If Lautenberg was dealing in such zero-sum calculus on behalf of his constituents, he would have exacted some financial concessions for his state in exchange for a yes vote. Lautenberg, it seems, used a different sort of calculus, figuring that his political stock would fall more as the result of a yes vote than it would rise from bringing home the bacon, so to speak. In this case, defensive pandering won out over its offensive analog.

But perhaps asserting that these Democratic defectors were only trying to differentiate themselves from the die-hard supporters of the deficit-reduction package is to give them too much credit.

Maybe at heart, they believed that the Clinton plan attacks the problem of the deficit head-on, and though it demands some unpopular sacrifices, it is at bottom a necessary step.

However, demanding sacrifice is so politically harmful that these senators bit their lips until they knew the measure had passed and then voted no as a hedge against the plan's possible failure and the inevitable voter dissatisfaction it would provoke.

Though the "no" votes of the dissident Democratic senators did not defeat the bill, one cannot underestimate the importance of a strong mandate.

A 49-49 tie broken by the vice president is hardly a resounding endorsement. The Clinton bill will be weaker as it goes into House-Senate conference this week.

Future Congresses will be more likely to beat a hasty retreat at the first sign of voter discontent with the package because it did not enjoy universal support from the Democratic party.

But this tactic says something even worse about the stock that these senators put in the intelligence of the American electorate. They honestly think that voters are too dumb to see through the base political motivation for their vote.

They believe that the American people are crass enough to hold their leaders accountable for their legislative action, yet not for inaction.

Hopefully, these same voters will prove the senators wrong and give them a just reward for their cynical "no" votes--by voting "no" to their re-election.

Benjamin J. Heller, who knows that no should mean no, is working this summer at CBS News' "Street Stories."