Idaho state-government finances, comparable debt and interest figures, and the enacted budget.
The national companion measures federal finances. Here the unit is Idaho state government. Federal debt is not allocated to Idaho; a state budget is not the federal budget.
Explore Idaho readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Idaho officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Idaho effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Idaho change.
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
No comparable time series is retained for this topic. The chart shows events and reviewed actions; current state comparisons appear below.
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
2 of 2 reviewed Idaho actions match · 2 date markers shown. 50 major events shown separately.
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
Compare state-government balances and interest expenditure from the same Census fiscal-year survey.
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Long-term debt outstanding plus short-term debt outstanding at fiscal year end.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. Excludes local-government debt. Dollar ranks describe scale, not credit quality.
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Idaho stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Idaho has a dark outline.
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $166.39B | — |
| #2 | New York | $120.59B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $70.05B | — |
| #4 | Massachusetts | $65.87B | — |
| #5 | New Jersey | $57.23B | — |
| #6 | Pennsylvania | $48.67B | — |
| #7 | Illinois | $43.38B | — |
| #8 | Virginia | $33.73B | — |
| #9 | Connecticut | $33.27B | — |
| #10 | Ohio | $32.29B | — |
| #11 | Washington | $30.62B | — |
| #12 | Maryland | $25.9B | — |
| #13 | Michigan | $25.02B | — |
| #14 | Colorado | $23.57B | — |
| #15 | Wisconsin | $22.79B | — |
| #16 | Florida | $20.14B | — |
| #17 | Minnesota | $17.03B | — |
| #18 | Oregon | $16.91B | — |
| #19 | Louisiana | $16.09B | — |
| #20 | South Carolina | $15.36B | — |
| #21 | West Virginia | $15.08B | — |
| #22 | Georgia | $14.05B | — |
| #23 | North Carolina | $13.13B | — |
| #24 | Hawaii | $11.72B | — |
| #25 | Rhode Island | $11.41B | — |
| #26 | Alabama | $10.99B | — |
| #27 | Oklahoma | $10.15B | — |
| #28 | Kentucky | $10.08B | — |
| #29 | Tennessee | $9.03B | — |
| #30 | Indiana | $8.52B | — |
| #31 | Iowa | $8.06B | — |
| #32 | Arkansas | $8.05B | — |
| #33 | Mississippi | $7.72B | — |
| #34 | New Hampshire | $7.58B | — |
| #35 | Kansas | $7.16B | — |
| #36 | New Mexico | $7.12B | — |
| #37 | Missouri | $6.99B | — |
| #38 | Arizona | $6.88B | — |
| #39 | Alaska | $5.72B | — |
| #40 | Utah | $5.55B | — |
| #41 | Maine | $5.3B | — |
| #42 | North Dakota | $4.89B | — |
| #43 | South Dakota | $4.67B | — |
| #44 | Delaware | $3.69B | — |
| #45 | Nebraska | $3.39B | — |
| #46 | Nevada | $2.89B | — |
| #47 | Montana | $2.76B | — |
| #48 | Vermont | $2.67B | — |
| #49 | Wyoming | $1.26B | — |
| #50 | Idaho · your comparison | $728.59M | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
All measures use Census state-government records for FY2024. Categories describe collections; they do not rank statutory tax rates.
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Census category T09.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Idaho stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Idaho has a dark outline.
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Texas | $54.35B | — |
| #2 | California | $53.33B | — |
| #3 | Florida | $40.09B | — |
| #4 | Washington | $22.81B | — |
| #5 | New York | $19.99B | — |
| #6 | Ohio | $16.33B | — |
| #7 | Illinois | $16.05B | — |
| #8 | Pennsylvania | $15.6B | — |
| #9 | New Jersey | $14.31B | — |
| #10 | Tennessee | $14.08B | — |
| #11 | Arizona | $13.16B | — |
| #12 | Michigan | $12.7B | — |
| #13 | North Carolina | $12.16B | — |
| #14 | Indiana | $10.96B | — |
| #15 | Massachusetts | $9.4B | — |
| #16 | Georgia | $9.01B | — |
| #17 | Minnesota | $8.49B | — |
| #18 | Nevada | $8.4B | — |
| #19 | Wisconsin | $7.59B | — |
| #20 | Virginia | $7.4B | — |
| #21 | Maryland | $6.85B | — |
| #22 | South Carolina | $6.44B | — |
| #23 | Connecticut | $6.23B | — |
| #24 | Kentucky | $5.8B | — |
| #25 | Missouri | $5.26B | — |
| #26 | Mississippi | $5.07B | — |
| #27 | Arkansas | $5.07B | — |
| #28 | Louisiana | $4.87B | — |
| #29 | Hawaii | $4.79B | — |
| #30 | Colorado | $4.67B | — |
| #31 | Iowa | $4.64B | — |
| #32 | Utah | $4.63B | — |
| #33 | Alabama | $4.59B | — |
| #34 | Kansas | $4.33B | — |
| #35 | New Mexico | $4.33B | — |
| #36 | Oklahoma | $3.81B | — |
| #37 | Idaho · your comparison | $3.09B | — |
| #38 | Nebraska | $2.97B | — |
| #39 | Maine | $2.35B | — |
| #40 | West Virginia | $1.82B | — |
| #41 | South Dakota | $1.68B | — |
| #42 | Rhode Island | $1.63B | — |
| #43 | Oregon | $1.34B | — |
| #44 | North Dakota | $1.32B | — |
| #45 | Wyoming | $1.01B | — |
| #46 | Vermont | $597.33M | — |
| #47 | Alaska | $0 | — |
| #47 | Delaware | $0 | — |
| #47 | Montana | $0 | — |
| #47 | New Hampshire | $0 | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Census categories allow consistent comparisons. These selected categories are not a breakdown of the current Idaho appropriations act.
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Current operations for public welfare institutions and other public welfare, excluding capital and transfers.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Idaho stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Idaho has a dark outline.
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $156.71B | — |
| #2 | New York | $97.35B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $57.32B | — |
| #4 | Illinois | $41.13B | — |
| #5 | Florida | $40.11B | — |
| #6 | Ohio | $39.77B | — |
| #7 | Pennsylvania | $39.34B | — |
| #8 | Massachusetts | $34.12B | — |
| #9 | North Carolina | $30.64B | — |
| #10 | New Jersey | $28.06B | — |
| #11 | Arizona | $26.02B | — |
| #12 | Michigan | $24.37B | — |
| #13 | Virginia | $23.68B | — |
| #14 | Minnesota | $23.37B | — |
| #15 | Indiana | $22.93B | — |
| #16 | Maryland | $21.61B | — |
| #17 | Kentucky | $20.54B | — |
| #18 | Oregon | $20.47B | — |
| #19 | Washington | $19.6B | — |
| #20 | Georgia | $18.99B | — |
| #21 | Louisiana | $18.69B | — |
| #22 | Tennessee | $16.42B | — |
| #23 | Wisconsin | $16.26B | — |
| #24 | Missouri | $15.65B | — |
| #25 | Oklahoma | $14.57B | — |
| #26 | Colorado | $13.6B | — |
| #27 | South Carolina | $12.84B | — |
| #28 | New Mexico | $10.72B | — |
| #29 | Iowa | $10.26B | — |
| #30 | Alabama | $9.73B | — |
| #31 | Arkansas | $8.67B | — |
| #32 | Mississippi | $8.08B | — |
| #33 | Utah | $6.91B | — |
| #34 | Kansas | $6.84B | — |
| #35 | Nevada | $6.62B | — |
| #36 | West Virginia | $6.24B | — |
| #37 | Maine | $5.7B | — |
| #38 | Nebraska | $4.97B | — |
| #39 | Connecticut | $4.88B | — |
| #40 | Rhode Island | $4.54B | — |
| #41 | Hawaii | $4.14B | — |
| #42 | Delaware | $3.97B | — |
| #43 | Idaho · your comparison | $3.73B | — |
| #44 | Alaska | $3.27B | — |
| #45 | Montana | $2.89B | — |
| #46 | New Hampshire | $2.72B | — |
| #47 | Vermont | $2.69B | — |
| #48 | North Dakota | $2.09B | — |
| #49 | South Dakota | $1.95B | — |
| #50 | Wyoming | $1.09B | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
The enacted plan, spending categories and audited activity use different periods and accounting scopes; they are kept separate.
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Sum of Census current-operation expenditure categories, excluding capital outlay, interest, and assistance/subsidy expenditure.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. This FY2024 comparison differs in scope and period from Idaho’s FY2027 appropriations and Fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 audit shown below.
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Idaho stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Idaho has a dark outline.
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $287.03B | — |
| #2 | New York | $161.37B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $136.18B | — |
| #4 | Florida | $86.61B | — |
| #5 | Pennsylvania | $77.15B | — |
| #6 | Illinois | $75.67B | — |
| #7 | Ohio | $66.77B | — |
| #8 | New Jersey | $64.53B | — |
| #9 | Massachusetts | $61.38B | — |
| #10 | North Carolina | $59.01B | — |
| #11 | Michigan | $57.27B | — |
| #12 | Virginia | $53.45B | — |
| #13 | Washington | $49.82B | — |
| #14 | Georgia | $45.19B | — |
| #15 | Maryland | $45.06B | — |
| #16 | Oregon | $41.41B | — |
| #17 | Arizona | $38.71B | — |
| #18 | Minnesota | $38.1B | — |
| #19 | Indiana | $37.4B | — |
| #20 | Kentucky | $36.94B | — |
| #21 | Wisconsin | $34.5B | — |
| #22 | Missouri | $34.43B | — |
| #23 | South Carolina | $32.85B | — |
| #24 | Colorado | $32.73B | — |
| #25 | Louisiana | $31.67B | — |
| #26 | Tennessee | $31.12B | — |
| #27 | Alabama | $26.99B | — |
| #28 | Oklahoma | $24.28B | — |
| #29 | Utah | $22.7B | — |
| #30 | New Mexico | $21.94B | — |
| #31 | Connecticut | $21.22B | — |
| #32 | Iowa | $19.89B | — |
| #33 | Kansas | $18.39B | — |
| #34 | Hawaii | $16.62B | — |
| #35 | Mississippi | $16.46B | — |
| #36 | Arkansas | $16.28B | — |
| #37 | West Virginia | $13.19B | — |
| #38 | Nevada | $12.43B | — |
| #39 | Nebraska | $10.41B | — |
| #40 | Maine | $10.12B | — |
| #41 | Delaware | $9.24B | — |
| #42 | Rhode Island | $8.93B | — |
| #43 | Alaska | $8.4B | — |
| #44 | Idaho · your comparison | $8.21B | — |
| #45 | New Hampshire | $7.12B | — |
| #46 | Montana | $6.44B | — |
| #47 | Vermont | $6.28B | — |
| #48 | North Dakota | $5.63B | — |
| #49 | South Dakota | $4.55B | — |
| #50 | Wyoming | $4.01B | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
The Legislative Services Office's post-session FY2027 original appropriations across General, Dedicated, and Federal funds. The total is enacted spending authority at the close of the 2026 session, not actual expenditures, and excludes continuously appropriated spending and later budget adjustments unless they are included in the report's appropriation table.
Shares of the $7.299 billion in taxes reported as general revenue for Idaho's primary government. The chart reflects State-government revenue. Property tax is levied for local governments and does not appear in the State primary government's tax total.
Exact functional totals from the Legislative Services Office's statewide FY2027 appropriation table. The six functions reconcile exactly to enacted General, Dedicated, and Federal fund appropriations.
Government-wide activity for Idaho's primary government on the accrual basis. Revenue combines program revenues and general revenues; transfers cancel within the primary-government total.
Explore statements about budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt from FactVote’s Idaho candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
Balance the State Budget
The idea here is to give counties the right to self-rule, set their own regulations, fund their own social programs and collect their own taxes. Almost nothing needs to change and the transition would be simple, fast, and seamless. Federal land is still federal land, state land is still state land, …
The idea here is to give counties the right to self-rule, set their own regulations, fund their own social programs and collect their own taxes. Almost nothing needs to change and the transition would be simple, fast, and seamless. Federal land is still federal land, state land is still state land, county land is still county land, city land is still city land, and private land is still private land. No borders need to move and no addresses need to change. Local businesses would simply send their state income tax withholding and state sales tax receipts to their county instead of their state. State revenue sharing would go away, so counties would need to budget accordingly, taking into account that they are now getting all the state income tax and sales tax income generated by the businesses in the county. Local voters will decide which taxes can go away.Paul Sand — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗
A governing district would be a federation of counties that share a common social and economic demographic. These virtual states would have their own rules and regulations, taxes and budgets. The state borders don't change and neither would their addresses. The only thing that moves is their governm…
A governing district would be a federation of counties that share a common social and economic demographic. These virtual states would have their own rules and regulations, taxes and budgets. The state borders don't change and neither would their addresses. The only thing that moves is their government alliance.Paul Sand — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗
Smarter Budgets, Stronger Futures
Smarter Budgets, Stronger FuturesEric Myricks — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
Idaho doesn’t need more slogans about tax cuts, it needs a government that actually works for the people paying the taxes. I support keeping taxes low, but you can’t keep cutting your way into oblivion. While the establishment brags about surpluses, families are working harder for less. Our roads ar…
Idaho doesn’t need more slogans about tax cuts, it needs a government that actually works for the people paying the taxes. I support keeping taxes low, but you can’t keep cutting your way into oblivion. While the establishment brags about surpluses, families are working harder for less. Our roads are crumbling, our schools are underfunded, and our seniors can’t afford care. Fiscal responsibility must be balanced with fiscal humanity. As Lieutenant Governor, I’ll fight for an Idaho that invests wisely, not just cuts blindly. A surplus means nothing if our people are falling behind.Eric Myricks — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
Since 2019, income tax rates have been lowered by 16 percent. Lt. Governor Bedke advocated for a lower, flat income tax rate (from 6.5 percent to 5.8 percent) during the 2022 Special Session. This is saving Idahoans more than $650 million each year. Payroll taxes for small businesses were also slash…
Since 2019, income tax rates have been lowered by 16 percent. Lt. Governor Bedke advocated for a lower, flat income tax rate (from 6.5 percent to 5.8 percent) during the 2022 Special Session. This is saving Idahoans more than $650 million each year. Payroll taxes for small businesses were also slashed, saving local business owners $264 million. And simple and effective property tax relief was passed in 2023 that gave $177 million back to Idahoans.Working in tandem with Governor Brad Little and the State Legislature as Speaker of the House, Lt. Governor Bedke balanced Idaho’s budget, which positioned our state to achieve a record budget surplus. Our economy is strong, thanks to our commitment to making smart investments, living within our means, and prudently saving for rainy days.No other state in the country has given back more taxpayer money per capita than Idaho.Lt. Governor Bedke believes lower taxes means small businesses can flourish and all Idahoans can keep more of what they earn to use for what they need.Scott Bedke campaign source 11 ↗
A committed conservative, Brandon believes in limited government, fiscal discipline, and accountability to the people. He and his wife, Janalee, are proud parents of three grown children and love spending time with their grandchild. The Woolfs are active members of The Church Jesus Christ of Latter-…
A committed conservative, Brandon believes in limited government, fiscal discipline, and accountability to the people. He and his wife, Janalee, are proud parents of three grown children and love spending time with their grandchild. The Woolfs are active members of The Church Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.Brandon Woolf — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Fiscal Responsibility
Fiscal ResponsibilityBrandon Woolf — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
This section matches specific budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt terms in retained, attributed source text from published Idaho candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Idaho legislators and Idaho’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Idaho’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
0 matching sponsorships or proposals · 0 Idaho incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
No retained proposals match these filters. A missing record does not mean an incumbent has taken no action.
Only current Idaho officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Idaho statistic. Collection reviewed Sep 16, 2026.