news-record.com

It didn't take long for Kay Hagan to get in a bind.

"Less than a month into my service here in the U.S. Senate," the Greensboro Democrat said in a floor speech last week, "I'm faced with a situation in which the health of millions of my state's children are at odds with a key industry in North Carolina."

How she resolved the dilemma may forecast Hagan's approach to her difficult job over the next six years.

The headline was that Hagan chose health care. She voted for a broad expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program funded entirely by an increase of 61 cents per pack in the federal cigarette tax.

Hagan put forth good arguments for supporting and for opposing the measure, which ultimately passed 66-32. In arriving at her decision, she did two things I think were exactly right.

* She supported an amendment proposed by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., that would have held the cigarette tax hike to 37 cents. Additional revenue would have come from closing what Webb called a tax loophole on "carried interest" compensation earned by hedge-fund managers. Webb withdrew his amendment before it could come up for a vote, making it merely symbolic. Nevertheless, Hagan did not decry one funding mechanism without at least pointing to an alternative.

* She communicated. She delivered impassioned remarks meant for multiple audiences, including Senate leaders and colleagues, constituents, home-state media and probably the tobacco industry. She made sure everyone could understand her concerns and conclusions.

A legislator owes as much every time she votes on an important bill, but too many of them are considerably less forthcoming. If Hagan continues this pattern, she will develop a welcome rapport with North Carolina interests.

Hagan described her predicament with commendable candor. "The staggering thought of 10 million young children without the health care coverage they need is unacceptable to me," she said. Yet, "the way in which this bill taxes only cigarettes is unfair, and I believe the proposed 61-cent increase is outrageous."

In the end, she accepted the outrageous instead of the unthinkable.

Frankly, I thought she made a stronger case for going the other way. Cigarette taxes are regressive, making poor smokers pay for health care for children from better-off families, she observed. The higher tax burden will cost North Carolina up to 3,000 jobs and $36 million in state tax revenues, she said. The tax places a disproportionate share of the program's cost on just a few states. Why not tax junk food and sugary drinks, Hagan asked, to spread the burden? And, because cigarette smoking is declining, the children's health program is tied to an unreliable funding source.

With all that laid out, Hagan just as credibly could have stated, "As committed as I am to children's health, I cannot in good conscience vote for this bill as presently funded." It would have passed anyway, and she would have let Senate leaders know she was serious about protecting a North Carolina industry.

But, what about the politics? There would have been disappointment among children's health advocates in North Carolina but probably appreciation for her reasoning. In Washington, though, this was a Democratic bill, and it was supported by every Senate Democrat, including those from tobacco states.

Hagan's Republican colleague from Winston-Salem, Richard Burr, voted no, citing the additional tax that "would disproportionately hurt workers and farmers in North Carolina." He supported a Republican amendment that would have reduced the cost but was rejected.

Burr, up for re-election next year, was immediately assailed by Americans United for Change, a liberal organization affiliated with labor groups and MoveOn.org.

"Senator Burr should explain to North Carolina families why he voted to deny health care for millions of children in need," an AUC news release challenged.

Burr did explain, although not in as much detail as Hagan. Had Hagan also voted no because of the cigarette tax, Burr might have gained political immunity from partisan attacks like this one. Democrats couldn't toss grenades at Burr if Hagan were standing next to him.

Her position likely had nothing to do with politics, but there are times when party loyalty dictates a legislator's vote even when it clashes with home-state concerns. In this case, Hagan could cite good reasons to support a vote either way. There was no wrong answer. Next time, she might find herself in an even tighter bind.