Deciphering the election aftermath

By Mike Fabishak

A presidential election campaign that was characterized by an unprecedented level of rancor, personal attacks and charges of fraud and impropriety ended on a remarkably calm and civil note.

In addition to retaining the presidency, Republicans have solidified their control of Congress. They now have a cushion in the Senate, and they picked up seats in the House of Representatives, where they have held sway for a decade.

All of this would appear to bode well for the president's agenda, which now includes overhauling the tax code as well as creating additional middle-class tax cuts to stimulate the economy.

The majority in Congress also has its own short list of issues, including doing something about health-care costs and liability law reform. There is also the matter of the stalled Transportation Reauthorization Act and other housekeeping legislation to deal with soon after the 109th Congress convenes.

In theory, we are looking at a situation under both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government that should be very favorable to construction industry priorities, such as permanent repeal of the death tax, tort reform and developing a cooperative approach to improved safety and health in the workplace.

What happens in practice, of course, depends on a number of different variables. If the economy continues to rebound, a reduced federal deficit will certainly make an easier sell of major items with a fiscal impact, such as infrastructure funding or tax cuts.

Another big if is whether the majority leadership in Congress is able to reach some accommodation with the minority. A totally partisan atmosphere can quickly lead to gridlock, since the minority, especially in the Senate, has certain procedural maneuvers at its disposal that can effectively thwart the will of the majority.

At this point, we can safely say the election has at the very least created an environment where the construction industry, as well as other business interests, can play offense at the federal level, which has not always been the case.

This was very much a status quo election at the state level. Similar to what happened in Congress, Republicans padded their majority in the Legislature, gaining one seat in both houses. Unlike the federal election, the chief executive was not up for re-election, and a Democrat holds that office. Thus, we have a very different political dynamic in Madison than in Washington. Compromise is a necessity to govern in Wisconsin. The governor can't enact his budget bill or other initiatives without the cooperation of the Republican Legislature. Conversely, the majority party has the votes to pass the bills it chooses in the Legislature, but they won't become law if the governor exercises his veto.

Perhaps the best example of the kind of compromise that can occur when political agendas converge was the package of regulatory relief measures, known as the Jobs Creation Act, passed last session. The majority party in the Legislature had promised the business commu-nity that it would do something to reduce the regulatory burden in our state. At the same time, the governor was putting together a jobs-creation initiative, known as Grow Wisconsin, which also contained regulatory reform. The result was a negotiated bill.

Can this example be replicated? Without a doubt. The construction industry's own retainage-reform measure was another example of a legislative initiative with a buy-in from the executive branch. We look forward to more of the same cooperation in the future.

Having said that, there will always be a few issues where compromise may be elusive, if not downright unachievable. One of these is emerging in the form of the property-tax freeze for the next session of the Legislature. The Republican leaders in both houses of the Legislature believe they have a mandate from the public to enact a temporary tax freeze until a permanent constitutional amendment can be passed. On this item, the Legislature is clearly on a collision course with the governor, who vetoed a similar freeze in the last state budget bill. Because of its potential impact on capital expenditures and public building programs, the construction industry and organized labor have more than a passing interest in the question.

If not directly taking sides, we will most assuredly be protecting our interests as the inevitable confrontation plays out. Purely partisan issues aside, the upcoming session of the Legislature can be another very positive one for business and construction in Wisconsin.

© 2004 Daily Reporter Publishing Co., All Rights Reserved.