The 10 Worst States to Have a Baby
The birth rate in the U.S. is finally seeing an uptick after falling during the recession. Births tend to fall during hard economic times because having a baby and raising a child are expensive propositions.
Costs are not the same everywhere, though. Some states are better than others for family budgets, and health care quality varies widely from place to place.
A new report from WalletHub looks at the cost of delivering a baby in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as overall health care quality and the general “baby-friendliness” of each state – a mix of variables including average birth weights, pollution levels and the availability of child care.
Mississippi ranks as the worst state to have a baby, despite having the lowest average infant-care costs in the nation. Unfortunately, the Magnolia State also has the highest rate of infant deaths and one of lowest numbers of pediatricians per capita.
Related: Which States Have the Most Unwanted Babies?
On the other end of the scale, Vermont ranks as the best state for having a baby. Vermont has both the highest number of pediatricians and the highest number of child centers per capita. But before packing your bags, it’s worth considering the frigid winters in the Green Mountain State and the amount of money you’ll need to spend on winter clothing and heat.
Here are the 10 worst and 10 best states for having a baby:
Top 10 Worst States to Have a Baby
1. Mississippi
- Budget Rank: 18
- Health Care Rank: 51
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 29
2. Pennsylvania
- Budget Rank: 37
- Health Care Rank: 36
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 51
3. West Virginia
- Budget Rank: 13
- Health Care Rank: 48
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 50
4. South Carolina
- Budget Rank: 22
- Health Care Rank: 43
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 49
5. Nevada
- Budget Rank: 39
- Health Care Rank: 35
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 46
6. New York
- Budget Rank: 46
- Health Care Rank: 12
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 47
7. Louisiana
- Budget Rank: 8
- Health Care Rank: 50
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 26
8. Georgia
- Budget Rank: 6
- Health Care Rank: 46
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 43
9. Alabama
- Budget Rank: 3
- Health Care Rank: 47
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 44
10. Arkansas
- Budget Rank: 12
- Health Care Rank: 49
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 37
Top 10 Best States to Have a Baby
1. Vermont
- Budget Ranks: 17
- Health Care Rank: 1
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 5
2. North Dakota
- Budget Rank: 10
- Health Care Rank: 14
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 10
3. Oregon
- Budget Rank: 38
- Health Care Rank: 2
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 14
4. Hawaii
- Budget Rank: 31
- Health Care Rank: 25
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 1
5. Minnesota
- Budget Rank: 32
- Health Care Rank: 5
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 12
6. Kentucky
- Budget Rank: 1
- Health Care Rank: 33
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 20
7. Maine
- Budget Rank: 25
- Health Care Rank: 10
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 15
8. Wyoming
- Budget Rank: 22
- Health Care Rank: 17
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 7
9. Iowa
- Budget Rank: 14
- Health Care Rank: 25
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 9
10. Alaska
- Budget Rank: 50
- Health Care Rank: 6
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 2
Top Reads From The Fiscal Times
- The 10 Worst States for Property Taxes
- Americans Are About to Get a Nice Fat Pay Raise
- You’re Richer Than You Think. Really.
Map of the Day: Navigating the IRS
The Taxpayer Advocate Service – an independent organization within the IRS whose roughly 1,800 employees both assist taxpayers in resolving problems with the tax collection agency and recommend changes aimed at improving the system – released a “subway map” that shows the “the stages of a taxpayer’s journey.” The colorful diagram includes the steps a typical taxpayer takes to prepare and file their tax forms, as well as the many “stations” a tax return can pass through, including processing, audits, appeals and litigation. Not surprisingly, the map is quite complicated. Click here to review a larger version on the taxpayer advocate’s site.
A Surprise Government Spending Slowdown
Economists expected federal spending to boost growth in 2019, but some of the fiscal stimulus provided by the 2018 budget deal has failed to show up this year, according to Kate Davidson of The Wall Street Journal.
Defense spending has come in as expected, but nondefense spending has lagged, and it’s unlikely to catch up to projections even if it accelerates in the coming months. Lower spending on disaster relief, the government shutdown earlier this year, and federal agencies spending less than they have been given by Congress all appear to be playing a role in the spending slowdown, Davidson said.
Number of the Day: $203,500
The Wall Street Journal’s Catherine Lucey reports that acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney is making a bit more than his predecessors: “The latest annual report to Congress on White House personnel shows that President Trump’s third chief of staff is getting an annual salary of $203,500, compared with Reince Priebus and John Kelly, each of whom earned $179,700.” The difference is the result of Mulvaney still technically occupying the role of director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, where his salary level is set by law.
The White House told the Journal that if Mulvaney is made permanent chief of staff his salary would be adjusted to the current salary for an assistant to the president, $183,000.
The Census Affects Nearly $1 Trillion in Spending
The 2020 census faces possible delay as the Supreme Court sorts out the legality of a controversial citizenship question added by the Trump administration. Tracy Gordon of the Tax Policy Center notes that in addition to the basic issue of political representation, the decennial population count affects roughly $900 billion in federal spending, ranging from Medicaid assistance funds to Section 8 housing vouchers. Here’s a look at the top 10 programs affected by the census:
Chart of the Day: Offshore Profits Continue to Rise
Brad Setser, a former U.S. Treasury economist now with the Council on Foreign Relations, added another detail to his assessment of the foreign provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: “A bit more evidence that Trump's tax reform didn't change incentives to offshore profits: the enormous profits that U.S. firms report in low tax jurisdictions continues to rise,” Setser wrote. “In fact, there was a bit of a jump up over the course of 2018.”
