The Senate should vote on House Bill, not the other way around.

Speaker Pelosi, on 3/15, said: "Nobody wants to vote for the Senate Bill." Of course, because it is a poison pill.

Obama and Democrats want an "up or down vote". So let's have one in the Senate on the House bill. After all, tax provisions are supposed to originate in House according to the Constitution. To heck with Senate filibuster rule, also not in the Constitution, at least for bills ORIGINATING in House .

The whole cooling saucer notion (which was not reported until 1888 and is surely apocryphal: http://www.bartleby.com/73/294.html) is satisfied by whether the Senate decides to take up bills already passed by the House.

It's cooled, already. Let's have the Senate take a drink of House's coffee and decide up-or-down on the taste of the House's cup-of-joe.

If the Constitution intended a super-majority for legislation, they would have required it like they did for Treaty ratification. And, there would have been no need to give VP the power to break ties. In a body which by design has an even number, the VP role presumes a simple majority to be the favored mode of operation. Finally, the Supreme Court already ruled in U.S. v. Ballin (1892) that Senate rules may be changed by simple majority.

So go "nuclear" and have the Senate vote up or down on the House Bill (and pass the House Bill). Then, do the fixes with regular order.

It is easier to get 50+ Biden for House bill, than it is to get 216 for horrible Senate bill with the "promises" and convolution of reconciliation. The Senate did such a bad job on the bill why should anybody in the House trust the Senate to get reconciliation right.

Finally, the alleged "process" hit for reconciliation is no worse than the hit for "going nuclear". Indeed, ending the filibuster on an initial up or down vote for bills passed by the House may well resonate more with the American public. After all, the Supreme Court has so ruled; the Constitution does not mandate the filibuster; and the explicit role of the Vice President tends to favor an interpretation that simple majorities are what was intended for legislation as opposed to treaties. In the end, after all is said and done, I think the American public would like more done than said.