In short, finish the House-Senate negotiations and pass the Senate bill and immediately pass a reconciliation bill reflecting the negotiations between the House and Senate.

And if the is not possible, THEN we will see.

When we emerged from the deep recession of Reagan's first term, our economy was reordered in fundamental ways. The negative consequences of that reordering wasn't felt by the WWII and Silent generations then reaching their peak in terms of political and economic power. In fact, those generations reaped both the benefits of a growing mass market, heavy public investment, job and wage growth, progressive taxation, etc. in their youth, and the benefits of less progressive taxes, higher interest rates and asset inflation in their peak earning years and in retirement.

The negative consequences of that shift -- the segmenting marketplace, the loss of the middle class and growing gap between the circumstances of haves and have nots, the downward pressure on employment and wages, decreased investment in public infrastructure (material, social and cultural), the non-stop inflation in important economic assets (housing, health care, education) that has negated the benefit of falling consumer prices, flatter, less progressive taxation (young workers today bear a much higher tax burden than their grandparents and parents did in their youth), among other things -- have been borne by younger generations, most especially those without substantial inherited assets, and, for many years, obscured by easy credit and mountains of debt.

The people in power in our political establishment and media are the winners in an economic structure in which ever increasing numbers of Americans are losers.  

Change won't happen until those losers find some substantial ways to force their concerns front and center, and speak up with clear demands -- for more progressive taxation (that eases the burden on the young and increases it on their wealthiest elders), more regulation of financial markets, more public investment, etc. That may require more than a vote. It may require that the foreclosed and homeless start pitching tent cities on the White House lawn, the uninsured, the unemployed, deeply in debt/under-employed college graduates, etc. start massing on the mall and making noise and big demands in town meetings.

Progressives can criticize the tea partiers as people with vested interests -- which they are -- all they want. But that is what politics is all about; no one should be ashamed of standing up for their own interests.

Martha could have won in a better climate.

A better candidate could have won in this climate.

(1) Coakley ran a dismal campaign.  We saw and heard her much more during the primary than during the general election.  Now, her campaign says they lacked money to run ads early; why didn't they say it earlier?  How much national Repub money was poured into this race--plenty!!  She did appear complacent and aloof.  She did not define the opponent or even herself.  She should have trumpeted her successful battles as AG against Wall Street.  Why didn't she?  Her own inclination, or a message from national Dems?  I don't know.

(2) The national mood is sour, for all the reasons everyone has already discussed here.

Obama receives mixed reviews for his first-year performance, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. His approval rating stands at 53 percent, with 44 percent disapproving. Among independents, 49 percent approve, the lowest of any of his recent predecessors at this point in their presidencies.

Majorities disapprove of his handling of the major domestic issues -- the economy, health care and the federal budget deficit. But more approve than disapprove of his handling of terrorism and Afghanistan, and he has broad support for his response to the attempted terrorist bombing on Christmas Day.

The good feelings that surrounded Obama in the months after Inauguration Day have faded. The week he was inaugurated, just 19 percent of Americans said the country was heading in the right direction; by April, that had risen to 50 percent. Today it has slipped to 37 percent.

The poll also shows how much ground Obama has lost during his first year of trying to convince the public that more government is the answer to the country's problems. By 58 percent to 38 percent, Americans said they prefer smaller government and fewer services to larger government with more services. Since he won the Democratic nomination in June 2008, the margin between those favoring smaller over larger government has moved in Post-ABC polls from five points to 20 points.

Using the budget reconciliation has been one alternative method Democrats have reportedly considered after Brown was shown with a lead in the polls in the past few days.

The process would allow Democrats to pass the bill with a simple majority and with limited floor debate. But parliamentarians could object to provisions of the bill on grounds that they are not related to the budget and potentially break up the bill.

But this is interesting:

That's right. When it comes to enacting laws and then later amending those laws, it doesn't matter in what order Congress passes bills. All that matters is the order in which the president signs those bills into law. As long as the president signs the health care bill 30 seconds before he signs the reconciliation bill, the latter can amend or repeal any provisions in the former. So the House and Senate could, in theory, vote on a conference report amending the Senate health care bill before the House actually has to take the tougher vote to accept the Senate bill.

No matter whether the House votes on reconciliation or the Senate bill first, the Speaker can ensure that the health care bill is signed into law before reconciliation. (The dirty little secret of Congress is that even if the House votes to pass the Senate health care bill tomorrow, the Speaker has unilateral power to hold that bill at her desk until January 3 of next year before sending it to the President and starting the 10-day Constitutional veto clock.)

But the problems with reconciliation are legion. The restrictions laid down by the Budget Act, the annual budget resolution, and the Senate's "Byrd Rule" prohibiting non-budgetary items combine to make Alan Frumin, the Senate Parliamentarian, the de facto editor of a reconciliation bill. In particular, he determines which parts of the bill have to be jettisoned in order to keep the bill qualified for the 51-vote fast-track instead of the 60-vote cloture process, and he determines which amendments to the bill require a simple majority for passage and which require a 60-vote supermajority.

The process is not as quick as some have made it out to be. In order to qualify for reconciliation, three committees in the House and two committees in the Senate have to mark up provisions within their jurisdiction. Since there are no time limits on committee markups, these would last until recalcitrant Republicans drop from exhaustion and stop offering amendments. Then the committees in each chamber have to give their work product to the Budget Committees, which are then required to hold their own markups of the bill (amendment-free, this time) and report reconciliation bills to the chamber without substantive change (after waiting two extra calendar days in the House to allow Republicans to file minority views). Under the budget resolution, each committee's portion of the bill must lead to a net reduction of the deficit of at least $1 billion over five years.

Under the Byrd rule, the Senate is prohibited from considering extraneous matter as part of a reconciliation bill or resolution or conference report thereon. The definition of what constitutes "extraneous matter" is set forth in the Budget Act; however, the term remains subject to considerable interpretation by the presiding officer (who relies on the Senate Parliamentarian). The Byrd rule is enforced when a Senator raises a point of order during consideration of a reconciliation bill or conference report. If the point of order is sustained, the offending title, provision or amendment is deemed stricken unless its proponent can muster a 3/5 (60) Senate majority vote to waive the rule.

Subject matter - The Byrd rule may be invoked only against reconciliation bills, amendments thereto, and reconciliation conference reports.

Byrd rule tests - Section 313(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act sets forth six tests for matters to be considered extraneous under the Byrd rule. The criteria apply to provisions that:

• do not produce a change in outlays or revenues;

• produce changes in outlays or revenue which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;

• are outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;

• increase outlays or decrease revenue if the provision's title, as a whole, fails to achieve the Senate reporting committee's reconciliation instructions;

• increase net outlays or decrease revenue during a fiscal year after the years covered by the reconciliation bill unless the provision's title, as a whole, remains budget neutral;

• contain recommendations regarding the OASDI (social security) trust funds.

• a provision that mitigates direct effects attributable to a second provision which changes outlays or revenue when the provisions together produce a net reduction in outlays;

• the provision will result in a substantial reduction in outlays or a substantial increase in revenues during fiscal years after the fiscal years covered by the reconciliation bill;

• the provision will likely reduce outlays or increase revenues based on actions that are not currently projected by CBO for scorekeeping purposes; or

• such provision will likely produce significant reduction in outlays or increase in revenues, but due to insufficient data such reduction or increase cannot be reliably estimated.

Waivers - The Byrd rule is not self-enforcing. A point of order must be raised at the appropriate time to enforce it. The Byrd rule can only be waived by a 3/5 (60) majority vote of the Senate.