KENNEDY: Who moved Wisconsin's cheese?

March 5, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

KennedyIn 1998, Spencer Johnson wrote a best-selling book about dealing with change; he titled it, “Who Moved My Cheese?”

I can’t help thinking how ironic it is that Wisconsin—home of the “cheeseheads”—is the most prominent example of what happens when political leadership stubbornly refuses to deal with an economic landscape that has changed.

Upon assuming office, Gov. Scott Walker immediately made two incredibly poor policy decisions: He rejected federal dollars for high-speed rail, and (as anyone who hasn’t been in a coma this past month knows) he offered legislation that would revoke the bargaining rights of public-sector unions. He has attempted to justify both decisions by pleading state poverty.

It’s tempting to point out that Wisconsin’s fiscal straits didn’t keep the governor and Legislature from first enacting generous tax breaks for business, but that bit of political hypocrisy isn’t nearly as troubling as the governor’s evident inability to understand a simple fact of contemporary budgetary life: It is impossible to balance public budgets by cuts alone. As Robert Russell, a Wisconsin state economic analyst, has pointed out, state workers are also taxpayers and consumers.

According to Russell, if Wisconsin public employee salaries are cut through increased withholdings (as Walker is insisting) by an amount large enough to fill the $137 million budget gap, the resulting drop in consumer spending will lead to:

• a loss of over 1,200 nongovernment jobs,

• a loss of about $100 million in business sales statewide,

• a loss of nearly $35 million in personal income of non-government-employee households,

• a loss of nearly $10 million in state tax revenue.

In other words, lower wages and fewer workers translate to less tax revenue and consumer spending. Since even the most modest tax increases appear to be politically untenable these days, the only option likely to generate sufficient revenue is economic development and job creation.

Which brings us to high-speed rail.

The policy arguments for high-speed rail are familiar to most of us: Our highways are increasingly congested and enormously expensive to expand; we can’t abate environmental pollution or reduce dependence on foreign oil without offering viable alternatives to the automobile; long commutes translate into lost productivity, costing businesses billions each year.

Urban planners argue that rail is essential if we are to address the problems caused by urban sprawl and make our cities more livable. Groups trying to save America’s small towns argue that those towns will disappear without fast, convenient interurban transportation.

All true, and all reasons to support mass transit within—and high-speed rail between—cities.

What is less noted and equally important, however, is the job-creating potential of high-speed rail. Last fall, California voters approved $10 billion for a rail project linking San Francisco and Los Angeles. More recently, the San Francisco Business Times ran an article highlighting the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s projection that 450,000 permanent jobs would be created by the project in addition to the 160,000 jobs needed to plan, design and build the system.

The Christian Science Monitor estimated that the Obama administration’s $8 billion initial investment in high-speed rail will produce 320,000 jobs and generate roughly $13 billion in economic development benefits, “including construction and operations jobs, as well as manufacturing and supply-chain opportunities. By increasing mobility while decreasing congestion and sprawl, high-speed rail makes our country more competitive while simultaneously spurring economic development.”

Waging a war on public unions—however ideologically satisfying—will not help Wisconsin’s economy. The cheese is on the high-speed train, and thanks to the governor, that train has left Wisconsin’s station.•


Kennedy is a professor of law and public policy at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at IUPUI. Her column appears monthly.


  • Will you call Garrison
    I agree with your assessment of urban sprawl and the benefits of some type of commuting system. Next time Garrison is on please call him and discuss the benefits, he disagrees, mainly because he will not ride it. Ok, Greg dont ride it, i havent been to a colts game but i support the subsidy.

    Also to speak of planning, cities and small towns will die if something other than a car can get them to and from work. Low Impact Development is best served by using what you have and RE-developing it for better use. Or cut more trees and dig up more farm fields. Boy i sound like a tree hugger and i am farthest from it.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.