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 Currently, administrative rules are in effect indefinitely unless repealed, amended by the agency or suspended by the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR).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


Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Says 'Bring in the Troops' as LA Riots Escalate
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump called for troops to enter Los Angeles amid rioting in the Californian city that stemmed from protests against immigration enforcement. The Republican president is deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to L.A. to quell the intense violence, despite opposition from Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. "Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!" Trump posted to his Truth Social platform in the early hours of Monday morning. This is a developing story. Updates to follow.


Business Insider
2 hours ago
- Business Insider
BlackRock, State Street to urge dismissal of collusion case, Bloomberg says
BlackRock (BLK), Vanguard Group, and the asset management arm of State Street (STT) are headed to court over a lawsuit brought by Republican state attorneys general claiming they colluded to reduce coal output, Josh Sisco and Silla Brush of Bloomberg reports. Lawyers from the companies are set to urge a federal judge to dismiss the case. The suit claims the firm have large stakes in coal producers and profited when energy prices soared. Confident Investing Starts Here:
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Unsubstantiated 'chemtrail' conspiracy theories lead to legislation proposed in US statehouses
BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — As Louisiana Rep. Kimberly Landry Coates stood before her colleagues in the state's Legislature she warned that the bill she was presenting might 'seem strange' or even crazy. Some lawmakers laughed with disbelief and others listened intently, as Coates described situations that are often noted in discussions of 'chemtrails' — a decades-old conspiracy theory that posits the white lines left behind by aircraft in the sky are releasing chemicals for any number of reasons, some of them nefarious. As she urged lawmakers to ban the unsubstantiated practice, she told skeptics to 'start looking up' at the sky. 'I'm really worried about what is going on above us and what is happening, and we as Louisiana citizens did not give anyone the right to do this above us,' the Republican said. Louisiana is the latest state taking inspiration from a wide-ranging conspiratorial narrative, mixing it with facts, to create legislation. Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed a similar measure into law last year and one in Florida has passed both the House and the Senate. More than a dozen other states, from New York to Arizona, have introduced their own legislation. Such bills being crafted is indicative of how misinformation is moving beyond the online world and into public policy. Elevating unsubstantiated theories or outright falsehoods into the legislative arena not only erodes democratic processes, according to experts, it provides credibility where there is none and takes away resources from actual issues that need to be addressed. 'Every bill like this is kind of symbolic, or is introduced to appease a very vocal group, but it can still cause real harm by signaling that these conspiracies deserve this level of legal attention,' said Donnell Probst, interim executive director of the National Association for Media Literacy Education. Louisiana's bill, which is awaiting Republican Gov. Jeff Landry's signature, prohibits anyone from 'intentionally" injecting, releasing, applying or dispersing chemicals into the atmosphere with the purpose of affecting the 'temperature, weather, climate, or intensity of sunlight.' It also requires the Department of Environmental Quality to collect reports from anyone who believes they have observed such activities. While some lawmakers have targeted real weather modification techniques that are not widespread or still in their infancy, others have pointed to dubious evidence to support legislation. Discussion about weather control and banning 'chemtrails' has been hoisted into the spotlight by high-profile political officials, including Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Recently, Marla Maples, the ex-wife of President Donald Trump, spoke in support of Florida's legislation. She said she was motivated to 'start digging' after seeing a rise in Alzheimer's. Asked jokingly by a Democratic state senator if she knew anyone in the federal government who could help on the issue, Maples smiled and said, 'I sure do.' Chemtrails vs. contrails Chemtrail conspiracy theories, which have been widely debunked and include a myriad of claims, are not new. The publication of a 1996 Air Force report on the possible future benefits of weather modification is often cited as an early driver of the narrative. Some say that evidence of the claims is happening right before the publics' eyes, alleging that the white streaks stretching behind aircrafts reveal chemicals being spread in the air, for everything from climate manipulation to mind control. Ken Leppert, an associate professor of atmospheric science at the University of Louisiana Monroe, said the streaks are actually primarily composed of water and that there is 'no malicious intent behind' the thin clouds. He says the streaks are formed as exhaust is emitted from aircrafts, when the humidity is high and air temperature is low, and that ship engines produce the same phenomenon. A fact sheet about contrails, published by multiple government agencies including NASA and the Environmental Protection Agency, explains that the streaks left behind by planes do not pose health risks to humans. However, the trails, which have been produced since the earliest days of jet aviation, do impact the cloudiness of Earth's atmosphere and can therefore affect atmospheric temperature and climate. Scientists have overwhelmingly agreed that data or evidence cited as proof of chemtrails 'could be explained through other factors, including well-understood physics and chemistry associated with aircraft contrails and atmospheric aerosols,' according to a 2016 survey published in the journal Environmental Research Letters. In the survey of 77 chemists and geochemists, 76 said they were not aware of evidence proving the existence of a secret large-scale atmospheric program. 'It's pure myth and conspiracy,' Leppert said. Cloud seeding While many of the arguments lawmakers have used to support the chemtrails narrative are not based in fact, others misrepresent actual scientific endeavors, such as cloud seeding; a process by which an artificial material — usually silver iodide — is used to induce precipitation or to clear fog. 'It's maybe really weak control of the weather, but it's not like we're going to move this cloud here, move this hurricane here, or anything like that,' Leppert said. Parker Cardwell, an employee of a California-based cloud seeding company called Rainmaker, testified before lawmakers in Louisiana and asked that an amendment be made to the legislation to avoid impacts to the industry. The practice is an imprecise undertaking with mixed results that isn't widely used, especially in Louisiana, which has significant natural rainfall. According to Louisiana's Department of Agriculture and Forestry, a cloud seeding permit or license has never been issued in the state. Geoengineering While presenting Louisiana's bill last week, Coates said her research found charts and graphics from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on spraying the air with heavy metals to reflect sunlight back into space to cool the Earth. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 directed the Office of Science and Technology Policy, with support from NOAA, to develop an initial governance framework and research plan related to solar radiation modification, or SRM. A resulting report, which Coates holds up in the House session, focuses on possible future actions and does not reflect decisions that had already been made. SRM 'refers to deliberate, large-scale actions intended to decrease global average surface temperatures by increasing the reflection of sunlight away from the Earth,' according to NOAA. It is a type of geoengineering. Research into the viability of many methods and potential unintended consequences is ongoing, but none have actually been deployed. Taking focus In recent years, misinformation and conspiratorial narratives have become more common during the debates and committee testimonies that are a part of Louisiana's lawmaking process. And while legislators say Louisiana's new bill doesn't really have teeth, opponents say it still takes away time and focus from important work and more pressing topics. State Rep. Denise Marcelle, a Democrat who opposed Louisiana's bill, pointed to other issues ailing the state, which has some of the highest incarceration, poverty, crime, and maternal mortality rates. 'I just feel like we owe the people of Louisiana much more than to be talking about things that I don't see and that aren't real,' she said. ___ Associated Press writers Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Florida, and Jack Dura in Bismarck, North Dakota, contributed to this story.