*Other Midwest states include Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Ohio.

SOURCES: Bureau of Labor Statistics: December 2010 through December 2013 data from Quarterly Census of Employment & Wages, change since December 2013 through 2014 data is calculated from Current Employment Statistics and is seasonally adjusted.

UPDATED JULY 18, 1:45PM: The Wisconsin State Journal has published a new, interactive graphic demonstrating the failure of Wisconsin to keep pace with the nation or with its neighboring states in private-sector job creation.

Different accounts use different data sources, so it is sometimes difficult to gauge exactly where the jobs numbers stand. But at least according to Politifact, Wisconsin has lost jobs in January, February, and now May.

The preliminary jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' monthly Census of Employment and Wages just came out. And how did Wisconsin do? Not well. Roughly 1200 private-sector jobs disappeared in June 2014. Meanwhile, here's the scorecard for some of our neighboring states:

• Indiana added 10,000 private sector jobs in June
  
• Michigan added 19,800 private sector jobs in June
  
• Minnesota added 4,600 private sector jobs in June
  
• Ohio added 15,700 private-sector jobs in June
  

Even more discouraging, manufacturing jobs declined by 1,400 in June after dropping by 2,100 in May 2014. The primary sector adding jobs is "Leisure and Hospitality," that is, mostly low wage jobs.

To be sure, the data are volatile and will be revised and refined over time. The more reliable Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages for May 2014, however, won't be released until well after the election in November. So this is the best information we are going to have about the jobs performance in Wisconsin as we head into the election. 

Although Wisconsin's unemployment rate has fallen (to 6.5%), part of the decline seems to be the result of a shrinking labor pool. And the number of new unemployment claims, as reported by the US Department of Labor for the week of December 7, 2013, was the highest in the nation!

The Cap Times reported an official explanation: "Officials with the state Department of Workforce Development explain that Wisconsin historically sees a seasonal increase in unemployment claims around Thanksgiving -- in part because of deer hunting...." But of course other states also have deer hunting seasons, rendering the "explanation" curious at best. Perhaps even downright ridiculous.

But the increase in new unemployment claims was not the only unhappy outcome of Governor Walker's policies. His decision to refuse to expand Medicaid under the terms of the Affordable Care Act is going to cost Wisconsin taxpayers a bundle. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel finds that Iowa's path is quite similar in many ways to the path Wisconsin is taking, except that Iowa's strategy is going to cost its citizens "a fraction" of what Wisconsin's strategy will be costing us.

Here are the key paragraphs in the Journal Sentinel story:

The broad structure of Iowa's plan — such as relying more on private health plans and less on the traditional Medicaid program — is similar to the approach developed by Walker and approved by the Legislature to increase the number of people with health insurance.

But in Iowa, the federal government is paying the full cost for the first three years of expanding its Medicaid program to cover all adults. The federal share will eventually decline to 90% of the cost.

In contrast, Wisconsin is paying 40%, and the federal government paying the other 60%.

The difference could work out to several hundred million dollars in additional spending for Wisconsin taxpayers over the next decade.

The Walker administration and Republican state legislators contend that the federal dollars allocated through the Affordable Care Act will be reduced in future years, potentially saddling states with a larger share of the cost of expanding their Medicaid programs.

Starting with the similarities in their histories, Lawrence Jacobs, professor of political science at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota, writing in the New York Times, analyzes two extremes and demonstrates how the Progressives in Minnesota have brought growth and security while Wisconsin's Republican majority has failed to make any improvements in the business climate and job growth.

The piece points out that these neighboring states both elected new governors in 2010 and also gave each governor's party a strong majority in his respective legislature. Since then their economic fates have diverged. Minnesota pursued a range of progressive policies, including a highly progressive tax increase to fund essential services and infrastructure, while Wisconsin followed the hard-right playbook by cutting taxes for the wealthiest and for businesses.

As professor Jacobs writes, the election of these opposing governors and legislators "began a natural experiment that compares the agendas of modern progressivism and the new right." Here's the gist of his analysis:

Which side of the experiment — the new right or modern progressivism — has been most effective in increasing jobs and improving business opportunities, not to mention living conditions?

Obviously, firm answers will require more time and more data, but the first round of evidence gives the edge to Minnesota’s model of increased services, higher costs (mostly for the affluent) and reduced payments to entrenched interests like the insurers who cover the Medicaid population.

Three years into Mr. Walker’s term, Wisconsin lags behind Minnesota in job creation and economic growth. As a candidate, Mr. Walker promised to produce 250,000 private-sector jobs in his first term, but a year before the next election that number is less than 90,000.

Jacobs' insights have been picked up in a number of national media outlets like MSNBC, Minnpost, DailyKos, and others.

As it happens, this tale is repeated with another set of comparisons: between California and Wisconsin. And the results are similar. Professor Chinn, Professor of Public Affairs and Economics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, posted a piece on the Econbrowser blog in September in which he "compared economic outcomes in two states that implemented contrasting fiscal policies: California, which surged ahead while raising taxes and cutting spending, and Wisconsin, which lagged far behind as it slashed spending on education, and cut taxes. Latest estimates of current economic activity, and forecasted economic activity six months out, indicate continued lagging performance for Wisconsin."

No matter how you slice it, progressive economic policies promote growth; regressive ones don't.

From the United States Census Bureau comes sobering news: median household income has continued to decline during the first three years of the Walker administration.

Historical Real Median Household Income for Wisconsin

By contrast, the comparable data for Minnesota looks like this:

Historical Real Median Household Income for Minnesota

Real median household income in constant dollars in Minnesosta in 2012, while still lower than the median income before the Great Recession, has now surpassed median household income in 2010. In Wisconsin, median household income in 2012 is still lower than it was in 2010. The same story can be found in Iowa. And in many other states around the country.