Clinton: Equal pay, women's rights in Pennsylvania

Sen. Hillary Clinton was introduced by Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell, her key supporter in the Keystone State, at a campaign rally in Harrisburg, Pa., today. Photo by Robyn Beck / AFP

by John Micek

Sen. Hillary Clinton, hoping to place Pennsylvania in her column of big-state primary victories on April 22, says she will campaign pretty much the same throughout the state.

Some issues resonate more clearly in some parts of the state than other issues, the senator from New York allows.

A living room full of Bucks County housewives, for instance, might want to hear something different from Clinton than a crowd in Scranton, she said in an interview today with The Morning Call of Allentown, Pa.

"I would say exactly the same thing,'' Clinton said. "But then, in the question-and-answer period, I’m sure there would be different emphases.

"People might ask me about, you know, equal pay for equal work, or, you know, a woman’s right to choose, or work-family balance. So I might throw of that in if I had a longer period of time to talk than a usual speech. But I’m going to hit the things I hit everywhere.''

For more, see the interview:

Q: The Lehigh Valley is filled with the voters you’re trying to reach: older, Reagan Democrats, with an influx of émigrés from New York and New Jersey. Can you talk about what kind of outreach you’re doing to those voters and to the region?

A: Well, I’m going to campaign hard in the Lehigh Valley because it is a representative sampling of different constituencies. And I want to make my case to every one of them. You know, I’ve done very well in many different states with different groups. And I really think I can get my message across effectively, and I’m going to do my best to do that.

Q: Do you have to tailor it to the separate constituencies, or is it a uniform message?

A: It’s pretty uniform. But, you know, different constituencies pick up on different things. You know, you could have listened to the speech I gave today and some people are very enthusiastic about universal healthcare. And other people will really love the energy element of my speech. And somebody else will be so happy that I’m going to get rid of No Child Left Behind. So I try to give a pretty uniform message, but with different emphasis depending upon how I’m highlighting where I stand on an issue.

Q: So you’re standing in a room full of Bucks County housewives. What will you punch up to them that you wouldn’t, say, to a crowd in Scranton?

A: Well, I would say exactly the same thing. But then, in the question-and-answer period, I’m sure there would be different emphases. People might ask me about, you know, equal pay for equal work, or, you know, a woman’s right to choose, or work-family balance. So I might throw of that in if I had a longer period of time to talk than a usual speech. But I’m going to hit the things I hit everywhere.

Q: What constitutes success for you in Pennsylvania? Given the way you’ve pursued this Big State strategy, what would be a decisive win?

A: Well, I don’t make predictions, but obviously, I want to win, number one. That’s the first threshold - you’ve got to win. And then, you know, do as well as I possibly can, because every vote counts and every delegate counts, and just see where we are at the end of the process.

Q: Is that the so-called “Rendell Model,” where you’d want to corner Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and then \[go\] up into the Northeast?

A: I’m going to campaign everywhere … That’s what I did in New York. When I was in New York, people said, 'Campaign here. Campaign there.' But I campaigned everywhere. And I’m going to do that in Pennsylvania too. And, you know, I think that, I have different challenges in different parts of the state. But I feel good about spending the next six weeks really campaigning vigorously in Pennsylvania.

Q: There was a report out here [Harrisburg] yesterday showing that state gas tax revenues have flattened out. It’s happening on the national level as well. Revenue in the [federal Transportation) Trust Fund (which helps fund highway projects) is supposed to start falling short of federal spending starting next year. Given the infrastructure needs that states are facing with roads and highways, how do you plan to address that?

A: Well, I have proposed a bonding authority … We can’t impose more taxes on gas right now. With gas heading toward $4 a gallon, people just can’t afford it. There are going to be a lot of people in Pennsylvania who will be in terrible financial trouble, because they depend on their cars. Maybe it’s their livelihood. Maybe it’s the way they get to work, or get to school, or whatever it might be. So I would be more inclined to look at long-term bonds, and try to figure it out. We haven’t really done that for a long time. For example, in World War II, we had war bonds. I think Americans would be responsive to, you know, buying bonds that would help build America. And I would be willing to put that out there as an idea.

Q: You had alluded to that in your speech, putting more people back to work. Are you talking about some sort of building program that was analogous to what was sought as a part of the debate over [President Bush’s] economic stimulus plan?

A: Yes. I really think it’s important. We all got a wake-up call when the bridge collapsed in Minneapolis, and I think it came out that two-thirds of our bridges were structurally deficient. We have levees.

It’s not just in New Orleans. You’ve got levee problems in Nevada, California, across the country. In New York, you walk down the street, and you might have a steam pipe explode.

We have pollution going into the Great Lakes because our water and sewer systems are so antiquated. At some point, we have to make a commitment to investing in our country.

Previous generations did that. I mean, I’m a little embarrassed when I think that, during the Great Depression, when people were literally broke, we were investing in bridges and tunnels and roads, and building subway systems and all the things that made us a rich and prosperous economy. And now we don’t do it anymore. So, yeah, I think we need to rebuild America.

Q: Another issue pressing on states now, obviously, is exploding Medicaid costs. It’s about 22 percent of most state budgets. Washington is ratcheting back its support. You’ve given (the states) some flexibility (to address their needs), but costs are still being shifted back. You and Sen. Obama have both talked about making healthcare more affordable. You’ve not talked as much about how to address that equally large Medicaid population. What do you intend to do?

A: I intend to do several things. First of all, Medicaid bears the cost for some of the most chronically ill people in America. And we don’t manage chronic illness very well. And there are a lot of ideas out there about how to have better case management and get the cost down. Electronic medical records would make a huge difference in Medicaid and the rest of our healthcare system.

It’s something I’ve been pushing for four years on a bipartisan basis. It’s estimated we could save $77 billion a year if we had electronic medical records. We need to get more bulk buying on supplies and drugs and get the cost down in Medicaid. And I do think we need to give states more flexibility, in return for them being able to provide a higher level of service. And finally, we need a best-practices program. Because, unfortunately, we’re not always paying for the best practice that gets the best return on investment for Medicaid. We need to do something similar in Medicare. But those two programs need to be modernized and streamlined. I think there’s a lot we could do to make a difference.

Q: Do you think the (Medicaid) rolls, broadly, are too big? Should there be changes in eligibility?

A: No, I think that we spend too much money nit-picking eligibility.
After 9/11, we had a single form for Medicaid eligibility, because so many people lost their jobs, they lost their insurance, they lost their records. It was so much cheaper, instead of, you know, hiring all these bureaucrats to sort of nit-pick you to death. I think we could actually streamline eligibility, even increase it a little bit, with a sliding scale for contributions from people that would slide into my universal healthcare system, so that people would have to pay something. Because I think paying something makes someone a more responsible consumer of healthcare.

Q: You’re talking about means-testing?

A: Yeah. A sliding scale, so that you would pay a low percentage of your income. Now, some people wouldn’t be able to afford that at all, but I think it would be a wise idea. Because I want people to take more responsibility individually. And that would be part of the universal healthcare approach.