Nancy Pelosi all go to Prison, because they, and others, are "SORRY AS HELL'"

Posted Sunday June 01, 5:01 AM

Visualizations : 2005 Earmarks by State Per Capita : This visualization begs the question(s)...

Being watched by:

Learn more:

Comments (12)

Post a comment as Anonymous [Sign in using alphaWorks ID]