Milwaukee ranks 40th among 50 largest metro areas in federal largess=

For more info= rmation: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; For release:

Jeffrey C. Browne

Ryan Horton, M.U.P.&nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; 1= 2:00 NOON

Anneliese Dickman, J.D. &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2005

Public Policy Forum

414-276-8240

Milwaukee ran= ks 40^th among 50 largest metro areas in federal largess

Federal government spending sharply higher among urban areas, study shows

MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin – Tuesday, June 7, 2005 &= #8211; A new study by the Milwaukee-based Public Policy Forum shows that although federal spending for the nation’s 50 largest metro areas increased 12= .9% during the period, 1998-2003, the Milwaukee area did not fully participate in the funding growth.

“Contrary to popular perception, the federal government has been supportive when it comes to the nation’s metropolitan areas,” says Jeffrey C. Browne, president= of the Milwaukee-based Forum. &#= 8220;Unfortunately, the Milwaukee area, which includes Milwaukee, Ozaukee,= Washington, Waukesha, and Racine counties, continues to lag in capturing its share of federal dollars.”

The study, based on U.S. Ce= nsus data, ranks metro areas on total federal funding, direct payments like Soci= al Security, Medicare, and the Food Stamp Program; loans; grants; procurement contracts; and wages.

According to the study, the Milwaukee area ranks 40^th in total federal spending on a per-cap= ita basis; 27^th in direct payments; 30^th in loans; 23rd in grants; 39^th in wages; and 48^th in procurement contracts.

“The Milwaukee area is substantially below average in the two categories – wages and procurement contracts – that are the best determinants of high per-ca= pita regions, like Hartford, St. Louis, or San Dieg= o,” says Ryan Horton, the Forum researcher who wrote the report. “The <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Milwaukee area has seen virtually no in= crease in procurement contracts as a result of increased federal expenditures.

“If the Milwaukee area were to collect what the average metro region was receiving from the federal government, it would me= an an additional $2.2 billion annually, or $1,291 for every person in the five-county region.”

After adjusting for inflati= on, federal spending for the 50 largest metro areas has increased an average of $753.99= per capita during the five years through 2003.= Annually, $1.1 trillion in federal funds goes to those areas. During the previous five-year peri= od, 1993-1998, federal expenditures actually decreased.

Almost half (46.8%) of fede= ral funding for large metro areas, on average, goes for direct payments based on an individual’s entitlement or a set formula; the remainder is related to the other funding streams which tend to be more competitive. In the Milwaukee area, 59.2% of federal spendi= ng is in direct payments. But even = those payments stagnated compared to the national average because of below average growth in Medicare payments to the Milwaukee area.

“Although it is diffi= cult to determine exactly why the Milwaukee area suffers such a low per-capita ranking,” says Horton, “evidence suggests that not enough defense-oriented private contractors, a small federal/military presence, an inability to secure competitive grants, being located in the Midwest –= ; a region typically low in federal funding, and no growth in Medicare payments= all combined to hold back the Milwaukee area.”

With federal spending level= s both fluid over time and from region to region, Horton says the Milwaukee area needs to be nimble in me= eting new federal priorities. “Applying for and winning more competitive grants, keeping fed= eral jobs, and securing more procurement contracts need to be top-of-mind if the= Milwaukee area wa= nts to improve its standing,” he says.

The top 10 are= as in total federal spending (per capita) were:

1) Washington, D.C.= -Baltimore

2) Virginia Beach

3) Albany

4) Hartford

5) Sacramento

6) San Diego

7) St. Louis

8) San Antonio

9) Pittsburgh

10) <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Oklahoma City

The bottom 10 = in total federal spending (per capita) were:

41) Los Angeles

42) Chicago

43) Minneapolis-St. Paul

44) Portland, Ore.

45) Las Vegas

46) Atlanta

47) Houston

48) Greensboro, N.C.

49) Charlotte

50) Grand Rapids, Mich.

“Federal expenditures= vary considerably from region to region,” says Horton. “The = Midwest and Southeast suffer disproportionately from lower per-capita federal funding. Neither region is particularly known for its high-tech research and development capacity, or = the presence of large defense industries.”

Ten of the bottom 15 metro = areas are located either in the Upper Midwest (Detroit, Milwaukee, Chicago, Minneapolis, and Gra= nd Rapids) or in the Southeast (Orlando, Miami, Atlanta, Greensboro, and Charlotte).

Generally, those metro area= s that rank high in federal funding either have large government installations or = are home to large government contractors. For example, Virginia Beach (2^nd) is home to the U.S. Navy’s Atlantic Fleet, and San Diego (6^th) has facilities = for three of the nation’s largest defense contractors – SAIC, General Atomics, and Northrop Grumman – in addition to being a base for the U= .S. Navy’s Pacific Fleet. T= hree of the highest ranking areas – Washington, D.C. (1^st), Albany (3^rd), and Sacramen= to (5^th) – are capitals.

When broken down into the v= arious types of federal spending, Pittsburgh leads in direct payments; Virginia Be= ach in loans; Albany in grants; and Washington, D.C.-Baltimore in both procurem= ent contracts and wages.

Horton says this study diff= ers from others done in the past by other organizations in that it takes the data do= wn to the metro level. “Ot= hers stopped at the state level,” he says.

The Public Policy Forum = 211; which was established in 1913 as a local government watchdog – is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to enhancing the effectivenes= s of government and the development of southeastern Wisconsin through objective research of regional public policy issues.