On November 10, 2003, Senate Majority Leader Panzer and Assembly Speaker Gard sent a memo to all state legislators detailing the "Job Creation Act of 2003" (Assembly Bill 655/Senate Bill 313).  In their memo, Panzer and Gard infer that it is Wisconsin’s air and water regulations that are causing the state to lose jobs, and that the Job Creation Act will bring them back. 

What Panzer and Gard seem to have overlooked are the facts.  Gard and Panzer should be prepared to answer two basic questions about this bill and support them with hard facts:

1. Why is Wisconsin losing jobs? and

2. Will this bill address the root cause of the problem?

Job losses impact real people and the quality of life in Wisconsin. Any serious legislative efforts to address job loss must also address the root cause of the job losses.  And, any legislative efforts falling short of that basic task are failing the many families faced with unemployment. 

As for the cause of the job losses, Panzer and Gard maintain that Wisconsin is losing jobs due to its "onerous regulatory climate." What is the basis for this assertion? 

Surprisingly, Gard and Panzer's "proof" of job losses does not come from any estimates of actual job losses caused by regulations prepared by economists or experts in this field.  Instead, Gard and Panzer claim to rely on "hours of legislative hearings" and a "survey." 

Perhaps Gard and Panzer should have looked down State Street to the University of Wisconsin’s Business School for a bit more insight into the problem.  According to a study by Professor Jon Udell that involved the participation of 270 Wisconsin manufacturing executives (providing 24% of the state’s manufacturing jobs), Wisconsin ranks above average among the states as a location for manufacturers.  In particular, these executives gave an above average ranking to the attitude of government toward business (which includes regulations and legislation).  The only areas where Wisconsin ranked below average were taxes and labor relations.  either of these issues are addressed in the so called "Job Creation Act." 

This struck me as odd. So we at Midwest Environmental Advocates decided to look further.  We thought that perhaps our legislators had access to estimates of job losses or deferred capital investments that were not available to the general public that could support all this effort.  We thought that certainly they would have the names of the businesses or at least the numbers of jobs lost due to "regulations." 

So, we called Senator Panzer’s office and spoke with her Policy Director.  In response to our request for the data, we were told that he, "[had] not prepared any numbers on that."  When further asked to see the data on the number of jobs that are estimated to be created by the bill, we were told that "a specific job analysis will not be conducted" for the bill.

Similar calls to Representative Gard and Senator Stepp’s offices were not returned as of this writing. 

So let’s summarize: Sen. Panzer, one of the bill’s primary authors has no idea how many jobs have been lost due to "regulations" and no idea how many jobs will be created by the so-called Job Creation Act.  Despite a lack of credible evidence that suggests regulations are the problem, legislators have plowed ahead with a bill that may not resolve the cause of the job loss problem at all. 

In fact, what this bill does is attack clean air and water regulations.  This "solution" actually flies in the face of a fact that does have economic evidence— earning $11.7 billion in 2002, tourism is Wisconsin’s second largest industry (according to the Department of Tourism).  This will remain true only if we continue to protect our air and water from short-sighted bills such as this one.  Moreover, one of the factors contributing to Wisconin’s manufacturing executives ranking Wisconsin so high in Dr. Udell’s study was our water and recreational opportunities. 

Until legislators substantiate their claims with real numbers and valid studies, it is vital we see these bills as misguided at best.  After all, who would want their name associated with a law that may ultimately end up in practice as the "Job Destruction Act of 2003" ?