From higher taxes to overregulation, Wisconsin faces countless proposals that would undermine prosperity
Most voters, regardless of party, want the same things for Wisconsin: economic growth, opportunity, prosperity and accountability in government. Where they often differ is how best to achieve those goals. As a new legislative session is set to begin in a changed political landscape following a Democratic victory, the evidence should, as always, guide the state’s policy direction.
Over the past year, the Badger Institute has published its 2027 Mandate for Madison, offering research and recommendations to help policymakers promote prosperity. Much of the project identifies constructive reforms, including more competitive taxes, expanded school choice and less unnecessary regulation. But it also identifies economically damaging proposals that lawmakers should reject, several of which featured prominently in the election campaign.
Rejecting some of these ideas may be among the most important jobs facing Wisconsin’s new leaders.
Start with taxes. Wisconsin already faces a serious tax competitiveness challenge, including one of the highest top personal income tax rates in the country. This makes it harder to attract talent and investment. Nevertheless, incoming Assembly Speaker Greta Neubauer has suggested raising taxes on high earners and businesses, making an existing problem worse.
Higher taxes are often proposed to finance additional spending. Several lawmakers have also called for repealing Act 10, which would be a serious mistake. For 15 years, Act 10 has helped restrain government labor costs and pressure for higher taxes, saving taxpayers billions of dollars, while also improving accountability in public-sector union representation and giving newer workers more influence.
Labor market policy poses another risk. Governor-elect David Crowley has proposed immediately raising Wisconsin’s minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 per hour, with further increases to $20 by 2030. Such a large increase would raise costs for businesses and reduce employment opportunities for young and inexperienced workers.
Consider teenage employment. In 2025, 50.2 percent of Wisconsin teenagers were employed, compared with just 28.7 percent in neighboring Illinois, where the minimum wage is $15. Minimum wage policy cannot explain this entire difference, but the comparison illustrates the potential costs of imposing a much higher wage floor on entry-level workers.
Repealing Wisconsin’s right-to-work law is another repeatedly proposed change that would reduce labor market freedom and risk discouraging investment. Research comparing neighboring counties across state borders has found substantially more manufacturing activity on the right-to-work side.
Finally, Wisconsin should reject energy mandates that prioritize rapid decarbonization without adequately considering affordability and reliability. Earlier this year, Democratic legislators introduced a bill establishing legally enforceable requirements for carbon-free electricity beginning in 2030. Affordable, reliable electricity matters everywhere, but particularly in a manufacturing-intensive state such as Wisconsin, where higher energy costs can undermine competitiveness.
Following through on any one of these ideas would be a mistake. Pursuing them as a package could be a disaster. For evidence, look to Ontario, a nearby manufacturing jurisdiction, where many policies similar to those now being considered in Wisconsin were recently implemented.
During the 2000s and 2010s, rapid government spending growth in Ontario helped drive economically harmful tax hikes. An accelerated phaseout of coal-fired electricity contributed to soaring electricity prices and widespread “energy poverty.” The province also raised its minimum wage by 75 percent over 13 years, contributing to a surge in youth unemployment unprecedented outside major recessions.
These policy choices coincided with, and contributed to, a period of prolonged economic stagnation. Between 2001 and 2024, Ontario’s inflation-adjusted economic growth per person was approximately half the weighted average of other states and provinces in the manufacturing-heavy Great Lakes region.
Wisconsin can avoid this fate. The election changed who will make the state’s next policy decisions, but it did not change the economic evidence those decisions should be based on. As the Mandate for Madison shows, knowing which ideas to reject may be every bit as important as knowing which reforms to embrace.
Ben Eisen is vice president of research and policy for the Badger Institute.
Any use or reproduction of Badger Institute articles or photographs requires prior written permission. To request permission to post articles on a website or print copies for distribution, contact Badger Institute Marketing Director Matt Erdman at matt@badgerinstitute.org.
