Tammy Duckworth on Corporations
Voted NO on workforce training by state block grants & industry partners.
Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act or SKILLS Act:
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
- 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)
National League of Cities op-ed, "H.R. 803 fails because it would:"
Reference: SKILLS Act;
Bill H.R. 803
; vote number 13-HV075
on Mar 15, 2013
- 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.
Corporate political spending is not free speech.
Duckworth signed Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United
- Whereas the right to vote in public elections belongs only to natural persons, so shall the ability to make contributions and expenditures to influence the outcome of public elections belong only to natural persons.
- Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to restrict the power of Congress and the States to protect the integrity and fairness of the electoral process, limit the corrupting influence of private wealth in public elections, and guarantee the dependence of elected officials on the people alone by taking actions which may include the establishment of systems of public financing for elections, or the imposition of requirements to ensure the disclosure of [election] contributions and expenditures.
- Nothing in this Article shall be construed to alter the freedom of the press.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:[Supreme Court majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, for which
the Constitutional Amendment is proposed as a remedy. The FEC had ruled that the movie "Hillary", released in 2008 to persuade voters against Hillary Clinton, was illegal because it was a disguised campaign contribution made by a corporation. The Supreme Court overruled the FEC]:
Modern day movies might portray public officials in unflattering ways. Yet if a covered transmission [is broadcast] during the blackout period, a felony occurs solely because a corporation, [instead of a candidate or donors, paid] in order to engage in political speech. Speech would be suppressed in the realm where its necessity is most evident: in the public dialogue preceding a real election. Governments are often hostile to speech, but it seems stranger than fiction for our Government to make this political speech a crime. Some members of the public might consider Hillary to be insightful and instructive; some might find it to be [unfair]; those assessments, however, are not for the Government to make.
Source: H.J.RES.34 / S.J.RES.11 14_HJR34 on Mar 12, 2013
Deregulating banks encourages discriminatory practices.
Duckworth voted NAY Banking Bill
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
Reducing tax rates balloons federal deficit & cuts programs.
Duckworth voted NAY Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
Summary by GovTrack.US: (Nov 16, 2017)
- 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: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.
- 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 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
Other candidates on Corporations:
Tammy Duckworth on other issues:
Senate races 2019-20:
Senate Votes (analysis)
Page last updated: Dec 06, 2020