Republican lawmakers propose sweeping deregulation
Rep. Nate Gustafson said his bill would implement a 'net zero' rule process. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)
Wisconsin Republican lawmakers are introducing bills to review every statewide administrative rule and impose new limits on the rulemaking process, saying there are too many regulations currently and they put operational obstacles and financial burdens on businesses.
GOP Lawmakers have raised objections to agencies' administrative rulemaking process — and the power of the executive branch — for many years and have taken action to exert more control over the process and to limit the authority of state agencies and the governor. The REINS Act, signed into law by former Gov. Scott Walker in 2017, for example, required lawmakers' approval for regulations that might cost more than $10 million over a two-year period.
'A lot of what's been done in the past has looked at when you're implementing new rules — what is the process? Who is writing the rules?' Rep. Adam Neylon (R-Pewaukee), who introduced the bill that became 2017 Wisconsin Act 57, said at a press conference last week.
'What [the] REINS Act is not able to do is go back and reset it all,' Neylon added. 'We're looking at the stack of rules that have accumulated over the years that are piling up… We need a reset.'
One of four GOP bills would require agencies to make cuts to offset the cost associated with new regulations.
Under the bill, coauthored by Rep. Nate Gustafson (R-Fox Crossing) and Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin), agencies with a new rule proposal would have to stop work on the process until they've figured out how to eliminate the cost of a new regulation, or, alternatively, until a different rule reduces the costs to businesses, local governmental units and individuals over any two-year period.
Gustafson calls it a 'net zero' rule process. 'So if there's an existing regulation or rule output that is of equal cost or greater, you're going to have to cut that rule if you want to implement a new one.'
Another of the four bills — coauthored by Neylon and Sen. Steve Nass — would put an expiration date on every administrative rule seven years after implementation. Currently, administrative rules are in effect indefinitely unless repealed, amended by the agency or suspended by the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR).
JCRAR is a 10-member committee responsible for reviewing proposed administrative rules to ensure they align with state law. Lawmakers on the committee have the ability to approve, suspend, or request modifications to proposed rules.
Under the new measure, the year before a rule expires an agency would need to send notice to JCRAR about its intention to readopt the rule. If there is no objection by a lawmaker on the committee, then the rule would be considered readopted, but if there is an objection, then the rule would expire unless the agency goes through the rulemaking process again.
Neylon said the point is to create a more modern process and do away with 'outdated or duplicative rules, creating unnecessary burdens on businesses.'
Another bill — coauthored by Sen. Rob Hutton and Reps. Dan Knodl (R-Germantown) and Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) — would limit scope statements, the first step in the rulemaking process, so they could only be used for one proposed rule and would set a six month expiration date when a scope statement can be used for an emergency rule.
Currently, people can challenge the validity of an administrative rule in court. The final bill — coauthored by Rep. Ron Tusler (R-Harrison) and Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) — would award people who challenge a rule attorney fees and costs if a court declares a rule invalid.
The bill package is based on a report from the right-wing Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL), which also launched a webpage about the effort to cut 'red tape' on Wednesday.
WILL states in the report that Wisconsin is the 13th most regulated state in the country and lays out proposals similar to the new GOP bills. WILL said the actions would build off steps taken in other states, including Idaho, Ohio, Nebraska and Oklahoma, to reduce regulations.
Neylon said WILL provided research and worked with lawmakers' offices on the legislation. But, he added, 'these are issues that we've all worked on for a lot of years, issues that we care deeply about. This is our initiative… and nobody else's.'
Economist Michael Rosen told the Examiner that the bills come out of Republicans' 'national playbook,' and that the research from WILL is based on the idea that 'any regulation impedes economic growth.'
'It has been a cornerstone of Republican policy since the election of Ronald Reagan to deregulate, get rid of regulation, and [to insist] that getting rid of regulation promotes economic growth,' Rosen said. He calls that theory 'nonsense.'
Rosen points out that some of the most heavily regulated states — including California and New York — are also the most prosperous. He noted that the majority of the states cited in WILL' s research are those with Republican-dominated government.
'All regulations really are the rules under which the market operates,' Rosen said, adding, 'there have to be rules that govern the behavior of the buyers and sellers. That's what regulation is. It's very simple, and what they're arguing is to get rid of them.'
Rosen challenges broad assertions in WILL's research, including WILL's finding that a 36% cut to regulations across the board in Wisconsin could grow the economy by 1 percentage point annually.
That analysis fails to take into account 'negative externalities,' Rosen says — actions by companies that impose a cost on people who are not directly involved. He pointed to environmental regulations as an example of how these costs are paid by the public.
'In economic terms, companies that pollute… part of the cost of production should be disposing of the waste that a company produces…. If there aren't any rules, the cheapest way to dispose of your waste is to release it into the atmosphere or release it into the rivers and streams,' Rosen said. 'That's what we had in this country at the beginning of the 20th century, when we didn't have any environmental regulations, and rivers, like the Milwaukee River, and streams and lakes were polluted by manufacturers because that was the cheapest way for them to dispose of their waste.'
Rosen said that some might argue that rules meant to protect the environment impede growth because they impose an additional cost on a company, however, he said that rules can ensure they aren't passing on that cost to the public.
Since passage in 2017, the REINS Act has posed an obstacle to proposed environmental protection rules in Wisconsin.
Without the regulations, Rosen said, people would have 'no assurance' about the products they buy — 'whether it's a can of tuna fish, whether it's an automobile, whether it's a ride on an airplane.'
'Is it impeding economic growth that we have regulations on air travel? No, because if we didn't have the regulation of the airline industry, we would have far more accidents and many fewer people would want to travel on airplanes,' Rosen said. 'These are all regulations that we take for granted,' but assure people they can trust the products and services they purchase, 'and we won't crash and die.'
A better way to address onerous or outdated rules, Rosen said, is to take them up one at a time, rather than through the sweeping anti-regulatory bill package Wisconsin Republicans are proposing.
'Are there some regulations that maybe are antiquated? I'm not going to sit here and tell you there might not be,' Rosen said. 'But rather than pass sweeping legislation, which is ideologically driven and could have catastrophic consequences, people should raise the particular regulation.'
Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) said that she is excited for the bills to go through the Assembly Government Operations, Accountability and Transparency (GOAT) committee, which she chairs. The committee was created this session, inspired by billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency project, which has sought to remake the federal government by unilaterally firing employees and making deep cuts to federal agencies.
'Excessive regulations have serious economic consequences. They slow economic growth. They increase costs for businesses and consumers and they stifle innovation, all while the compliance costs put the greatest burden on our small businesses and working families,' Nedweski said.
Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) said the bills are another action from the 'tired Republican playbook' and compared them to the actions being taken by President Donald Trump and Elon Musk.
'These bills are an attempt at a power grab, akin to what we are seeing from the Trump-Musk administration,' Hesselbein said. 'The bills would, among other things, undermine the fundamental democratic principle of separation of powers. They are unnecessary, anti-democratic, and wholly wrong for Wisconsin.'
Republicans in the Senate and Assembly, who hold majorities, could pass the bills without support from Democratic lawmakers, however, they would need Democratic Gov. Tony Evers' sign-off to become law. Neylon conceded that it's unlikely Evers will support them.
'Unfortunately Gov. Evers makes a lot of mistakes,' Neylon said. 'He's showing to be a failure as a governor, and I'm not optimistic he'll make the right decision here, but I think that we're doing the best we can to try to reform the regulatory process, and we think that it's time for a reset.'
Evers' office hasn't responded to a request for comment.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

an hour ago
GOP House Homeland chairman Green to retire from Congress early
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- The House Homeland Security Committee's chairman, Republican Rep. Mark Green of Tennessee, announced Monday that he will retire from Congress once the House votes again on the sprawling tax and budget policy bill backed by President Donald Trump. In a statement, Green said he was offered a private sector opportunity that was 'that was too exciting to pass up' so he informed House Speaker Mike Johnson on Monday of his retirement plans. The move comes more than a year after Green announced he wouldn't run again in 2024, but changed his mind when fellow Republicans implored him to stick around. Green's next election would have been in 2026. Green voted for Trump's sweeping legislation when it passed the House last month. The bill is now in the Senate's hands, and would need to return to the House for agreement on any changes. Trump wants the bill on his desk for his signature by July 4. Green's delayed departure could help with the GOP's narrow margins in the House. Republican leaders need every vote they can get on their big tax bill, which they managed to pass last month by a single vote and will have to pass again once changes are made in the Senate. They now have a 220-212 majority. 'It was the honor of a lifetime to represent the people of Tennessee in Congress," Green said. "They asked me to deliver on the conservative values and principles we all hold dear, and I did my level best to do so.' Green's seat will be decided in a special election. The timing will depend on when he leaves office. Ahead of his 2024 reelection, Green had announced that February 2024 he would not run again. The decision was revealed a day after the impeachment of then-President Joe Biden's Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. But many fellow Republicans had called on him to reconsider, and he jumped back into the running just two weeks later. He was unopposed in the Republican primary and then defeated Democrat Megan Barry — the former Nashville mayor who resigned in 2018 in scandal — by more than 21 percentage points in November 2024. Green, 60, has served since 2019 in the 7th Congressional District, which was redrawn in 2022 to include a significant portion of Nashville. The city was carved up three ways in the 2022 redistricting so Republicans could flip a Democratic district in Congress that had covered Music City, which they successfully did. Green previously served as an Army surgeon and in the state Senate and is from Montgomery County. Green flirted running for governor in 2017, but suspended his campaign after he was nominated by former President Donald Trump to become the Army secretary. He later withdrew his nomination due to criticism over his remarks about Muslims and LGBTQ+ Americans.

an hour ago
Trump heads to Fort Bragg while facing criticism for deploying military at Los Angeles protests
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump plans to speak at Fort Bragg on Tuesday to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army as he deploys the military in an attempt to quiet immigration protests in Los Angeles. Fort Bragg, located near Fayetteville, North Carolina, serves as headquarters for U.S. Army Special Operations Command. Highly trained units like the Green Berets and the Rangers are based there. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Army Secretary Dan Driscoll will also be at Tuesday's event, along with service members, veterans and their families. Trump has promoted the Army's anniversary as a reason to hold a military parade in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, which is also his 79th birthday. Tanks and other vehicles will roll down city streets in a reminder of how the Republican president is reshaping the armed forces after returning to the White House this year. Trump, who sees the military as a critical tool for domestic goals, has used the recent protests in Los Angeles as an opportunity to deploy the National Guard and U.S. Marines to quell disturbances that began as protests over immigration raids. Trump has authorized the deployment of 4,000 National Guard soldiers to the city over the objections of Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom. About 700 Marines were also due to formally deploy to Los Angeles. California sued Trump over the deployment, with the state attorney general arguing that the president had 'trampled' the state's sovereignty. California leaders accused Trump of fanning protesters' anger, leading crowds to block off a major freeway and set self-driving cars on fire. 'We're gonna have troops everywhere," Trump said over the weekend. 'We're not going to let this happen to our country.' Fort Bragg has been in the middle of a cultural tug-of-war over the military. It was named after a Confederate general, then renamed to Fort Liberty two years ago. Hegseth brought back the Bragg name, but said it was being used to honor an Army paratrooper who served in World War II.

an hour ago
In their own words: Trump, Newsom trade insults and barbs over National Guard in Los Angeles
The swiftly evolving situation in the Los Angeles area over protests surrounding immigration enforcement actions has also cued up a public spat between President Donald Trump and Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California governor who has been one of the Republican president's most vocal Democratic critics. After Trump on Sunday called up 2,000 National Guard troops to respond, Newsom said he would sue the administration, a promise on which the state followed through a day later. Trump cited a legal provision that allows him to mobilize federal service members when there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States." The president also agreed with one of his top advisers that maybe the governor should be arrested. Here's a look at back-and-forth between Trump and Newsom in their own words: 'You have violent people, and we're not gonna let them get away with it.' — Trump, Sunday, in remarks to reporters in Morristown, New Jersey. ___ Newsom's ire has been elevated over Trump's decision to, without his support, call up the California National Guard for deployment into his state. In a letter Sunday, Newsom called on Trump to rescind the Guard deployment, calling it a 'serious breach of state sovereignty.' The governor, who was in Los Angeles meeting with local law enforcement and other officials, also told protesters they were playing into Trump's plans and would face arrest for violence or property destruction. 'Trump wants chaos and he's instigated violence,' he said. 'Stay peaceful. Stay focused. Don't give him the excuse he's looking for.' In an interview with MSNBC, Newsom said Sunday he had spoken with Trump 'late Friday night,' after the protests had begun, but said deploying the National Guard 'never came up.' "We talked for almost 20 minutes, and he — barely, this issue never came up. I mean, I kept trying to talk about LA, he wanted to talk about all these other issues," Newsom said. 'We had a very decent conversation.' 'He never once brought up the National Guard,' Newsom said of Trump, calling him 'a stone-cold liar.' Saying, 'I did call him the other night,' Trump told reporters Sunday that he told Newsom in that call: ''Look you've got to take care of this. Otherwise I'm sending in the troops.' ... That's what we did.' On Monday, Trump posted on social media that Los Angeles would have been 'completely obliterated' without his intervention and referred to Newsom as 'Newscum,' a pejorative moniker he has used to refer to the governor. 'We are suing Donald Trump. This is a manufactured crisis. He is creating fear and terror to take over a state militia and violate the U.S. constitution.' — Newsom, Monday, X post. ___ As Newsom promised, California officials sued the Trump administration on Monday, with the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, arguing that the deployment of troops 'trampled' on the state's sovereignty and pushing for a restraining order. The initial deployment of 300 National Guard troops was expected to quickly expand to the full 2,000 that were authorized by Trump. Late Monday, Trump authorized an additional 2,000 National Guard troops. Ahead of that move, Newsom accused the president of inflaming tensions, breaching state sovereignty and wasting resources, while warning protesters not to 'take Trump's bait.' Teasing the suit, Newsom told MSNBC that he saw the deployment as 'an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act.' Asked Monday about the lawsuit, Trump said it was 'interesting' and argued 'that place would be burning down' without the federal government's intervention. 'I'm very happy I got involved," Trump added. "I think Gavin in his own way is very happy I got involved.' 'I think it's great. Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing." — Trump, Monday, in remarks to reporters. ___ Tom Homan, the Trump administration's border czar, previously warned that anyone, including public officials, would be arrested if they obstructed federal immigration enforcement. Newsom's initial response to Homan, during the MSNBC interview and in subsequent posts on his own social media: 'Come and get me, tough guy.' On Monday Trump seemed to agree with his border chief, telling reporters, 'I would do it if I were Tom.' 'I think it's great. Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing,' Trump added. "He's done a terrible job. Look — I like Gavin, he's a nice guy, but he's grossly incompetent, everybody knows." Homan later said there was 'no discussion' about actually arresting Newsom, but reiterated that 'no one's above the law.' wrote Monday on X that they represented 'a day I hoped I would never see in America' and said Trump's call for his arrest marked 'an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.'