Michigan State Senator's Budget Claims Contradict Fiscal Experts on Revenue Growth
LANSING — State Sen. Mallory McMorrow, a Democratic candidate for Michigan's U.S. Senate seat this fall, made controversial claims about Michigan's population growth and state revenue that conflict with data from independent fiscal experts.
In a March 9 interview with MIRS News, Sen. McMorrow stated that "adjusted for inflation, the state of Michigan is operating with the same revenue we had in 1968 despite gaining more than 3 million people from then until today."
The claim has drawn pushback from James Hohman, a fiscal policy expert at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, who told Michigan Capitol Confidential that the state's revenue and population numbers do not align with the senator's assertions.
The Numbers Don't Add Up
According to Hohman's analysis, Michigan's population actually increased from 8.7 million in 1968 to 10.1 million in 2025 — an increase of 1.4 million people, not 3 million as Sen. McMorrow suggested.
More dramatically, the revenue claims also contradict the record. State revenue was $2 billion in the 1967-68 fiscal year. If state government revenue had remained flat as Sen. McMorrow claimed, adjusted for inflation, it would be $18.9 billion today. Instead, it was $48.9 billion in 2024-25 — an increase of 2,330%.
This means state spending per person rose from $2,178 in 1967-68 to $4,832 in 2024-25, representing a 122% increase.
Sen. McMorrow did not respond to a request for comment from Michigan Capitol Confidential.
Budget Appropriations Context
Despite the factual errors in her statements, Sen. McMorrow's position on state spending remains clear. Speaking in state Senate Appropriations, she told MIRS: "However, the tax burden has shifted off of corporations and on to middle-income taxpayers. So I hear residents saying, 'I feel like I'm paying a lot. I'm not getting anything for it,' and we need a fairer tax structure that supports the revenue that we need to ensure we can appropriately fund our schools, our roads, our infrastructure and, especially right now, Medicaid."
Her comments come at a time when Michigan continues to grapple with state budget priorities and the shifting tax burden on working families.
Fiscal Policy Perspective
The Mackinac Center, which produces Michigan Capitol Confidential, reports with a free-market news perspective. The publication noted that Sen. McMorrow's presentation in state Senate Appropriations shows that revenues are not keeping up with spending, according to her testimony.
However, independent fiscal analysis suggests the opposite is true — state revenue per person has more than doubled since 1968, while population growth has been far more modest than suggested by the senator.
Michigan's Economic Landscape
Michigan faces ongoing challenges from federal tariff policies that have increased costs for manufacturers and consumers. In Executive Directive 2026-2, Governor Whitmer directed state departments to report on the ongoing impact of tariffs on Michigan's economy.
According to the governor's directive, tariffs have raised costs for raw materials, increased production costs, and restricted market access for Michigan products. Michigan farmers selling soybeans, dairy, and other products abroad faced reduced demand when countries like China imposed counter-tariffs on U.S. goods, lowering farm revenues and creating uncertainty in rural communities.
For working families, these policies have cost each family an average of $1,000 per year, leading to higher prices for cars, appliances, construction materials, and consumer products.
Campaign Implications
Sen. McMorrow's U.S. Senate campaign faces the 2026 election against Abdul El-Sayed, the Michigan Attorney General and former state treasurer. Her budget claims and fiscal policy positions may play a role in her campaign messaging as voters consider the state's fiscal health and future direction.
The Michigan Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a dispute between the state Senate and House over nine stalled bills, adding another layer of legislative uncertainty to Michigan's political landscape.
Sources: