Dedicated to helping citizens of all generations understand how tax and spending policies affect them.

Issue Brief

The Spending Proposed by Michigan’s Congressional Delegation

June 6, 2013

The table below shows the latest BillTally findings on the Michigan delegation from National Taxpayers Union Foundation’s analysis of the 112th Congress. The report provides a comprehensive overview of the net cost of all of the spending and savings bills sponsored or cosponsored by each Member of Congress. We cross-index our database of cost estimates with each bill supported by each Member to calculate their net spending agenda (excluding overlapping/duplicate measures).


Net Cost of Legislation Sponsored and Cosponsored by Michigan’s Congressional Delegation in the 112th Congress (Dollar Figures in Millions)

Name Party Increases Decreases Net Spending Agenda # of Increases # of Decreases
Levin, Carl D $31,271 ($43,897) ($12,626) 28 5
Stabenow, Debbie Ann D $45,358 ($17,819) $27,539 64 12
Amash, Justin R $38 ($199,954) ($199,916) 3 11
Benishek, Dan R $5,909 ($178,651) ($172,742) 26 16
Camp, David R $14,047 ($182,316) ($168,269) 9 15
Clarke, Hansen D $1,324,189 ($15,020) $1,309,169 73 5
Conyers, John D $1,825,016 ($51,219) $1,773,797 170 12
Dingell, John D $77,810 ($13,731) $64,079 40 4
Huizenga, Bill R $323 ($251,012) ($250,689) 17 23
Kildee, Dale D $187,122 ($5,047) $182,075 84 4
Levin, Sander D $55,271 ($12,056) $43,215 46 3
Miller, Candice R $1,879 ($175,537) ($173,658) 33 14
Peters, Gary D $85,938 ($7,093) $78,845 57 9
Rogers, Michael J. R $3,871 ($44,021) ($40,150) 19 13
Upton, Frederick R $12,649 ($180,780) ($168,131) 15 16
Walberg, Timothy R $15,767 ($262,701) ($246,934) 22 36
Note: The links in the names will open a detailed report of that Member’s sponsored bills that had cost estimates.
  • Among the states and territories, Michigan’s House delegation had the 18th largest average net spending agenda: $145 billion. Two members were sponsors of legislation to enact a single-payer, universal health system exclusively administered by the federal government.
  • Each House Democratic Representative from Michigan backed legislation that, overall, would lead to net spending increases.
  • If all of the legislation that Representative Conyers either sponsored or cosponsored during the 112th Congress were passed into law, spending would increase by nearly $1.8 trillion – the most new spending supported by any Member.
  • Each of the Republicans from Michigan were “net cutters”: if the legislation they each had sponsored were enacted into law, spending would decrease. Their net budget cutting agendas ranged from $40 billion to over $250 billion (Rep. Bill Huizenga).
  • Among all House Members, Representative Amash’s agenda included the fewest amount of spending increases ($38 million), more than offset by nearly $200 million in cuts.
  • In the Upper Chamber, Senator Levin was a net cutter: the bills he backed would, on net, cut spending by nearly $13 billion. Senator Stabenow supported 64 increase proposals and 12 proposals to cut spending, for a net agenda of $27.5 billion. The average Democratic Senator supported $39 billion in net increases.

The full report contains lots of other data points, including the cost of all bills introduced in each Chamber and a look at fiscally-related member caucuses such as the Tea Party Caucus.



National Taxpayers Union Foundation
108 North Alfred Street, Alexandria, VA 22314
703-683-5700, fax: 703-683-5722, e-mail:
This report should not be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress or as reflecting on a Member’s fitness to serve.