Even if it's possible, it's a terrible idea. We should not be using the same strong-arm tactics the Democrats were rightly vilified for.

Back this back up the same pipe it was delivered from...Reconciliation. Has some poetic justice about it, and since the MSM already did the legwork of legitimizing the tactic, it should be perfectly kosher for turnabout.

The big difference between reconciliation to pass Obamacare in 2009 and reconciliation to repeal the same legislation in 2013 is that the 2008 election did not hinge on the legislation, whereas the 2012 election will.

The 2009 reconciliation was a method used to ignore the will of the people, and the 2013 reconciliation will be a method to implement the will of the people.

@Anonymous: Yeah, we should. We need to eliminate this liberty-killing monstrosity by whatever means are necessary.

UncleDave, in the end, Obamacare passed under the fairly ordinary process. It did not rely on "deem and pass" or the budget reconciliation process. Proper conservative opposition to those tactics made the Democrats not use them.

What's next? Should conservatives demand that our bills be voted on without reading them, simply because they are implementing what WE deem to be the "will of the people"? We rightly made a huge fit about the procedural improprieties of the Democrats when they controlled Congress. We cannot in honor resort to the same flawed, undemocratic processes.

We can be a party of principles, or we can be a party dedicated to retaining power at whatever cost. We can't be both.

That's not to say we need to "play nice" with the Democrats. We should fight hard and use appropriate parliamentary advantages. But we can't violate our principles, the principles we used to help get our candidates elected, to do so.

@TSB. No budget - no help for the chhiilllllrrrennnn. Oldsters will be thrown out on the street.

Think Democrats want that? That's their demagogic playbook.

BTW, today saw that Obama wants to cut the Low Income Heating budget back to 2008 leves - a 50% cut!!! Obama must hate poor people.

The framers of the US Constitution intended that the US Senate would conduct itself on a majority basis.

That is why in Article 1, Section 5 it says that a simple majority only is required for a quorum.

Also, in Article 1, Section 3, the Constitution says that the Vice President does not get a vote in the US Senate unless the vote is "evenly divided." The reason for giving the Vice President the ability to break a tie was because the framers intended a majority to run the US Senate.

There are, of course, exceptions, such as the 2/3rds requirement for treaties and over-riding a presidential veto and for amending the US Constitution.

But for ordinary legislation and for nominations to the executive branch and the judicial branch, a simple majority is all that is needed. And the US Constitution trumps rule 5 of the US Senate, which is an invalid rule because it attempts to bind a future Senate to supermajority requirements.

In other words, any Republican opposed to repealing Obama-care with 50 votes plus the Vice President actually supports Obama-care, but is just not honest enough to say so.

TSB,

You asked: could the Democrats stop the use of reconciliation to kill Obamacare simply by refusing to support a budget?

The answer is "No" for two reasons.

The first reason is the reason I gave in my comment below: The US Constitution gives power to a simple majority of the US Senate except when it specifically states that a 2/3rds majority is required (over-riding a presidential veto, treaty ratification and so on).

The second reason is the 1974 Budget Act does not allow filibusters on budget resolutions and budget reconciliation. The Senate may only debate for 50 hours.

That is why the worship of filibuster rule is so silly. Budgets are arguably the more important legislative items the Senate deals with. Yet the filibuster does not apply to the budget. Yet we are told by some liberals and some conservatives that if we allow the US Senate to operate on a majority rule basis, the United States will collapse. It's nonsense, but lots of people buy it, thinking that majority rule in a legislative body is equivilent to "mob rule." Again, pure nonsense and scare tactics.

There is A LOT of wiggle-room in the budget reconciliation procedure. One overlooked example is the argument from the left that you can't repeal it because it will raise the deficit to do so and that violates the Byrd rules unless you find offsetting cuts in spending. HOWEVER, as Keith Hennessey points out in his original piece, the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee (hopefully a Republican by that time) can OVERRULE the original budget estimates that CBO was forced to use by the Democrats. It is a ham-fisted approach to the problem that would surely cause howls of indignation from the remaining Senate Democrats but I say, "TFB, you used a procedural trick to pass this sham and we're using one to repeal it! Go pound sand."