The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) in Wisconsin said on March 23 that it is disappointed with Governor Evers’ decision to veto the “Red Tape Reset” package. The organization described the legislation as an important step toward reducing what it calls unnecessary regulations affecting small businesses in the state.
The issue matters because, according to NFIB, excessive regulation can slow economic growth and make it harder for small businesses to operate. The group argues that current regulatory requirements place a heavy burden on local business owners and their employees.
Luke Bacher, NFIB Wisconsin State Director, said, “States with fewer regulations experience faster economic growth, higher productivity, and greater competitiveness.” He added that Wisconsin ranks as the thirteenth most regulated state nationally and second worst in the Midwest. Bacher said this level of regulation “is costly and only hurts small businesses, employees, and our local economies.”
Governor Evers defended his veto by saying that the legislation “would impose an undue administrative burden on state agencies.” In response to this message from Evers, Bacher said: “Governor Evers’ message was clear: he stands with the bureaucrats and government agencies over Main Street. We appreciate the legislature’s continued understanding of the challenges small business owners face. Now, we just need to get a pro-small business governor elected to provide much-needed regulatory relief.”
Bacher also explained how these regulations affect business owners: “Small businesses do not have specialized staff to help them interpret and comply with regulations. This creates an unfair burden on small business owners that ultimately inhibits growth and prosperity not only for the owner but for employees as well.”
The NFIB highlighted several reasons why these bills are important for small businesses. They include limiting cost increases from new regulations; providing protection from unlawful or improperly adopted rules; making regulations more predictable; ensuring up-to-date standards; giving earlier notice about rule changes; and creating clearer rulemaking processes.
Broader implications could follow if similar legislative efforts continue or if public support grows for changes in how state rules are reviewed.
