Vermont state-government finances, comparable debt and interest figures, and the enacted budget.
The national companion measures federal finances. Here the unit is Vermont state government. Federal debt is not allocated to Vermont; a state budget is not the federal budget.
Explore Vermont readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Vermont officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Vermont effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Vermont 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.
0 of 0 reviewed Vermont actions match · 0 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. Vermont 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. Vermont 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 · your comparison | $2.67B | — |
| #49 | Wyoming | $1.26B | — |
| #50 | Idaho | $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. Vermont 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. Vermont 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 | $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 · your comparison | $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 Vermont 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. Vermont 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. Vermont 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 | $3.73B | — |
| #44 | Alaska | $3.27B | — |
| #45 | Montana | $2.89B | — |
| #46 | New Hampshire | $2.72B | — |
| #47 | Vermont · your comparison | $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 Vermont’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. Vermont 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. Vermont 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 | $8.21B | — |
| #45 | New Hampshire | $7.12B | — |
| #46 | Montana | $6.44B | — |
| #47 | Vermont · your comparison | $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 Joint Fiscal Office's enacted Big Bill report identifies $11.940 billion of gross appropriations and $9.381 billion after removing duplicate fund flows. FactVote uses the official non-duplicate total so Global Commitment, internal-service, interdepartmental, local-match, pension-trust, enterprise, and other pass-through fund types are not counted again. Act 144 is Vermont's primary FY2027 operating and non-bond capital appropriations act.
The seven tax lines reported as general revenue for Vermont's primary government on the government-wide Statement of Activities. Charges, grants, investment earnings, settlement revenue, miscellaneous revenue, and business-type activity are outside this tax-only chart.
FactVote removes the same duplicate fund types used in the report's statewide non-duplicate total from each official government-function row, then groups the five smallest statewide functions together. The resulting categories reconcile exactly to $9.381 billion.
Government-wide revenue and expenses for Vermont's primary government on the accrual basis, combining governmental and business-type activities and excluding component units. Revenue is program revenue plus total general revenues and transfers; transfers cancel between the two primary-government columns.
Explore statements about budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt from FactVote’s Vermont 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.
Advance a Vermont Future Generations initiative by engaging Vermonters in a statewide conversation to define our shared long-term goals for the future of our state, establishing measurable long-term targets, and aligning budgets, investments, and policies across government to achieve those democrati…
Advance a Vermont Future Generations initiative by engaging Vermonters in a statewide conversation to define our shared long-term goals for the future of our state, establishing measurable long-term targets, and aligning budgets, investments, and policies across government to achieve those democratically determined priorities while publicly reporting on our progress.Amanda Janoo — candidate-owned primary source 4 ↗
Too many Vermonters are being squeezed by rising property taxes, higher energy costs, increasing health insurance premiums, and the growing cost of everyday life. John is committed to fighting for lower costs by opposing unnecessary taxes, mandates, and government spending that place additional burd…
Too many Vermonters are being squeezed by rising property taxes, higher energy costs, increasing health insurance premiums, and the growing cost of everyday life. John is committed to fighting for lower costs by opposing unnecessary taxes, mandates, and government spending that place additional burdens on Vermont families, seniors, farmers, and small businesses.John S. Rodgers — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
Address inflated hospital administrative costsby aligning salaries for administration and management with regional peers, in turn finding savings in hospital budgets and decreasing insurance premiums without compromising patient care.
Address inflated hospital administrative costsby aligning salaries for administration and management with regional peers, in turn finding savings in hospital budgets and decreasing insurance premiums without compromising patient care.Molly Gray — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
One of the biggest drivers of rising education costs is healthcare. Health insurance premiums for public school employees have increased by double digits in recent years, significantly raising school budgets and Vermonters’ property tax bills. Molly believes Vermont must confront these rising health…
One of the biggest drivers of rising education costs is healthcare. Health insurance premiums for public school employees have increased by double digits in recent years, significantly raising school budgets and Vermonters’ property tax bills. Molly believes Vermont must confront these rising healthcare costs while protecting strong local schools and educational opportunities for students across the state.Molly Gray — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
Lower Costs & Fiscal Responsibility
Leadership should understand what it takes to turn an idea, a damaged building and a limited budget into something people can live in.
Leadership should understand what it takes to turn an idea, a damaged building and a limited budget into something people can live in.Ryan P Walton — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗
Our systems support a medical-industrial complex, and a disease-care model. We must teach how to prevent disease, and increase self-care by learning to understand our bodies from a young age. This would truly be *health-care*, and it’s being done all over the world. People need options and choices. …
Our systems support a medical-industrial complex, and a disease-care model. We must teach how to prevent disease, and increase self-care by learning to understand our bodies from a young age. This would truly be *health-care*, and it’s being done all over the world. People need options and choices. Controlling health care costs can help reduce school budget pressure.Suzanne "Suz" Seymour — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
This section matches specific budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt terms in retained, attributed source text from published Vermont 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 Vermont legislators and Vermont’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Vermont’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
0 matching sponsorships or proposals · 0 Vermont 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 Vermont 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 Vermont statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 5, 2026.