Close this search box.

Toomey Outsources American Jobs

Toomey Outsources American Jobs

As Senate Takes Up Outsourcing, Will Toomey Defend Record of Putting Big Business and China ahead of American Workers?

MEDIA, Pa. — Today, as the Senate considers an anti-outsourcing bill, U.S. Senate candidate Joe Sestak called on Congressman Toomey to explain his record of siding with Big Business at the expense of American workers. As the economy continues to recover, Joe Sestak believes that retaining and creating American jobs is a top priority, but Congressman Toomey has consistently supported large corporations that drain opportunities at home in favor of bigger profits overseas.

“Congressman Toomey has always stood on the side of Big Business and Wall Street when it comes to shipping American jobs to China. There’s nothing creative about the callous destruction of middle class earnings and jobs,” said Sestak spokesman Jonathon Dworkin. “Joe knows that we need to keep jobs on American shores in order to remain competitive in the global economy. That’s why he’s the only candidate in this race that has put forward a concrete economic plan that would create millions of jobs here at home by investing in small businesses and the middle class.”

Toomey’s own theory of “creative destruction,” which he writes about in his book, says that when companies shutter their doors–including manufacturing companies in Pennsylvania–it actually benefits the overall economy. While it’s true that many new jobs are created in other industries when businesses fail, too many of them are in China.

Congressman Toomey has a long record supporting major corporations that move American jobs overseas. He voted to give benefits to corporations that dodge U.S. taxes by moving offshore, and for tax loopholes that export jobs, making it harder for American small businesses to compete. Toomey even believes that foreign subsidies are “gifts to American consumers” even though he admits they result in fewer American products sold and fewer American workers. 

Congressman Toomey Favors Big Business and China over American Workers

Theorizes about “creative destruction” rather than average Pennsylvanians’ hardships. In his book, Congressman Toomey writes about his theory of “creative destruction,” which is to say that it’s perfectly acceptable for businesses and industries to fail because it means that new ones are born. [The Road to Prosperity, p. 112] Except not in Pennsylvania. We’ve lost 311,200 manufacturing jobs over the last decade, and those jobs have not been replaced by new ones. Overall, we’ve lost 101,500 jobs over the last decade. [PA Dept. of Labor and Industry] Meanwhile, “China has eclipsed Japan as the world’s second-biggest economy after three decades of blistering growth that put overtaking the U.S. in reach within 10 years.” [AP, 8/16/10]

Voted for tax loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas. Toomey supported benefits for corporations dodging U.S. taxes by moving offshore [HR 4520, #258, 6/17/04], and voted for tax loopholes that export jobs, making it harder for American small businesses to compete. [HR 4520, 10/7/04, #509]

Called foreign subsidies “gifts to American consumers.” In his book, Congressman Toomey wrote that he believes that foreign subsidies to car manufacturers are a good thing, even though they “would result in fewer American cars sold, and consequently fewer American auto workers.”  [The Road to Prosperity, p. 112].

Called NAFTA “good for America” even though it cost Pennsylvania 44,000 jobs. [Morning Call, 9/16/93] Toomey argued free trade would create jobs, while acknowledging that workers might be “displaced.” [Morning Call, 1/21/00]

Advocated on behalf of China. Toomey organized a petition to stop the US from imposing tariffs on China that would prevent the dumping of cheap goods in America and stop American manufacturers from being put out of business. [Bloomberg, 8/2/07] He also voted to grant permanent most favored nation status to China. [HR 4444, #228, 5/24/00]

  • Reader Poll: Should President Joe Biden Step Aside?

    • Yes. He should step aside because of his age, declining ability to do the job. (45%)
    • No. He should not step aside. (39%)
    • Yes. He should step aside because he can't beat Donald Trump. (15%)

    Total Voters: 231

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser


To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen