As usual, the problem seems to be government legislation.  And what is the proposed solution?  More legislation of course:

The series, "Subsidies Without Scrutiny," found 40% of jobs promised by 25 firms that won $80 million in state aid over a six-year period failed to materialize. The series also found major shortcomings in state subsidy records, making job-creation promises difficult to track. And the state often lowered job goals rather than cancel subsidies or seek repayment.
...
Changes under study include accountability measures that would require clearer goals for subsidies and holding companies to terms of deals, such as job creation, lawmakers said. Some also hope to winnow the large number of programs - 40 in the Commerce Department and 152 subsidy variants in all of state government.

State Sen. Mark Miller (D-Monona) said he plans to introduce legislation this year with Minnesota-style reforms. One likely provision: Any subsidized jobs must pay a living wage, defined as double the federal poverty line. That would work out to about $20,000 a year for a family of two, he said.

Typical bureaucratic, and generally liberal, thinking.  First, I would suggest that any company that needs subsidies in order to create jobs is probably on its way down hill, and therefore shouldn't be getting subsidies in the first place, because the company is unprofitable, or is likely to fail.  So Nick, are you seriously suggesting that we only subsidize successful companies?  Of course not.  If a company is successful, then it doesn't need subsidies to create jobs.  So Nick, what companies should we subsidize?  You seem to have missed the point.  We shouldn't be subsidizing any companies.  Duh.

The irony here (which is lost on those in Madison as usual) is that the government is going to give money to companies so that they can pay higher salaries for jobs where the employee might be getting government assistance.  So instead of the government giving the money directly to the person who needs assistance, we're going to give it to the company, who can then give it to the employee.  The employee then loses out because they just got taxed on their subsidized assistance.  After all, the government needs to take back it's fair share you know.  But now we feel like we've done something, because we've taken a person off of a welfare roll, and given them a job!  It's a fake job, with a failing company, but at least its something right?

How about ending the subsidy program all together, lowering the tax burden on companies in the state, and allowing them to create real jobs paid for with the higher profits that will be made as a result of less government intrusiveness?