Pat Toomey Q&A: What Pennsylvania’s retiring senator says about tax cuts, gun legislation, Jan. 6, and Trump

Now in his final weeks in public office, Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) plans to deliver a farewell speech on the Senate floor Thursday.

In November he sat down with The Inquirer in his Capitol Hill office for a one-hour interview about his time in the Senate, which began in 2011 and officially ends in January after he declined to seek reelection this year.

Here are some of the key exchanges from that interview, edited for clarity and space.

A: My main mission was to play my role in trying to create an environment where we could maximize economic growth, right? We create the most opportunity for the most people to have the most prosperity. That’s always been sort of the core mission. So I think the biggest thing that I was able to do towards that mission was the role that I played in the tax reform, the 2017 tax reform. The undisputable fact is it was the biggest tax reform in 30 years, right? Sweeping reform of the corporate side, big changes on the individual side. And I got to play a central role in that.

I think the empirical results are overwhelmingly positive. In 2019, which was the last year prior to COVID, after the tax reform and taken effect in early 2018 we literally have the strongest economy of my lifetime. Strong economic growth, record low unemployment, all-time record low unemployment among pretty much every ethnic minority group. We had wages growing, and importantly, wages growing faster than inflation. So people were actually having elevated standard of living. Wages were growing fastest for the lowest income workers. So you had a narrowing of income gap. All of this was happening in the direct aftermath.

» READ MORE: 'I've wanted to do this for 20 years': GOP tax bill a landmark for Pa. Sen. Pat Toomey

And then, you know, here we are in 2022, and we are on track to have all-time record tax revenue.

A: Yeah, I think we all acknowledge that in the initial the first year or so, there would be an increase in the size of the deficit, but that in the subsequent years, that hole would be filled. So yeah, you can argue that we’re still living in the sort of proximate post-COVID period and so things are hard to compare. OK, fine. Let’s see how next year plays out and the year after. I’m very confident we’re on a path of a very, very successful and very significant revenue coming into the federal government.

A: This is one of the misleading things that people, some of my colleagues, like to harp on. ... If there’s only a few people in the room that are paying all the taxes, if you cut taxes, then it’s true that what you’re doing is for the few people in the room. But if they’re the only ones paying taxes, what else are you going to do? Now, in our bill, we actually made the tax code — this is a fact — more progressive than it was before. If you look at the distribution tables, if you look at who’s paying what in taxes, upper-income people pay a larger share of the total tax burden after our bill than they paid before our bill. That’s a fact. And our tax code is actually more progressive than that of the vast majority of wealthy countries around the world. Very few developed countries concentrate the tax burden as much on upper-income people as we do.

On the corporate side, first of all, all of that ends up flowing to individuals right? ... Corporations don’t have printing presses in the basement to print the money to pay the tax bill. They pass it on to customers in the form of higher prices, or they take it out of employees’ compensation, or they take it out of shareholders. … So I don’t apologize for lowering the marginal tax rate or for allowing for more investment in their business.

A: Pennsylvania is a very big state, yeah? We’re the fifth biggest state in the country. We’ve got almost 13 million people. It’s extremely diverse. It’s an area everybody benefits if we have a stronger economy. ... When the economy is doing well, it helps everyone.

By the way, economic growth is not the only thing I ever focused on here, but it always was, like, the main thing. ... This is an area where I knew I was able to contribute more than other areas where I might, might just not have the base of knowledge to contribute quite as much.

» READ MORE: Pat Toomey didn’t change in his 12 years as a senator. The GOP did.

A: With Joe Manchin? Yeah, absolutely.

A: I was then and I am today a big supporter of the Second Amendment. I’m a gun owner. We’re members of the Rod and Gun Club. I take my sons shooting. And I don’t think guns are just about hunting, right? I think that they’re in the No. 2 amendment to the Constitution of the United States for other reasons, as well.

But having said that, it always struck me that we have this universal agreement that there are categories of people who don’t get to exercise the Second Amendment: dangerous criminals, people who are dangerously mentally ill, and children are three categories. I’ve never heard anyone argue that anyone in those categories ought to be able to have firearms. So if we all agree on that, it stands to reason that you need to have a system to determine if someone is in one of those categories, right? And so that’s what the background check system was meant to do. And it’s got some glaring holes in it. And so the idea of patching some of those holes just made a lot of sense to me as a way to do something.

» READ MORE: Senate rejects Toomey-Manchin gun bill; 'Shameful day,' says Obama

I’m not interested in the list of things that many of my Democratic colleagues want to do on guns, but this struck me as a just a sensible thing that we could do that was completely compatible with the Second Amendment. I knew it was gonna get a lot of pushback. But I thought it was the right thing to do. And I still do.

A: Well, because I thought we were in a position to negotiate something that would enable me to attract enough Republicans to actually pass it. That’s why. If you look at the bill, there were a lot of what became known in the jargon around here as Second Amendment sweeteners, right, the provisions that are appealing to people who care a lot about the Second Amendment. ... My point is, what Joe Manchin and I were trying to do was put together a package that would enable us to get to 60 votes.

A: No, I don’t think — I mean, I’m sure that, look, I’m sure I made lots of mistakes along the way like we all do in life, right? But no, I think my focus was the right focus for me at this time. I think we were very productive. I think we had our share of successes. So I don’t have any big regrets.

A: No, because I think that the phone call that was really the underlying source of the charges was very unseemly and inappropriate, but I didn’t think it ever rose to the level of an impeachable offense. It has to be a very, very grave offense, in my view, to warrant impeachment, and I thought that conversation did not.

A: Yeah. It was hard for me to get to in 2016. In 2020, I felt that for all of his obvious and manifest flaws, we had really good policy, like the tax reform that would not have been possible if he hadn’t been willing to sign it, like regulatory relief, which was contributing to the very strong economic growth. So given the alternative, I felt like I’d rather stay on this path where we can continue to do good things rather than risk a big lurch to the left under, you know, a President Biden. I think that his behavior after the election was a complete, complete break and completely unacceptable. After the election, he decided to do what he could to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to the duly elected new president, and that is so, so egregious, and so unacceptable that I think that post-election behavior up to and through Jan. 6, really is completely disqualifying.

» READ MORE: Republican Sen. Pat Toomey calls Trump’s campaign to overturn Pennsylvania election ‘completely unacceptable’

A: Every president pushes the envelope of what he can do. I’ve been completely convinced that Joe Biden knows without a doubt that he has no legal authority to forgive several hundred billion dollars worth of student loans. He used to admit it, he did it anyway. That I find extremely objectionable. So that sort of thing happens all the time. President Trump tried to use money that I think he shouldn’t have been able to reprogram and spend it for wall construction. Barack Obama told us that he didn’t have the legal authority to do DACA by himself, then he did it anyway. So I’m not in favor of that. I don’t approve of those things. But those sorts of things happen all the time. What’s of a wholly different nature is a conscious and concerted effort to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to the guy that beat you in an election. And that is wildly unacceptable.

My last point to your question: No, I don’t think there was any clear evidence that he had any intentions of doing something like that. Did I think if he lost he would complain and grouse and not not be a gracious loser? Absolutely. Did I think he was going to try to participate in the overthrow of the transfer? Absolutely not.

A: So I felt then that somebody in my position had an obligation to stand up and tell the truth and make that case. ... I felt like it particularly fell on me more than some others because Pennsylvania’s electoral slate was one of the ones called in question.

And I felt like this is this is defending my constituents. This is just defending my state’s right to participate. And, yeah, the Electoral College votes from Pennsylvania were gonna go to the guy I voted against, but who I voted for isn’t what’s important. What’s important is, ‘Who did my state vote for?’ And I had an absolute responsibility to defend that outcome. To be silent would be complicit.

A: Yeah, I mean, I was furious. You know, I was furious at what had happened. I was furious with Trump for having contributed so much to the environment and the circumstances that gave rise to it. I was furious that he didn’t do anything to stop it when he could have early on. I was furious that people were trying to prevent my state from being able to participate in the Electoral College, the way my constituents had voted to participate, so I would say anger was the biggest emotion I had at that point.

» READ MORE: Pat Toomey cites Trump’s ‘betrayal of the Constitution’ in breaking with GOP on impeachment

A: No, I don’t think so. I mean, I think it was a reflection of the heightened polarization that occurred with Donald Trump’s election.

A: Yeah, I think the longstanding Republican consensus in favor of expanding trade has weakened. I don’t think it’s gone. But I think it has diminished somewhat. And you know, I think we’re gonna have to work at earning that back.

A: Absolutely.

A: It’s amazing to me that someone makes that argument when we’re at an all-time record low unemployment. ... That’s hard to square that math. The other thing that people say is, ‘Well, we don’t manufacture anymore.’ No, we actually are hitting all-time records in domestic U.S. manufacturing output. But technology has enabled us to automate much of that process.

I think the case for the benefits of trade are overwhelming. ... I mean, if a trade deficit were as bad as Donald Trump believes a trade deficit is, then shouldn’t Pennsylvania be very concerned about whether we have a trade deficit or not with New Jersey? But who’s ever told you that? Who’s ever even asked the question? ... The fact is, everybody benefits from a trade, or they wouldn’t engage in it. If you go to your supermarket, and you buy something from the grocer, and he has money that you used to have, did he steal that from you? Obviously not. You bought the product because it was worth it to you. Well, it’s the same thing if you happen to buy the product from someone that lives in Canada instead of living in Montana. ... And by the way, our standard of living keeps improving because we have the opportunity to have lower cost products from overseas, sell the things that we make overseas, and we have the competition that forces us to get better and better all continuously.

A: Sure, it’s changed. It’s natural for a party to change and evolve. Our coalition is changing. Actually, I think our coalition is growing. I’m actually very optimistic about the future of the party. I think Donald Trump is responsible for some changes, some of which are good. I think the Republican Party is more appealing to a lot of blue-collar workers, especially in small towns, that might not have considered themselves Republicans before, and Donald Trump brought people into the coalition that weren’t there before. He’s also turned a lot of people away with his personality, let’s say.

So yeah, it’s changed and yes, he has undermined the consensus in favor of trade, but honestly, most of the policy that he pursued was conventional Republican orthodoxy.

» READ MORE: Republican Pat Toomey blames Donald Trump for GOP’s election failures in Pennsylvania

A: I think probably. I mean, it’s not knowable; I’m not running one. But yeah, I think so. I have a very conservative voting record. I don’t apologize for that. That’s who I always have been, and I never misled the voters about that. So would that work in a Republican primary? I think so.

A: For not being sufficiently loyal to Donald Trump? Yeah, I plead guilty. But I never promised that I was going to fall in lockstep behind some guy.

A: I think a lot of us are still trying to understand what it all means, because I was very surprised by Donald Trump’s primary victory, as I think a lot of people were. And I was surprised by his general election victory. I do think one of the things that is pretty safe to bet is that a lot of Republican voters felt that they wanted a Republican president who was going to fight more aggressively against the left — against woke-ism, against cultural changes, against massive growth in government — and I think there’s no doubt that Trump convinced them that he was going to fight more aggressively than other people would.

A: Because people have a higher standard of living if the government has a limited role. The government distorts economic activity. It can redistribute wealth, but it can’t create wealth, and it can have a chilling effect. And the more active it is, the more it has that chilling effect. ... The economically free societies that have rule of law also have very high standards of living. So I feel like that’s a responsibility I owe to the people that I represent that I’d be doing my part to enable them to have the highest standard of living they can have.

A: Some people think the role of government is to get equal outcomes and to confiscate the income from some people and give it to other people. I don’t agree with that. I think economic freedom and opportunity are much higher. We have a very extensive safety net. It probably goes too far. You can make the case for a safety net; I’m not suggesting this shouldn’t be one. I think we can argue about what its features should be. But the basic premise should be that the government creates an environment where free people can thrive.

A: You know, I always thought I was only gonna serve two terms. I didn’t commit to that, but I made it very clear that I always thought that was my expectation. And, you know, I’ve been in federal elected office for 18 years now. And that’s a long time. And that’s enough, you know? I’ve always thought I’d do one more thing, I’d have one more career. I don’t know what that’ll be, but I’ll do something else. And I’ve always thought that it’s good to have turnover in Congress. I’m a believer in term limits. So there are a lot of personal factors.

A: Short answer is, I don’t know. I’ve got nothing lined up. I made a very conscious decision that I don’t want to pursue anything while I’m still in office. I don’t want any conflicts of interest, I don’t want the perception of conflicts of interest, and so I’m not having any conversations with anybody. January will be here soon enough, and I’ll begin those discussions.

A: I’ll tell you a funny story. ... I don’t do many trips, but I was in London meeting with financial regulators, because I think it’s important to understand what the UK and the EU are doing, especially in the crypto space, where I think we’re hopefully going to do something also. So I was at a meeting with either like the No. 1 or No. 2 guy at the treasury [in the UK]. There were, like, eight of us in the room. And [Sen.] Pat Leahy led the trip. And somehow the topic of age came up. I don’t remember how. And I leaned forward and I looked down the table … and I realized I’m the youngest guy in this room. Whatever I do next, I’m betting I won’t be the youngest guy in the room [laughing]. So maybe I’ll miss that.

A: Well, you’re opening up a big topic there.

A: Look, I believe there was an ongoing effort to subvert the democratic result of the election, that was a very terrible thing, and it did suggest that maybe our institutions and democratic norms are maybe a little more fragile than I had thought. However, I’d say a couple things.

First of all, the heroes of that whole episode were secretaries of state and county election officials who were Republicans, who were under enormous pressure and being attacked by the sitting president of the United States. And they refused to do the wrong thing. They did the right thing. So that was evidence of the strength, I think, of our democracy.

But I have to say something about some of my colleagues who insist that they are the great guardians of our democracy on the left. And by that, they mean of course, their opposition to Donald Trump and maybe their efforts to make it as easy as possible to vote. OK.

But here’s an important thing that we should include in this discussion. Elections are very important. They are a necessary part of a democratic society, but they’re not sufficient. The purpose of the election is to make sure that the voice of the people is heard. That the people are ultimately in charge, in control, by virtue of their ability to fire people who do what they don’t approve of and to hire people that they think will. What is very troubling to me about many of my Democratic colleagues is their willful, active intent and practice to subvert this accountability. And what I’m referring to is they want unelected, unaccountable parts of the government to do their jobs for them if they can’t do it themselves. So they advocate — many of them — that for instance, the financial regulators use their powers to accelerate a transition to a low-carbon economy. But, who elected the Fed to decide how much Americans should pay to gas up their tank? I think that’s outrageous, because it’s so undemocratic, but it doesn’t end there.

They want the Supreme Court to advance their agenda. And when we have debates over whether or not Roe v. Wade should be overturned, I never once heard a Democrat talk about where in the Constitution this right comes from. ... It was never about that. It was only about the outcome and the policy that they want. Likewise, when the Supreme Court was deciding whether or not to strike down Obamacare, there was never a discussion about the legal merits of the case. They wanted the court to preserve Obamacare because they like Obamacare. Look, I don’t like Obamacare, but I did not want the Supreme Court to invalidate it because I didn’t think there was a legal basis for them to do that, and all I want them to do is enforce the law.

My point is, time and time again, we see folks on the left perfectly happy to undermine democratic processes as long as they get the outcome they want.

So I find it a little hard to sit by quietly when they present themselves as the great defenders of our democracy, because election is a means to an end. It’s representative government where the people are in charge, and unaccountable bureaucrats having this power is not democratic.