|
Bill Cassidy on Corporations
|
|
Opposed Obama stimulus; supported Bush's bank bailout
He said the 2009 approximately $800 billion economic stimulus package backed by Obama was overloaded with spending that would not improve the economy and he compared it to a doctor treating a heart condition by severing the patient's leg.
Cassidy supported the final version of the 2008 $700 billion bailout for the financial industry, passed during President George W. Bush's administration. He supported the bailout because it contained some tax relief for hurricane victims.
Source: Wall Street Journal on 2020 Louisiana Senate race
, Feb 5, 2009
Voted YES on workforce training by state block grants & industry partners.
Congressional Summary:Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act or SKILLS Act:- Reauthorizes appropriations workforce investment systems for job training and employment services.
- Requires a plan describe:
- strategies and services to more fully engage employers and meet their needs, as well as those to assist at-risk youth and out-of-school youth in acquiring education, skills, credentials, and employment experience;
- how the state board will convene industry or sector partnerships that lead to collaborative planning;
- how the state will use technology to facilitate access to services in remote areas;
- state actions to foster partnerships with non-profit organizations that provide employment-related services; and
- the methodology for determining one-stop partner program contributions for the cost of the infrastructure of one-stop centers.
- Repeals title VI (Employment Opportunities for Individuals with Disabilities)
Opponent's Argument for voting No:National League of Cities op-ed, "H.R. 803 fails because it would:"- Undermine the local delivery system that has been the cornerstone of job training programs
- Establish a program that is based on political boundaries (states) rather than on economic regions and local labor markets, or the naturally evolving areas in which workers find paying work
- Eliminate a strong role for local elected officials but require that they continue to be fiscally liable for funds spent in their local areas
- Change what was once a program targeted to those most in need--economically disadvantaged adults and youth and special population groups like veterans, migrant farm workers, and low income seniors--into a block grant to governors
- Contribute to the emerging division between those American's who have the requisite skills to find employment and those who do not.
Reference: SKILLS Act;
Bill H.R. 803
; vote number 13-HV075
on Mar 15, 2013
Voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation.
Congressional Summary: Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act: Amends the Securities Exchange Act to require that any proxy for an annual shareholders meeting provide for a separate shareholder vote to approve executive compensation for named executive officers. The shareholder vote shall not be:
- binding on the corporation
- construed as overruling a board decision, or as creating or implying any additional fiduciary duty by the board; or
- construed as restricting or limiting shareholder ability to place executive compensation proposals within proxy materials.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. BARNEY FRANK (D, MA-4): The amount of wages is irrelevant to the SEC. What this bill explicitly aims at is the practice whereby people are given bonuses that pay off if the gamble pays off, but don't lose you anything if it doesn't. That is, there is a wide consensus that this incentivizes excessive risk.
Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. SPENCER BACHUS (R, AL-6): True, the first 6 pages of the bill give the owners, the shareholders, a non-binding vote on the pay of top executives. But then come the next 8 pages, the switch, which gives the regulators the power to decide appropriate compensation for not only just top executives but for all employees of all financial institutions above $1 billion in assets and all without regard for the shareholders' prior approval. So under the guise of empowering shareholders, it is, in fact, the government that is empowered. And, finally, on page 15, the bill designates those same government entities which regulated AIG, Countrywide, and collectively failed to prevent the worst financial calamity since the Great Depression. This bill continues the Democrat majority's tendency to go to the default solution for every problem: create a government bureaucracy to make decisions better left to private citizens and private corporations.
Reference: Say-On-Pay Bill;
Bill H.R.3269
; vote number 2009-H686
on Jul 31, 2009
Voted YES on more funding for nanotechnology R&D and commercialization.
Congressional Summary:Extends funding for research and development topics, nanotechnology, project commercialization, prioritization of applications, and federal administration and oversight. Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. NYDIA VELÁZQUEZ (D, NY-12): We need jobs that cannot be shipped overseas and will not evaporate in the next cycle of boom and bust. But those jobs aren't going to appear out of thin air. They need to be created. By expanding existing industries and unlocking new ones, H.R. 2965 will generate the jobs we need. Job creation is the primary goal of R&D. But in order to generate new positions, we have to first develop new industries. Commercialization is critical to that process.
Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. ED MARKEY (D, MA-7): I must oppose this bill because I have serious concerns about allowing SBIR awards to go to an unlimited number of businesses owned or controlled by venture capital (VC) firms.
The SBIR program, responsible for over 60,000 patents, has always focused on innovation from truly small businesses for whom commercial capital market funding is typically not an option. However, with the change made in this bill, the SBIR program would be wide open to applicants that already are well-capitalized due to VC participation, crowding out the small businesses that have been the focus of the highly successful SBIR program.
While I support VC participation in the SBIR program, enabling an unlimited amount of large VC majority-owned firms to qualify for SBIR funding calls into question whether this program, intended for genuinely small businesses, is, in fact, still focused on these firms.
We should do everything in our power to strengthen small businesses that generate 70% of new jobs in our country. H.R 2965 does not do enough to ensure that small businesses are the focus of the SBIR program, and therefore I cannot support the bill.
Reference: Enhancing Small Business Research and Innovation Act;
Bill S.1233&H.R.2965
; vote number 2009-H486
on Jul 8, 2009
Repeal ObamaCare reporting requirements for small business.
Cassidy co-sponsored Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act
A BILL To repeal the expansion of information reporting requirements for payments of $600 or more to corporations. Section 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the amendments made thereby, are hereby repealed; and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied as if such section, and amendments, had never been enacted. [This is the first attempt at dismantling ObamaCare by pieces, as opposed to H.R. 2 which dismantles ObamaCare in whole. The proposed section of the ObamaCare law to be repealed appears below. --OnTheIssues editor].
SEC. 9006. EXPANSION OF INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.- The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsections:
-
APPLICATION TO CORPORATIONS. The term 'person' includes any corporation that is not an organization tax-exempt.
- REGULATIONS. The Secretary may prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this section, including rules to prevent duplicative reporting of transactions.
- EFFECTIVE DATE. The amendments made by this section shall apply to payments made after December 31, 2011.
Source: HR144&HR4 11-HR004 on Jan 12, 2011
Regulatory relief for smaller banks stimulates growth.
Cassidy voted YEA Banking Bill
Congressional Summary:
Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act- TITLE I--IMPROVING CONSUMER ACCESS TO MORTGAGE CREDIT: [for small banks,] requirements are waived if a loan is originated by and retained by the institution
- TITLE II--REGULATORY RELIEF AND PROTECTING CONSUMER ACCESS TO CREDIT: [deregulate] reciprocal deposits [if they] do not exceed 20% of its total liabilities.
- TITLE III--PROTECTIONS FOR VETERANS, CONSUMERS, AND HOMEOWNERS
- TITLE IV--TAILORING REGULATIONS FOR CERTAIN BANK HOLDING COMPANIES
- TITLE V--ENCOURAGING CAPITAL FORMATION
- TITLE VI--PROTECTIONS FOR STUDENT BORROWERS
Supporting press release from Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN-6): This legislation will foster economic growth by providing relief to Main Street, tailor regulations for better efficacy, and most importantly it will empower individual Americans and give them more opportunity.
Opposing statement on ProPublica.org from Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY-5): The bill includes many provisions I support: minority-owned banks and credit unions in underserved communities have legitimate regulatory burden concerns. Unfortunately, exempting mortgage disclosures enacted to detect discriminatory practices will only assist the Trump Administration in its overall effort to curtail important civil rights regulations. I simply cannot vote for any proposal that would help this Administration chip away at laws that I and my colleagues worked so hard to enact and preserve.
Legislative outcome: Passed House 258-159-10 on May 22, 2018(Roll call 216); Passed Senate 67-31-2 on March 14, 2018(Roll call 54); Signed by President Trump. May 24, 2018
Source: Congressional vote 16-S2155 on Mar 14, 2018
Reduce corporate tax rates from 35% to 21% to create jobs.
Cassidy voted YEA Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
Summary by GovTrack.US: (Nov 16, 2017)
For Corporations:- Reduce the corporate tax rate to 21% from 35%.
- Overseas earnings would be taxed at 15.5% as opposed to the current 35%. This may seem like an enormous reduction, but current law only taxes overseas earnings if they are returned to the US; the 15.5% rate would apply regardless.
For Individuals:- Lower the rate for the highest earners from 39.6% to 37%.
- Nearly double the standard deductions for individuals but repeal personal exemptions.
- The Affordable Care Act's individual mandate would be repealed.
Case for voting YES by Heritage Foundation (12/19/17):This is the most sweeping update to the US tax code in more than 30 years. The bill would lower taxes on businesses and individuals and unleash higher wages, more jobs, and untold opportunity through a larger and more dynamic economy. The bill includes many pro-growth features, including a deep reduction in the corporate
tax rate, a scaled-back state and local tax deduction, full expensing for five years, and lower individual tax rates. Case for voting NO by Sierra Club (11/16/17): Republicans have passed a deeply regressive tax plan that will result in painful cuts to core domestic programs, to give billionaires and corporate polluters tax cuts while making American families pay the price. Among the worst provisions:
This plan balloons the federal deficit by over $1.5 trillion. Cutting taxes for the rich now means cuts to the federal budget and entitlements later.The bill hampers the booming clean energy economy by ending tax credits for the purchase of electric vehicles and for wind and solar energy.The bill opens up the Arctic Refuge to drilling, a thinly veiled giveaway to the fossil fuel industry.Legislative outcome: Passed House, 224-201-7, roll call #699 on 12/20; passed Senate 51-48-1, roll call #323 on 12/20; signed by Pres. Trump on 12/22.
Source: Congressional vote 17-HR1 on Nov 16, 2017
Cassidy supports the AFA survey question on E-verify
The AFA inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Employers should be required to use E-verify to confirm the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States'?
Self-description: (American Family Association helps produce iVoterGuides): "Grounded in God; rooted in research"; they "thoroughly investigate candidates"; when they cannot "evaluate with confidence, they receive an 'Insufficient' rating" (& we exclude)
Source: AFA Survey 20AFA-12D on Sep 11, 2020
Cassidy supports the Christian Coalition survey question on the Death Tax
The Christian Coalition inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Permanent Elimination of the "Death Tax" ?'
Self-description by Christian Coalition of America: "These guides help give voters a clear understanding of where candidates stand on important pro-family issues" for all Senate and Presidential candidates.
Source: CC Survey 20CC-11B on Sep 10, 2020
Page last updated: May 20, 2022