More than a simple majority?  Sixty votes?  What if there were only 59?  Would that make it so much less broad as to make it unacceptable?

Sheesh.  Maybe we could also discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  Just for fun.

Seems to me sometimes that all this broad support/bipartisanship baloney does is allow all involved to avoid the blame if it doesn't work out; they can all point at each other and say, "you can't blame Democrats, Republicans voted for it, too!" and vice-versa.

What happened to each party having clear differences in philosophy and ideology, such that elections were actual referenda on each party's performance?  When did Democrats become so afraid to be Democrats, to stand up for their beliefs and deny the Republicans votes on their crappy legislation?  Or go seeking some mushy middle ground to try to get Republicans on board?

It would be refreshing for these Senators to just be honest (ha, that's a good one) and say: "I don't like this bill and I'm not voting for it; I don't care what everyone else does.  If all it takes is a simple majority, we'll see where it ends up.  Maybe I won't get my way, but that's life."  

Reconciliation is not the right path to achieve this goal. The process first emerged to give Congress a tool to help bring spending and revenues in line with the fiscal policy assumed in the budget resolution. In short, the intended purpose of reconciliation is to make sure there is a way to enact, via a simple majority vote, changes to fiscal policy levers that will implement the budget totals, not to force through, using an expedited process, drastic and expensive new policies that will affect every American household.

The hue and cry over the stalled health care bill and the rumored use of reconciliation as a fallback strategy prompt the question: How exactly would this work? To start, any legislative language considered under reconciliation would be subject to the narrow confines of the process.

There are 18 hurdles, in the form of budget points of order, that any reconciliation legislation would have to clear. Further, the Byrd rule, which prohibits extraneous provisions from being included, poses several additional points of order that could be raised against the bill. If passing legislation can be compared with making sausage, then passing health care through reconciliation would be like making Swiss cheese -- the result would be huge gaps in policy, missing legislative text and misaligned, minimized goals.

A reconciliation package would be hurried through in less than three working days. In the U.S. Senate, a minority of one usually has the unique right to be heard. But through the procedural confines of reconciliation, only a select few get to speak. Major policy changes that have long-term effects deserve thoughtful consideration and lots of sunshine -- using reconciliation would wave that away. Think about how long your child will deliberate before choosing a university, how long it takes to assess investment or retirement plans for your family's future or even how long it takes to find your next home. Doesn't health reform deserve the same careful consideration?