If we have learned anything over the last year, it is that this administration and this Congress can be freighted into taking action, or better yet stopping action. In poll after poll the American people voice strong opposition. Democrats hold the majority in both houses but they cannot be ignoring the raw numbers. Attempting to pass a healthcare bill right now is a Kamikaze strategy that could derail their majority positions.

52% of U.S. voters continue to oppose the plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats.

Seventy-six percent (76%) of those with insurance now rate their own coverage as good or excellent. The fact that most Americans are comfortable with their own insurance coverage has proven to be a major obstacle for advocates of reform because 49% of insured Americans say it"s at least somewhat likely that the plan before Congress could force them to change their own coverage.

Last month, prior to the president"s summit meeting, 61% of voters said Congress should scrap his proposed health care plan and start all over again. Sixty-three percent (63%) say a better strategy to reform the health care system would be to pass smaller bills that address problems individually. Twenty-seven percent (27%) still think passing a comprehensive bill that covers all aspects of the health care system is a better idea.

So what does a concerned democrat do today? He moves toward reconciliation as a way to pass a bill through the Senate. It is true this method exists, it has been used before, but it has never been used for something this important. The reason is the Byrd Rule. The Byrd rule states that legislation is unfit for reconciliation if it "produce[s] changes in outlays or revenue which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision. The Byrd rule allows senators to challenge the acceptability of any provision (undefined) of a reconciliation bill based on whether or not its effect on government revenues is "merely incidental" (undefined).

So in the end, republicans need to understand who is making the call, The Senate Parliamentarian decides what is acceptable or not. Alan Frumin is the current holder of that post and he is the guy who would move this process along. A 1968 graduate of Colgate University in Hamilton, New York, and Georgetown University"s law school in Washington, Frumin's entire career has been devoted to "directing parliamentary practice." He began in 1974 by editing Deschler's Precedents of the House of Representatives (a House procedures manual) before joining the Senate Parliamentarian's office in 1977.[1] He was appointed to the top job in 2001 after his predecessor, Bob Dove, was fired by then-Majority Leader Mississippi Republican Trent Lott.[2]