Conservatively Speaking

Wisconsin is not cheap when it comes to spending on education or health care.

The Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance (WTA) reports that over the past 20 years, from 1987-2007, state general fund expenditures increased 165.6 percent. That is an incredible increase, but the hike is even bigger for schools and health care.

Spending on school aids/credits during the past 20 years soared 249.1 percent. That computes to an annual increase of 6.5 percent. Spending on Medicaid jumped even more, 320.9 percent between 1987 and 2007, an annual increase of 7.5 percent.

As the WTA points out, “Put another way, while these two items accounted for about two-fifths (42.3%) of spending 20 years ago, they received more than two-thirds (67.8%) of all new money spent since then.”

Wisconsin does not short change its schools or health care for low-income and disabled residents. You can read the WTA report here.

The streamlined sales tax concept that I oppose that Governor Doyle included in his state budget proposal has cost the state of Michigan dearly.

Michigan entered into the multi-state agreement three years ago to collect sales taxes from Internet purchases by Michigan residents from out-of-state companies.. The deal has turned into a fiscal nightmare for Michigan.

The Detroit News reports Michigan has gained nothing in an effort to gain back uncollected sales tax revenue. The state has actually lost money, between $7 and $10 million a year since joining the streamlined sales tax agreement with other states.

Michigan’s director of the Treasury’s bureau of tax policy has informed Michigan lawmakers he doesn’t know when the state will be able to recoup its losses.

The streamlined sales tax is a tax increase that will stifle Internet commerce. Once again, I call on Wisconsin to reject this idea and keep it out of the state budget.

Here are more details on the effect of the streamlined sales tax agreement on Michigan.

Today I issued the following press release on legislation I am introducing to require that current appointed boards in Wisconsin be elected bodies.

This morning, I was interviewed live by Jay Weber on his morning program on Newstalk 1130 WISN. We discussed my bill to eliminate taxation without representation in Wisconsin by making appointed boards with taxing authority elected bodies.

You can hear the entire interview here by clicking on "Listen" under Hour 2 Part 2. The audio will be available until Wednesday morning.

I will be a guest on Jay Weber’s morning program today on Newstalk 1130 WISN at 7:40. I will discuss my bill to eliminate taxation without representation in Wisconsin by making appointed boards with taxing authority elected bodies.

I do not support the nanny state. When the Legislature approved the car seat mandate, I was quite vocal in my opposition, for numerous reasons.

What is even worse than the nanny-state provisions of car seat requirements is that those very car seats mandated by the government can be quite dangerous.

The Chicago Tribune has completed an exhaustive study of car seats. The newspaper writes:

“A Tribune examination of child car seats in America shows how the vital task of making a safe product can clash with the realities of the marketplace.

Car-seat makers enjoy a rare advantage among companies. Theirs is the one children's product every parent, by law, must use. And many parents assume all seats are equally safe, so they choose based on what fits their budget or matches their car's interior.

But the willingness of some executives to dismiss warnings about potential hazards means parents can buy a car seat without knowing all the risks. At the same time, regulators have left consumers in the dark by failing to develop safety ratings for seats or significantly toughen crash tests.

As a result, the device designed to protect the most vulnerable passengers in a car is tested by the government in fewer crash scenarios than the car itself or its seat belts.

Regulation of car-seat manufacturers largely boils down to self-reporting. A car seat can break into pieces during crash tests, the Tribune found, and its maker doesn't have to report those results if the tests fell outside the narrow parameters of the government standard.”

Here is the Chicago Tribune’s complete article.

It is outrageous that government mandates car seat requirements, and government then performs inadequate tests of car seats, resulting in less accountability for manufacturers and reduced safety for children.

Apparently stung by criticism that I first raised about teachers being exempt from the Senate Democrats’ government health plan, its supporters are trying to a place a positive spin on this boondoggle.

The Wisconsin Health Project has issued a press release stating:

“Public school teachers are not exempt from the plan. Teachers are treated like everyone else--they are covered by the plan, they pay the same assessments, their employers pay the same assessments.

Like all other unionized employees--public and private—there may be a temporary delay in joining Healthy Wisconsin (the government health care plan) if they have a collective bargaining agreement in effect on the day the plan commences.”

That is a significant stipulation. In their own words, the Wisconsin Healthy Project admits teachers are being treated differently from everyone else the minute the government health plan goes into effect.

Shortly after the Senate Democrats dropped their $15.2 billion bomb on taxpayers, I asked the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau (LFB) to prepare an analysis of the government health care plan. The LFB writes this about teachers, with the key phrase in bold:

Municipal Employment Relations Law. Provide that the definition of economic issue would include "health insurance coverage of benefits not provided under the Healthy Wisconsin Plan."

Under current law, the definition includes the term "health insurance." Further, provide that, for the purpose of determining if a school district employer has maintained current fringe benefits requirements under current qualified economic offer (QEO) law, the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC) would be required to consider the employer to have maintained its health care coverage benefit if the employer provides health care coverage to its school district professional employees through the Healthy Wisconsin Plan and supplements that coverage, if necessary, to produce a health care coverage benefit that is actuarially equivalent to the health care coverage benefit in place before the school district professional employees become covered under the Healthy Wisconsin Plan.

Provide that, if a dispute arises concerning the employer’s determination of actuarial equivalence or what supplemental benefits are sufficient to achieve actuarial equivalence, the dispute must be resolved by a neutral person who is designated by WERC.

To be clear, unlike the rest of us who lose our current health care plans the day the Senate Democrats’ plan is enacted, teachers are guaranteed to keep their current coverage as long as the QEO remains in effect. Everyone else must take the plan dictated by the government health authority.

The Senate Democrats’ plan unfairly singles out one group to obtain better access and more coverage than the rest of Wisconsin. Despite the claims of the Wisconsin Health Project, teachers are being treated differently than everyone else. Supporters of the government health plan continue to be disingenuous about its details, a very good reason to be skeptical of the entire proposal.

More ridicule around the country for the Senate Democrats’ universal government health plan.

The Wall Street Journal editorializes against the proposal.

Here’s the WSJ editorial:

Cheese Headcases
Wisconsin reveals the cost of "universal" health care.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

When Louis Brandeis praised the 50 states as "laboratories of democracy," he didn't claim that every policy experiment would work. So we hope the eyes of America will turn to Wisconsin, and the effort by Madison Democrats to make that "progressive" state a Petri dish for government-run health care.

This exercise is especially instructive, because it reveals where the "single-payer," universal coverage folks end up. Democrats who run the Wisconsin Senate have dropped the Washington pretense of incremental health-care reform and moved directly to passing a plan to insure every resident under the age of 65 in the state. And, wow, is "free" health care expensive. The plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and corporate income taxes. It represents an average of $510 a month in higher taxes for every Wisconsin worker.

Employees and businesses would pay for the plan by sharing the cost of a new 14.5% employment tax on wages. Wisconsin businesses would have to compete with out-of-state businesses and foreign rivals while shouldering a 29.8% combined federal-state payroll tax, nearly double the 15.3% payroll tax paid by non-Wisconsin firms for Social Security and Medicare combined.

This employment tax is on top of the $1 billion grab bag of other levies that Democratic Governor Jim Doyle proposed and the tax-happy Senate has also approved, including a $1.25 a pack increase in the cigarette tax, a 10% hike in the corporate tax, and new fees on cars, trucks, hospitals, real estate transactions, oil companies and dry cleaners. In all, the tax burden in the Badger State could rise to 20% of family income, which is slightly more than the average federal tax burden. "At least federal taxes pay for an Army and Navy," quips R.J. Pirlot of the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce business lobby.

As if that's not enough, the health plan includes a tax escalator clause allowing an additional 1.5 percentage point payroll tax to finance higher outlays in the future. This could bring the payroll tax to 16%. One reason to expect costs to soar is that the state may become a mecca for the unemployed, uninsured and sick from all over North America. The legislation doesn't require that you have a job in Wisconsin to qualify, merely that you live in the state for at least 12 months. Cheesehead nation could expect to attract health-care free-riders while losing productive workers who leave for less-taxing climes.

Proponents use the familiar argument for national health care that this will save money (about $1.8 billion a year) through efficiency gains by eliminating the administrative costs of private insurance. And unions and some big businesses with rich union health plans are only too happy to dump these liabilities onto the government.

But those costs won't vanish; they'll merely shift to all taxpayers and businesses. Small employers that can't afford to provide insurance would see their employment costs rise by thousands of dollars per worker, while those that now provide a basic health insurance plan would have to pay $400 to $500 a year more per employee.

The plan is also openly hostile to market incentives that contain costs. Private companies are making modest progress in sweating out health-care inflation by making patients more cost-conscious through increased copayments, health savings accounts, and incentives for wellness. The Wisconsin program moves in the opposite direction: It reduces out-of-pocket copayments, bars money-saving HSA plans, and increases the number of mandated medical services covered under the plan.

So where will savings come from? Where they always do in any government plan: Rationing via price controls and, as costs rise, waiting periods and coverage restrictions. This is Michael Moore's medical dream state.

The last line of defense against this plan are the Republicans who run the Wisconsin House. So far they've been unified and they recently voted the Senate plan down. Democrats are now planning to take their ideas to the voters in legislative races next year, and that's a debate Wisconsinites should look forward to. At least Wisconsin Democrats are admitting how much it will cost Americans to pay for government-run health care. Would that Washington Democrats were as forthright.

Why should the state of Wisconsin dismantle our health care system and replace it with a government plan when Wisconsin provides some of the best health care in the nation?

Wisconsin was ranked first in the nation in health care quality based on information compiled by the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

The state's hospitals also were given the highest score in the country.

In another recent national survey of more than 1.5 million patients treated in more than 1,500 acute care hospitals around the United States, Milwaukee hospitals ranked number one in patient satisfaction when patients were asked to evaluate their experience in the emergency departments in that city.

The report also ranked the metropolitan areas with a population of 500,000 or more with the highest levels of patient satisfaction about their emergency room experience. Milwaukee ranks #1.

Wisconsin hospitals continue to invest in staff and facilities. The result is high quality health care and high levels of patient satisfaction. A government health care program would stifle investment, research, and innovation that have been trademarks of Wisconsin health care, the best in the nation.

Remember Governor Doyle’s latest so-called property tax “freeze?” The Governor, and only in his world could this be possible, gave Wisconsin a property tax freeze that was supposed to result in tax levy increases of only two percent.

The Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance (WTA) has issued a report entitled, "Property Taxes: Freeze or Thaw?"

The WTA writes:

”Despite a "freeze" designed to slow Wisconsin property tax growth, statewide gross levies rose 4.6% to $8.71 billion in 2006-07. Due mainly to large increases in school property taxes, levy growth was up significantly over the previous season.”

So much for the Governor’s, “freeze,” that seems to be all wet.

Here’s the WTA report.

The Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau has completed a review of a formula used by the state Department of Administration to determine the prosecutorial staffing needs in counties throughout the state. Concerns were raised about the formula’s accuracy.

The formula looks at current staffing levels and the number and types of cases prosecuted. It is called the weighted caseload formula.

The audit found the following:

• There is a trend that has developed in recent years. Staffing levels of prosecutors have gone down while caseloads have increased.
• The weighted caseload formula system may be sound, but it needs improvement.

The number of full time prosecutor positions decreased from 444.35 positions in July 2002 to 424.65 positions in July 2006. Staffing levels are down.

Then you look at the numbers involving caseloads. From 2001 through 2005, the number of criminal cases prosecuted by district attorneys’ offices increased by 11.5 percent statewide, and the number of felony cases increased by 16.2 percent. The result has been that prosecutions are less timely, there has been an increase in decisions not to prosecute cases, and many cases are settled out of court with more lenient punishments. Such consequences are unsettling if we are going to be serious about fighting crime.

The audit found that in August 2006, using the current formula to determine staffing needs, 63 counties were understaffed by a total of 119.16 full time positions, while 8 were slightly overstaffed by a total of 1.83 full time positions. Wisconsin is understaffed by 117.33 full time positions. Milwaukee County has 121 positions, just under the 125 it needs.

The Legislative Audit Bureau discovered the formula relies on incomplete data and out-of-date measures of the time required to prosecute cases. The Audit Bureau recommends implementation of a data system called PROTECT that would provide more accurate information. It also suggests the Legislature determine if current staffing levels justify the addition of new prosecutorial positions.

Taking into account the state’s fiscal problems and other funding priorities, the Audit Bureau suggests the Legislature examine potential methods of decreasing the workloads of prosecutors. Smaller counties could develop “floating” pools of assistant district attorneys who could work in counties that suddenly experience heavier, unanticipated workloads.

The Legislative Audit Bureau wants the Department of Administration to report back to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee by March 14, 2008 on short-term plans to improve the weighted caseload formula, and the department’s plans to implement a new, more accurate data system to measure the workloads of prosecutors.

You can read the Audit Bureau’s report here.

In Massachusetts, the law required that by July 1, 2007, the state’s uninsured were to sign up for health insurance. The requirement is part of the state’s universal health care program, one that is being watched all across the country. Massachusetts passed the country's first law requiring adults to get health insurance in April, 2006.

So far, two-thirds of the uninsured in Massachusetts have yet to sign up. The greater the lack of participation, the more likely it is that residents with high medical costs will lead investors to increase premiums.

Wisconsin can learn from Massachusetts and reject a proposed government health care plan.

Here is the Massachusetts story.

Last week, I posted the following:

“On Tuesday, a group formed by Governor Doyle to work on the Great Lakes Compact met for two hours in the Governor’s office.

As a member of the Wisconsin Legislative Council Special Committee on the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact, and as the state Senator representing New Berlin and the Waukesha area that will be affected by the Compact, I should have been notified about the meeting and invited. I was not."

The Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel editorial board agreed:

“Given the public interest in the matter and the controversial policy issues at stake, notice should have been given regardless of the legal requirements. Furthermore, state Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) is right when she argues that - as a representative of an area seeking Great Lakes water and as a member of a legislative study committee on the issue - she should have been included in the group that met Tuesday.”

Here is the entire editorial.

As a motorcycle enthusiast, I am troubled to learn that the number of motorcycle crashes is up in Wisconsin this year. According to the Department of Transportation (DOT), as of June 15, 2007, 34 people have died in motorcycle crashes in the state this year compared to 25 killed at the same time last year.

Factors that can increase the potential for crashes include the recent warm weather and the fact there are more motorcycles on the road, a point I blogged about recently.

Lester Ecke, a state-certified instructor with the Motorcycle Safety Foundation taught at Mid-State Technical College in Marshfield told the Marshfield News-Herald there are two incidents that result in the highest number of motorcycle accidents.

"One is the motorcyclist going into a curve and is not able to make the curve because of poor judgment,” said Ecke. “They're probably going into it too fast. Second is, vehicles turning left in front of motorcycles."

The DOT says half of all motorcycle crashes are not the motorcyclist’s fault. In those cases, motorists around the cycles are to blame, usually because they fail to yield to motorcycles.

Automobile drivers, share the road with motorcycles. Remember, motorcycles are smaller and more difficult to see than cars. Safety experts suggest drivers make a visual check for motorcycles before changing lanes or entering a major roadway. Experts also recommend do not follow too close; allow a four-second following distance and even more during hazardous road conditions. Give the motorcycle a full lane width. Never share a lane with a motorcycle. Be extremely careful at intersections. That is where most motorcycle crashes occur.

While motorcyclists have road responsibilities, it is imperative that other vehicle drivers be especially cautious to avoid collisions with motorcycles. Sharing the road safely with motorcycles can save lives.

Earlier this year, I wrote about my concerns and skepticism about the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to deal with mute swans.

I wrote that, “The issue has become highly emotional in my district at Phantom Lake in the town of Mukwonago…..evidence does not exist that the mute swans are causing serious damage or pose a public safety threat. The correct ruling for the DNR Board is to listen to the people living with the mute swans for the past 30 years. They testified the mute swans are gentle and tame. A drastic policy to eliminate the swans is unnecessary.”

You can read my column on mute swans here.

I witnessed how emotional the mute swan issue is for residents who have cared for these lovely animals for years as if they were family members. As I feared, the DNR policy is unpopular and unnecessary.

The Appleton Post –Crescent is reporting the sad story of an Appleton apartment owner who killed mute swans in order to meet state guidelines, angering residents.

You can read the Post-Crescent story here.

For the past year, I have been serving as a member of the Wisconsin Legislative Council Special Committee on the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact. My efforts have been focused on the Compact’s ideal goal to protect, conserve, restore, improve and effectively manage the Great Lakes waters. That is the large picture.

I have also been concentrating on gaining access to Lake Michigan water for New Berlin and Waukesha, a need that is critical for those communities. The work has translated into hours upon hours of meetings, exhaustive research, and numerous correspondences with other concerned officials and water experts from around the Midwest.

That is why I was very surprised to read the off-base comments of New Berlin Mayor Jack Chiovatero in today’s Milwaukee Shepherd-Express Metro weekly newspaper.

Reporter Dennis Shook writes in today’s Shepherd Express-Metro:

Chiovatero, who has meetings this week with Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett to discuss water access details, said he sees Lazich as the major obstacle to solving the city's water woes.

"These are her people ... she lives here," Chiovatero said of Lazich, who could not be reached for comment. "She has Lake Michigan water herself and she's enjoying it. So let everybody else [enjoy] it. This is just a political thing going on that has me upset," he said of her opposition to the compact.

Chiovatero’s rationale and line of thinking is small-minded and simplistic. His criticism is misdirected. Instead of cozying up to Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett who opposes access to Lake Michigan water for New Berlin and Waukesha, Chiovatero should be working with me, the state Senate representative of the area most affected by the Compact, to ensure our communities get the water they so desperately need.

How ironic that Chiovatero would call me an obstructionist on the Compact when he sits down at a meeting with Milwaukee’s Mayor who has been steadfast in his opposition to our area getting Lake Michigan water. Barrett’s threat to prevent the ability of New Berlin and Waukesha to gain access to Lake Michigan water will result in requiring those communities to spend millions of dollars to drill new wells and treat existing wells. Withholding water from our area will endanger public health and will damage economic development.

Consistently, my opinion has been that the current Compact is a flawed document that is bad for public health, bad for the environment, bad for economic development, and generally bad public policy. I am in no rush to approve a Compact that allows a single Great Lakes Governor to veto any diversion of water to New Berlin. Apparently Chiovatero fails to understand that provision alone would put the city of New Berlin that he is supposed to be representing in serious jeopardy of obtaining much-needed water.

The Compact that Chiovatero and Barrett say we should approve immediately is filled with flaws. Mark Squillace, Director of the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado Law School has written a research paper titled Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact. Squillace maintains the Compact is so problematic that chucking it entirely and starting from scratch might be the best option.

Absent of any strict cap on overall use of water resources, the probability of overuse of water is high. Thus, the Compact fails to encourage conservation.

A critical Compact requirement is that states manage new or increased water withdrawals, a requirement Squillace calls cumbersome. Concentrating on new uses of consumption ignores existing uses of the resources that have a far more significant impact. This edict will result in a failure to protect lake levels and a failure to promote the ecological health of the Great Lakes Basin.

Squillace also contends the Compact focuses too much on the place of the water use instead of the impact of the use on the overall water resources of the Basin. Far from simple and efficient, the Compact forces states to regulate in a heavy-handed fashion that will impair economic development.

Chiovatero believes approving the Compact will be tantamount to waving a magic wand and like a panacea, our water troubles will conveniently be over. I have done a lot of homework on this issue and it is far more complex than that. Sadly, Chiovatero doesn’t get it.

I will not endorse a Compact that puts our communities in the precarious position of having water access stripped away by the whims of a single Governor in a neighboring state. Furthermore, I will continue to speak out against the many defects in the document as long as they pose a threat to the welfare of residents in New Berlin and Waukesha.

On Tuesday, a group formed by Governor Doyle to work on the Great Lakes Compact met for two hours in the Governor’s office.

As a member of the Wisconsin Legislative Council Special Committee on the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact, and as the state Senator representing New Berlin and the Waukesha area that will be affected by the Compact, I should have been notified about the meeting and invited. I was not.

Darryl Enriquez of the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel interviewed me Tuesday about the meeting and writes about it in today’s paper:

“Lazich (R-New Berlin) is fighting a key detail in the compact, one of several that show the deep political and economic divisions that have brought work to a standstill.

The legislative group headed by state Sen. Neal Kedzie (R-Elkhorn) has a Sept. 15 deadline to complete its work. It is reconvening today after a lengthy lull.

Lazich's beef with the federal version of the compact is that any proposal to divert water outside the Great Lakes drainage basin can be vetoed by a single governor. As outlined in the accord, a diversion must be unanimously approved.

Lazich is working to change that provision so that only a simple majority vote of the eight Great Lakes states governors is needed for approval of a diversion project.

Her stance is viewed as an obstruction to compact approval.

"The compact is so flawed that it gives one governor veto power and no recourse," Lazich said. "I'm very much an obstructionist to the single veto. I'm very much a supporter to preserving the Great Lakes."
Lazich said she was upset about not receiving an invite to the governor's working group.

A governor's spokesman said that seven members of the Kedzie committee attended the working group, along with governor's staff, state Department of Natural Resources staff, environmentalists and others.

"Was there a meeting of the Kedzie committee and I wasn't notified?" Lazich asked. "I am very, very concerned, and I will make this an issue at the start of the compact group meeting tomorrow (Wednesday) morning."

You can read the entire Journal/Sentinel article here.

At the beginning of today’s meeting, I asked for a show of hands of those committee members who attended Tuesday’s meeting at the Governor’s office. Seven people raised their hands, many of whom are members of the same Great Lakes Compact subcommittee that I serve on.

I reiterated my concern that I represent an area that has a great deal at stake on this issue, and yet was not notified or invited to Tuesday’s meeting. I then respectfully asked some of the members who did attend to give a brief summary of what transpired so I could have the same frame of reference before today’s committee proceedings began.

There was a quorum of members of the subcommittee I serve on at Tuesday’s meeting in the Governor’s office. That is very troubling, especially since I have been critical of the compact. I have referred to the Compact as a flawed document that is bad for public health, bad for the environment, bad for economic development, and generally bad public policy.

At today’s committee meeting, I requested that Mark Squillace, Director of the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado Law School be invited to speak to the Great Lakes committee. Squillace has written a research paper titled Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact. The Compact’s ideal goal is to protect, conserve, restore, improve and effectively manage the Great Lakes waters. Squillace writes the prescription in the Compact is sorely inadequate for achieving the stated goal.

The Compact is so problematic that Squillace suggests chucking it entirely and starting from scratch. The research paper published in the Michigan State Law Review can be found here.

Committee chair, Senator Kedzie said he will consider my request to add Squillace to a future committee agenda.

Money Magazine ranks New Berlin at #41 and Franklin at #90 on the 100 Best Places to Live in America.

I am proud to represent these outstanding communities.

Congratulations!

The state Senate will be in session at 11:00, Tuesday, July 17, 2007 with a very brief calendar. The only item of business will be the formality of approving the formation of a conference committee to deliberate on the state budget.

Here is the Senate calendar for Tuesday:

First Order. Call of Roll.

Second Order. Chief clerk's entries.

Third Order. Introduction, first reading and reference of proposals; reference of appointments.

Fourth Order. Report of committees.

Fifth Order. Petitions and communications.

Sixth Order. Advice and consent of the Senate.

Seventh Order. Referrals and receipt of committee reports concerning proposed administrative rules.

Eighth Order. Messages from the Assembly.

Ninth Order. Special Orders.

Tenth Order. Consideration of motions, resolutions, and joint resolutions not requiring a third reading.

QUESTION: Shall the joint resolution be concurred in?
Assembly Joint Resolution 59. Relating to: creating a committee of conference on 2007 Senate Bill 40, the executive budget bill of the 2007 legislature. By Representative Huebsch.

Eleventh Order. Second reading and amendments of senate joint resolutions and senate bills.

Twelfth Order. Second reading and amendments of assembly joint resolutions and assembly bills.

Thirteenth Order. Third reading of joint resolutions and bills.

Fourteenth Order. Motions may be offered.

Fifteenth Order. Announcements, adjournment honors, and remarks under special privilege.

Sixteenth Order. Adjournment.

Forbes.com has released its second annual Top States for Business report, and the news is horrible for Wisconsin. Wisconsin ranks #44 on the list of the best states for business. Wisconsin’s 2006 rank was #39.

Forbes.com rated the states on six different criteria: business costs, labor, regulatory environment, economic climate, growth prospects, and quality of life.

Here is how Wisconsin ranked in each of the six categories:

1) Business Costs- Wisconsin ranks #34. This index is based on cost of labor, energy and taxes.

2) Labor-Wisconsin ranks #38. This index measures educational attainment, net migration and projected population growth.

3) Regulatory Environment- Wisconsin ranks #44. This index measures regulatory and tort climate, incentives, transportation and bond ratings.

4) Economic Climate-Wisconsin ranks #38. This index reflects job, income and gross state product growth as well as unemployment and presence of big companies.

5) Growth Prospects-Wisconsin ranks #33. This index reflects projected job, income and gross state product growth as well as business openings/closings and venture capital investments.

6) Quality of Life-Wisconsin ranks #8. This is an index of schools, health, crime, cost of living and poverty rates.

The data is clear. Despite the fact Wisconsin is a great place to live, as evidenced by our high quality of life, the environment for business is toxic. Wisconsin taxes and spends too much, the state over-regulates, our income growth rate is one of the lowest in the country, and the brain drain is costing us many of our best and brightest workers.

The Forbes.com report is another wake-up call to Wisconsin to take dramatic measures to significantly improve our business climate, which continues to be abysmal.

How did surrounding states fare? Minnesota ranks #10, Iowa ranks #24, Indiana ranks #27, Ohio ranks #38, Illinois ranks #40, and Michigan ranks #46.

Here is the Forbes.com story and the table showing the ranking of all 50 states.