On Health Bill, Lone GOP Supporter Got Played

One of the most surprising aspects of last night's House vote on the Democrats' plan to deepen the distortions in the health care sector was the lone Republican vote for it.



That vote came from none other than first-term Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao (R-LA-02). He got played. The Democrats--including personal entreaties by the President--secured his vote by promising him lots of goodies to take home to his constituents.



He doubtless hopes it'll get him reelected. Remember, the first priority for the vast majority of elected officials is...to get reelected. And keeping the people who vote for you happy is the best way to do that.



But Louisiana's 2nd district has a Cook Partisan Voter Index Rating of D+25. That's a "safe seat" for Democrats. The only reason Cao won last year is that he was running against a deeply corrupt incumbent. He's a one-termer, plain and simple.



So why do I say he got played? Because his vote makes it marginally more likely for Democrats to be successful in the Senate without really affecting his likely defeat next year. One of the moderate Senate Democrats is Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, whose reelection victory margin last year was underwhelming in the Year of Obama.



Now, Landrieu is only one of several moderate Democrat holdouts in the Senate who may ultimately prevent comprehensive healthcare legislation this year--despite their supposed filibuster-proof majority--but the bipartisan patina Democrats will now be able to claim can only make their efforts easier.



Despite having been played, Cao is no fool. Rather, his vote last night is symptomatic of the corrosive power-at-any-cost mentality that plagues political life. Instead of gracefully accepting his brief stint in Congress, he has abandoned principle in the vain hope of prolonging his tenure.

Politicians: Missing the Point, Again

Ohio Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH-Toledo) gave a speech on the House floor a few minutes ago lamenting the power that China, OPEC countries, and other unpleasant governments in Africa, Latin America, and Asia possess over the United States.

The source of that power? Their decision whether to buy U.S. government-issued debt. Here’s the argument: by selling off their accumulated U.S. Treasury Bonds or by simply refusing to buy more, they could cause the value of the dollar to crash relative to other currencies. They can supposedly use this leverage to influence U.S. policy.

Leaving aside the fact that a weak U.S. dollar would increase our exports (a policy she favors) because U.S.-produced goods would be cheaper for foreigners, it was striking that she railed against the symptom without even mentioning the cause.

If not for persistent deficits (column D), our government would have no need to issue debt in the form of bonds. Of course, eliminating the deficit requires cutting spending (the reasonable course), raising taxes (an especially bad idea during a recession), or some of both.

But then again, most politicians are known better for empty rhetoric than for making real decisions.