PENNSYLVANIA CATHOLIC CONFERENCE
2006 General Election
Candidate Interviews
Ed Rendell (D)
What qualities do you think the Commonwealth needs in its governor?
I would say that for any office I think you need someone with a good head and a good heart. You have to have a good head; you have to be smart enough to understand the complexities of the issues that come before you. Because even more so than in my job as mayor of Philadelphia, the issues that come before me as governor are so diverse. They involve agriculture, forestry, and deer management, the highest elements of finance and investment and bond proceedings, and things of that nature. Economic development, capital funding…there are so many different and diverse issues that it’s important that you have a governor, or any political office holder, who is smart enough to understand the complexities of the issues. I think that’s of the most paramount importance.
But equally as important is to have a governor or office holder who has a good heart. And by good heart I mean someone who cares about doing what he or she believes is the right thing. You might disagree with what someone believes is the right thing, but I want to feel that that person honestly believes he or she is doing the right thing and is not motivated by what’s the safe thing to do. And someone who has a heart that really cares about helping people because government exists, I believe, to help people…to create opportunities and to use its ability to protect the most vulnerable people in our society such as the very old and the very young, the disabled, the very poor. You have to have a good heart to want to do those things. Those things have to be on the top of your radar screen in terms of what you want to accomplish.
Third, a good heart has to be strong. It has to be strong enough to withstand the political pressures, the community pressures or whatever is brought to bear on us. Very often people don’t want something to happen, but you know in your heart that it’s the right thing; not only the right thing overall, but the right thing for a certain group or a certain issue. And sometimes you make decisions that are not, at least in the short run, popular.
I think that those things are crucial and would be my definition of having a good heart. And I think that having a good head and a good heart is essential to being an effective leader.
How would you characterize your political philosophy as it relates to the role of religion in public life?
I believe that everything we do in life, not just politics, but everything we do in life, should be guided by moral values and religious values.
Although I was not raised in a particularly religious setting, my dad decided when my brother and I were fairly young not to raise us in the organized Jewish religion. We didn’t have bar mitzvah; we didn’t go to Sunday school etc. My dad was very, very keen on us understanding the basic tenets of the golden rule and living our life that way each and every day. My dad died when I was very young. I was 14, but he was a terrific example to my brother and me. He treated everyone the same. No matter how rushed or harried he was or what pressure he was under. He always took time to treat people well, with respect and dignity. The thing that most impressed me about my father’s life was something that occurred after he died. He ran a small business as a converter in the textile industry. He had ten or twelve employees. It was obvious to all of them that the business would close after his death, because it was a one man business. Although they weren’t employed at the time, all twelve came to his funeral. They were Hispanic, African American, and not even what you would call middle class, probably lower middle class, but all of them came to his funeral and I think that was an important moment to me when I realized that he was that type of person. So I think that you have to be guided by religious and moral values.
What bothers me so much about politics today is that the same people with religious and moral values think nothing about taking away money from programs that provide food for infant children. They care nothing about cutting people off of health care. Many of my colleagues, governors around the states, have cut tens of thousands of people from government-funded health care. One of the proudest things that I can say is since I have become governor 300,000 additional Pennsylvanians -- children and adults – have received health care.
So I think that those are the values, I mean whether you read the old testament or the new testament or both, the admonitions are pretty clear. It’s to feed the hungry, to heal the sick and to teach the children well. Those are the core moral and religious values regardless of what faith you are. Values should drive you and should drive government.
Which statement most closely reflects your opinion and why?
* Government officials should maintain a strict separation between personal religious beliefs and public leadership.
OR
* Government officials should seek to integrate their faith life with their public life.
The second statement most closely reflects my opinion. I believe you can’t be an effective governor, or senator, or mayor, or whatever, unless there are moral and faith based values that lead you. You have to care and caring comes from faith, and caring comes from understanding what your obligation is as a human being.
Would you support legislation that would protect religious institutions and individuals from being required to provide, pay for or refer for products or services contrary to their conscience and moral teachings?
That’s too broad a statement to say yes or no. I would have to know more about each situation. For example, we have taken a position that religiously run child care organizations, like all child-care centers, have to go through some initial certification to make sure that children are properly protected. I think that is the right thing to do. I think that religious freedom is an important freedom, but like all of our freedoms you can’t cry fire in a crowded movie theater and say you are protected by the first amendment, freedom of speech. Every freedom has its limitation and I think the well being of children is paramount there. But again, it would depend on the case by case basis.
Please comment on the following issues or initiatives:
* Expanding protection and support for unborn children and their mothers in Pennsylvania.
You know I have said many, many times I think the media mostly tries to line people up and say are you pro-life or pro-choice. I don’t know of many people who aren’t pro life. I want to see the fewest possible abortions take place in Pennsylvania, or for that matter, in the United States of America. We have tried, in some degree of success, to reduce the number of abortions.
First of all, with our adoption network. Many young people have abortions because they don’t think that their child is likely to be adopted. And it’s just a hopeless cause. We won two national awards for the Pennsylvania Adoption Network. It is run by the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) and it’s done a great job in shortening the waiting list for African American children for example. And just speeding up the process and making adoption a more obtainable option to abortion. And we are going to continue our efforts. I want to keep winning awards for the advocacy of our adoption network.
Secondly, I am a strong believer that we should invest in steps that will prevent unwanted pregnancies. We have continued to fund abstinence programs. We just met recently with the Abstinence Network and agreed to pursue federal funds. If our grant is approved, we will increase abstinence teaching and instruction.
I also believe that we should be realistic enough to know that notwithstanding abstinence teaching from programs or from parents that some children and young people are going to go out and have sex. We want to educate them to the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies as well as disease such as HIV or any of those things. So we have stepped up our emphasis on all three of those with the goal of reducing the number of abortions.
I believe that the decision to have or not have an abortion is a decision that rests with the woman herself. She does have the right to make that choice and the government shouldn’t impede, or try to impact on that right other than to let her know that options are available. The option of adoption is one that I think we should make clear that everyone knows about and knows how easy it is now to go through the adoption process.
* Amending the Pennsylvania or US Constitution to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman and prevent civil unions or other functionally equivalent legal relationships.
I support the state’s Defense of Marriage Act. I believe it is crystal clear and absolutely legal. Therefore I don’t believe we need a constitutional amendment, either at the state level or at the federal level. I believe marriage is an institution that has significant religious overtones and therefore it should be restricted to a man and a woman. I would have no problem with that.
I do have problem with the proposed amendment. I would have done the same thing that the Senate did when it stripped out the parts of that amendment that sought to limit the power of the civil government to extend some benefits, whether that be pension benefits or health benefits, to people of the same sex who are living in a committed relationship. I believe same-sex couples in a committed relationship have the right to have those benefits.
The law as it is today in many instances produces things that could be heartbreaking human experiences. A woman has a committed relationship with another woman and she is in a car accident and in the intensive care unit of a hospital. She can be visited by a third cousin who she hasn’t seen in twenty years, but can’t be visited by the woman with whom she has been in a twenty-five year relationship. I think that’s wrong. I would be against constitutional amendments or laws that would prevent the benefits that would be attached to a committed relationship. When I issued the Domestic Partnership Executive Order as mayor we made people, at the threat of perjury, come in and file if they wanted those pension benefits and health care benefits. They would have to file a form and have it notarized that they were in a long term committed relationship, for more than six months with another person. I believe that love has no bounds or limits and that’s just a fact of the human experience. We ought to recognize that fact to the extent that we can, but not allow people to go through the formality of marriage, because in every religion marriage is a religious state, a religious act, or a religious ceremony.
The constitutional amendment in Pennsylvania, as drafted by the House, would have banned any sort of benefits being given to same sex people in a relationship. It would have absolutely banned those. The Senate stripped that out, and just passed the aspect of it that would restrict marriage to a man and a woman. It’s a big difference. I thought the first one was very mean spirited and very hateful. I don’t think any of our religious figures -- Jesus, Moses or Mohammed – ever wanted us to be hateful or divisive.
* What is your position on the death penalty?
I have long been an advocate of the death penalty because of my background as an assistant district attorney and district attorney. In fact, ironically, the two candidates in the 2002 governor’s campaign were the two people most responsible for the death penalty statute that is on the books and has overcome challenges. I was a district attorney and assistant district attorney in the late 1970s and I worked with a state representative, Mike Fisher, and staff of course, to help write the Pennsylvania Death Penalty Statute, which I thought we drew as narrowly as we could.
I know the Church’s position on the death penalty and I respect it. I give the Church tremendous points for consistency for its pro-life stance on both the death penalty and abortion.
I believe that the death penalty, somewhat similar to my view on abortion, should be legal, should be as narrowly drawn as possible, and should be used in rare instances. I also believe that defendants charged with the death penalty should have the right to experienced and able counsel, whether they can afford it or not, and they should have the right to free scientific testing on their behalf, including DNA testing. We have moved Pennsylvania in the right direction to achieve both of those goals.
I will give you an actual case from my time as an assistant district attorney. We had someone who committed a felony murder, robbed a store and after he had successfully taken the money out of a cash register told the clerk to lie down. The clerk laid down on his belly and this guy pointed the gun about an inch from his head and blew his head open. This was at a time when there was no death penalty. I was an assistant DA at the time. He was sentenced to life. He went to prison in Philadelphia.
While in prison he fashioned a knife out of wood and stabbed and killed a deputy warden and a prison guard. He was brought to trial, and the only thing we could do was give him another life sentence. He was then sent to Graterford Prison, a state penitentiary, where in the shower, he beat to death another prisoner. He was brought in and given another life sentence. He mocked society in that third court room. He said what are you going to do, give me another life sentence? The only way to prevent that person from killing again is to put him in solitary for the rest of his life, and he was about 27 when he committed his third murder. So we would have him in solitary for 50 years. I would contend to you that that is far more inhumane and cruel than the death penalty by lethal injection.
I think the death penalty must exist for the extreme cases. It must protect our law enforcement officers. Everyone in this country, no less Pennsylvania, should know if you kill a law enforcement officer acting in the line of duty, you have a chance of getting the death penalty. We owe that to the people who put their lives on the line for us on a daily basis. Policemen go out the door and cannot say to their wives or husbands, that they are coming back that night. A routine car stop turns into the death of a policeman. A domestic abuse call turns into the death of a policeman. We need that level of protection for our law enforcement officials.
I would try to make sure that the use of the death penalty was as rare as possible. And in Pennsylvania, as you know, because of the legal machinations, we don’t have a death penalty. It’s on the books, but the only people who have been executed since the death penalty was restored were those who have voluntarily terminated their appeals. So it is basically a voluntary thing. We haven’t executed anyone against their will since the death penalty has been back on the books. You can debate about the efficacy of that, but that is the case. I support it in those rare occasions, particularly for law enforcement officers.
* Expanding the Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) by allocating more money for tax credits to businesses donating to approved scholarship.
Yes. My record speaks for itself. We have doubled it during my time as governor. I support it and I think it is a good idea.
And if you are re-elected, can we count on you to put it in your budget?
Sure. It is nice running for office when I don’t have to just give you promises. I can give you performance as well. It has gone from $30 to 59 million since I have been governor.
* Expanding or changing programs to grant greater access to health care for low income citizens such as children’s health insurance, Medicaid and Medicare.
My opponent talks about spending caps, and he is not alone. Many of the Republicans in the legislature talk about spending caps. I hope you understand that spending caps mean a reversal of all of the good things that I have done as governor in terms of healthcare. To meet spending caps, we would be unable to extend healthcare to anybody. My plan to Cover All Kids starting this year would be gone in a minute. And, we would have to start cutting, as many other states have done, tens of thousands of people off the healthcare rolls. Remember, the Catholic Church cares very much about social services to people. If you have spending caps, it’s over. You know in politics we always have hidden messages. Spending caps mean that the poor get nothing. And I think you should be keenly aware of that. I think my opponent and the Republicans are misguided. Every state that has tried to put in spending caps has repealed them. We just saw what happened in Colorado, where voters decided to get rid of their spending caps because they had done so much damage to the state. Spending caps are disastrous.
So can we achieve universal healthcare in Pennsylvania? We are still developing our plans, and we will work hard with the Legislature to get as many people covered as possible.
What I have tried to do, in the absence of that, is try to make incremental progress. So, for example, Cover All Kids is concerned with the 133,000 kids without healthcare. We intend to have them covered by the beginning of 2009. The PACE prescription drug program is essential coverage for older Pennsylvanians. You know that since I have been governor we have increased the PACE program by nearly 100,000. Bob Casey had PACE at 480,000. By the time I became governor it had slipped to 218,000. The cost of prescription drugs went up, the eligibility levels were never lifted, and as people got social security cost of living increases they were bumped out of the program. I promised during the 2002 campaign I would do something about that. In ten months as governor we passed a cost containment package of legislation which enabled us to raise the eligibility level significantly. We now have nearly 100,000 additional Pennsylvanians receiving prescription drug coverage and you know it’s by far the best plan in the country. It has no donut hole like the federal plan does. And the good news is that the lottery is doing so well that we are going to be able to add another 120,000 in the next eighteen months. That’s something you should get out to your parishioners. The income levels are $31,500 per married couple, $23,500 for single people. If you make those income levels, there is no reason you shouldn’t be in PACE. It is the best program in the country, and I am not taking credit for the program. That was started way before I did, but I have expanded it by some 200,000 people. Adding 133,000 children to health care in Cover All Kids we have added another couple of hundred thousand, plus elderly, disabled and seriously ill Pennsylvanians who are covered in Medicaid.
With the adultBasic health insurance program and the deal that we made with the Blues to invest in it, we have been able add yet another 5,000. So, we have chipped away at the problem of health care coverage pretty effectively, particularly when you juxtapose us to other states.
Can we go all the way and give universal coverage to all Pennsylvania citizens? I hope so. I just don’t know how far. I have been pretty good at pushing this Republican legislature to adopt my programs, but I don’t know how far we can go. But that is certainly my goal. In the meantime I have effectively chipped away at the number of uninsured, and moved the bar very, very high.
I do want to take a moment to thank the Conference for the work you do in the advocacy to our social service programs like Cover All Kids. But also, the Conference was enormously important in our efforts to successfully raise the minimum wage. I didn’t know if that would come up in this interview, because it is done. But you gave that effort a tremendous amount of credibility, and I want to thank you all for it.
* How would you address the concerns that are being raised right now by illegal immigration?
I signed a bill that penalizes Pennsylvania employers for knowingly employing illegal immigrants. I think that’s an appropriate piece of legislation. Employers should not take potential job opportunities from Pennsylvania citizens.
I believe the immigration issue should be settled as a national issue. Different states should not have different rules. I actually support President Bush’s plan for a temporary guest worker statute. I think we should not give illegal immigrants the full range of opportunities and benefits. There are people back home in their countries who have gone through the legal process and have been on a waiting list for six years.
But we need to adopt a viable guest worker statute, as the president has proposed, so that in the instances where there are jobs that Americans are not willing to fulfill, we can have someone here to do that job as a guest worker. Not necessarily on a citizenship path, but someone who makes $1.50 an hour in Mexico, and can’t support their family, can come into Texas, or Arizona, or California, or Pennsylvania and earn, well in Pennsylvania it will be $7.15 an hour, to take better care of their family. We need that and it is fair and just.
I disagree with this business about English being the only language, that forms are put only in English and things like that. When our forefathers and foremothers came here it took them three, four, five years to learn English. I can go to south Philadelphia, back home, and campaign and I will run into 80-year old Italian men and women who still don’t speak very coherent English. This is America and people came here because it was the place where they were going to be free to practice their own customs and heritage and religion. We should never get too far away from that.
The Catholic bishops have been speaking very clearly on this and they take it on the chin in many cases. One of the concerns that our bishops have is that somebody working here is earning more money and sending it home to Mexico, for example. What can we do to unite that family. Catholic teaching would like to keep Catholic families united.
I agree and that’s why I think a temporary guest worker statute would work.
I was reading a magazine article about Dubai and the incredible building that’s going on there. It’s the fastest growing city in the world. Skyscraper after skyscraper is going up, and the workers are from mostly Pakistan. They work on a project for nine months, twelve months, or sixteen months; they make a lot of money then go home.
I think a guest worker statute with a temporary time period to it, eighteen months or two years, would be okay because it doesn’t disrupt the family for too long and yet it allows that additional income to go to the family. I think there should be some way that if the guest worker is in the country for two years, behaves him or herself, doesn’t break any laws, etc., then when he or she goes back home, he or she can get a leg up on the citizenship process, not only for him or herself, but for families as well.
We know you have a busy schedule to keep. Is there anything you would like to say, anything you would like to share about yourself with the Catholic public in general?
I would say I am a strong believer that government should carry out the things that we have been taught by the great religious leaders of our time. I think they would have approved of the things that I have done.
I get criticized for spending money, as if somehow that’s an evil thing. I believe we invest money. We invest money in our children’s future, and our own future, when we spend money on education. We invest money in workers’ ability to get new jobs when we put money into economic development programs. We invest money in doing the right thing when we spend money on providing health care for people who can’t afford it or providing food or shelter for people who can’t afford it. I don’t apologize for that. I believe that is consistent with the religious and world values of every faith, and obviously the Catholic faith.
As long as I am in government, which if the voters see fit will be another four and a half years, I am going to continue doing that. I believe it is our responsibility. We must do it in an effective and well managed way that conserves money as much as possible.
People should not forget that we have taken almost a billion dollars annually out of the administrative costs of operating this government by purchasing smarter, by running government more like a business, by reducing the number of state workers, by doing things that apply sound principles.
When I became governor we had 1,400 SUVs in our state fleet. I asked how many went off road and I was told less than a hundred. We got rid of almost 300 and replaced them with more fuel-efficient vehicles. We are saving a million and a half dollars a year on gas. Those savings are just from one thing. We have applied those principles across the board and saved almost a billion dollars a year in our operating expenses.
So I think you can have government that invests in the future, that spends money protecting our most vulnerable citizens, and at the same time is well managed, efficient, effective, and saves money in areas where the savings don’t hurt anybody. I believe we have done that. I am pleased with what we have been able to accomplish and I am still excited about the challenges that lay ahead.
(c) 2006