I have said in the past that no one party should own this.

I think you make a good point, it's a real gamble for one party to take this on. If it bombs, it becomes a noose. But if it's a success it becomes a trophy and the opposing party looks like fools. A win comes with a lot of political clout.

The Dems are in a corner and if they fail to make it happen they will pay for it, so at this point it looks like they have nothing to lose by rolling the dice and owning it alone.

I think you make a good point, it's a real gamble for one party to take this on. If it bombs, it becomes a noose. But if it's a success it becomes a trophy and the opposing party looks like fools. A win comes with a lot of political clout.

The Dems are in a corner and if they fail to make it happen they will pay for it, so at this point it looks like they have nothing to lose by rolling the dice and owning it alone.

Among the odder arguments Republicans are making against the reconciliation process is that the process should only be used for bipartisan bills, and since they refuse to vote for health-care reform, Democrats can't give their package of fixes an up-or-down vote.

But reconciliation hasn't been limited to bipartisan bills. Here's the recent record: The 1995 Balanced Budget Act was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 52 to 47. The 2001 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 58 to 33. The 2003 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 50 to 50, with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote. The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act was also passed in reconciliation with a 50 to 50 vote and a Cheney intervention. The 2006 Tax Relief Extensions Act was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 54 to 44. This is as you'd expect: If bills had overwhelming bipartisan majorities, they wouldn't need to go through reconciliation.

As it happens, Republicans controlled the Senate during each and every one of these bills. And they got less votes than Democrats will likely get for the health-care fixes. It's also worth reminding people that it's harder for Democrats to get Republican votes because voters elected a lot more Democrats in the past two elections. Republicans had a number of moderate Democrats who could be brought into a 58-vote majority, and Democrats don't have as many moderate Republicans who can do the same.

I oppose using the budget reconciliation process to pass health care reform and climate change legislation. Such a proposal would violate the intent and spirit of the budget process, and do serious injury to the Constitutional role of the Senate.

As one of the authors of the reconciliation process, I can tell you that the ironclad parliamentary procedures it authorizes were never intended for this purpose. Reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits. It was not designed to cut taxes. It was not designed to create a new climate and energy regime, and certainly not to restructure the entire health care system.

Here's a novel idea for Washington. How about shelving Healthcare Reform and GET PEOPLE BACK TO WORK! What good is having access to health insurance if Americans DON'T HAVE A JOB to pay their health insurance premiums. Getting our economy back on track and putting people back to work is far more important than revamping the health care right now. Especially when Americans have the best healthcare available in the world!

20% of Grays Harbor is out of work. Do you think those people are wanting another bill to owe in the future. If you have ever been out of work you know it takes forever to get caught back up with bills. A lot of people feel like the guy above does.

There are a lot of costs the people of this country are going to have to pay because of this bill. There is a financial storm brewing just ahead of us full of even more costs. People will not forget that one party felt adding to our debt was more important than putting people back to work.

I am marginally confident it will be this time.