UPDATED 3:33 PM
In the middle of debate on the Obama-McConnell tax deal, House Democrats abruptly pulled the “rule” for the bill from the House floor, moving on to consideration of a purely technical bankruptcy bill.
The move probably (probably) signals that the Democrats are short on votes to pass the rule — and hence the bill — and are now scrambling to find them.
Stay tuned.
UPDATE: Okay. Here’s what happened. Recall that the Democrats are moving the tax compromise inside the hollowed out shell of a Senate aviation bill in order to deny Republicans the procedural opportunity to offer their own alternative. Yes, it’s as ridiculous as it sounds — Speaker-Designate memorably dubbed the strategy “chicken crap.”
But now the Democrats are being hoisted by their own petard. In order to proceed as they’d like, Democrats planned on holding two votes — one on the Pomeroy amendment, which would raise the estate tax from the compromise levels, and one on the overall Senate bill. But the way the rule is written, voting ‘yea’ on the Pomeroy estate tax hike would constitute a vote for the rest of Senate bill. That is, if the Democrats have 218 votes to pass Pomeroy (an open question), the rest of the deal would pass automatically. Only if Pomeroy comes up short would there be a separate vote on the overall bill. (Take a deep breath.)
But rank-and-file liberals want to be able to support the estate tax hike while going on record against things like the extension of current tax rates for top earners.
So in the middle of debate, Rep. Gene Taylor, lame-duck Democrat of Mississippi, made a privileged motion to adjourn, and Democratic leadership used the time bought by the vote on that motion to have a huge powwow on the House floor — Hoyer, the Congressional Black Caucus, the progressives, the House parliamentarian, all were in attendance — to figure out how to proceed. When the adjournment vote ended, the Democrats pulled the tax bill from the floor, a clear sign they are short on votes.
At this point, it remains unclear whether there is a fix.
UPDATE II: The House Rules Committee Democratic caucus is meeting to construct a new rule that will allow liberals to offer more amendments to register their displeasure. But the actual passage of such amendments, as opposed to their symbolic consideration, would be a huge problem, as the Senate would almost certainly reject any changes.
UPDATE III: I previously reported, incorrectly, that the House Rules Committee was meeting. There is no official meeting. Instead, top Democrats are conferring on a way forward. But a top House aide tells me she witnessed Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter (D., N.Y.) describe the latest wrinkle as “bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.”
If this will prevent the Senate from proceeding, then GO DEMOCRATS. Take all the time you need.....
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The move probably (probably) signals that the Democrats are short on votes to pass the rule — and hence the bill — and are now scrambling to find them."
Translation: They need to sweeten the pot. Look for some more earmarks to be tacked on. Funding for studies to discover if alcohol impairs the ability to send text messages. Bicycle path beautification projects. Parking meter replacements in inner cities. Funding for studies to discover why there's nothing in a hole, how a road can run both ways, and why they don't broadcast "Amahl and the Night Visitors" on TV at Christmas any more. Hold on to your wallets.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI thought I might end up rooting for Pelosi's bunch, and here I am. Kill this sucker! And, if they succeed, I will smile wide when they get all the blame on 1/1/11 when taxes go up, before the GOP comes in on 1/3/11 and permanently extends current rates.
IF (big if) I didn't know better, I'd think this was a brilliant gambit by McConnell to allow the libs to take blame for tax hikes, and to provide an opportunity for a permanent extension in a few weeks without seeming inflexible now. But he wasn't banking on a concerted revolt by liberals, and I doubt any GOP Senator is that smart.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseO what a tangled web we weave....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is precisely the kind of Byzantine deal making and obfuscation the American public has come to loath and the very reason for the November election result. I hope the TEA party will start targeting Republicans who can't think outside the Beltway just as they did Democrats.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was once appointed the parliamentarian for an organization that was busy destroying itself; only to discover that it was the best job in the world if you wanted to tie everything up in knots... I got a sadistic pleasure about rendering other people helpless, but I had to get over that in order to help the organization "recover."
Roberts Rules of Order--interesting book. I wonder what book they use in the US congress?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wonder what the Congressional approval rating will be down to next week? Do we really PAY these idiots to legislate our lives???
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIsn't Louise Slaughter on The House Rules Committee? Wonder how those new government dentures are working out. Won't somebody please "deem" this bunch unfit for governing? Oh, that's right, we did in November. Jeez louise, (no pun intended), talk about audacity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAn affront to sausage-makers everywhere...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSummary: The Bill has now been elevated to "donkey çrap."
Haha! I couldn't use the original spelling- the comment system says, "Your comment cannot be posted since it contains objectionable language."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe Pelosi will sign for the Democrats as a group and Holder will say that's OK.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Democratic caucus is meeting to construct a new rule that will allow liberals to offer more amendments to register their displeasure."
This is the kind of thing that makes you want to visit your congressman's office for the express purpose of puking on his desk.
And you thought Rep. Alcee Hastings was speaking metaphorically when, during the Obamacare debate, he famously said, "All this talk about rules - we make 'em up as we go along."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhoops, forgot - link that should have been in my previous post: External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI had a hunch Pelosi and the Loser Caucus might screw this up for Obama . . . thank goodness POTUS has put all his political capital on the line for this "bipartisan compromise." If it doesn't pass, that will be the end of his presidency you know!
This lame duck seems historic -- the majority puts off a budget and tax reform til the last possible second (to avoid a beating in the election which they got anyway), then complain that the minority party is holding up START and DREAM and DADTR and a bunch of other non-priority stuff! It would all be hilarious if it wasn't so infuriatingly stoopid.
I hope the general public is picking up on how Dems operate -- they were afraid to do these things before the election, and now can't get them done after. Cowardice + incompetence = exile into the political wilderness (I hope)!
Also an important lesson WHAT NOT TO DO for the party that would like to become the majority again . . .
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, I hope the Dems pass it with all of their changes....
...not because I am a liberal (I'm not), but because it will force a reconsideration in the Senate which will do two important things -
1. The tax deal will fail, Obama will look like the effete feckless non-leader that he is and the Dems will be remembered for allowing the LARGEST TAX HIKE IN HISTORY to happen.
2. As a bonus, the need to reconsider it in the Senate will chew up even more valuable time on the Senate calendar thus keeping the Senate from moving on DREAM, DADT and the Omni-Porkulus Bill. They will be forced to pass a continuing resolution or risk a shutdown in the government....
Go ahead Nancy, amend the tax compromise bill...sounds like a win-win-win all around for conservatives!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusekinggeorge2: "It would all be hilarious if it wasn't so infuriatingly stoopid."
No truer words ever spoken.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy understanding of the situation is that the Democrats will be able to increase the estate tax from the Senate compromise, but, if they do this, they will have to vote for the bill without being able to add any further amendments.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseChuckF,
Any changes at all by the House to the compromise passed in the Senate yesterday will require the bill to go back to the Senate for approval (this is called ping-pong). This will reopen the debate on the bill and require a cloture vote (vote to end debate) before final passage. At this point, the minority holds the power to filibuster it. Because the Democrats used a hollowed out transportation bill and not a proper budget/tax bill as the vehicle to pass this over to the House, it doesn't fall under Reconciliation rules (Byrd Rules) that would allow for a simple majority vote to end debate in the Senate.
The only point to doing this for the liberals in the House would be to force the Republicans to filibuster the bill and then try to paint them as obstructionists, holding the middle class hostage, etc. They lost that argument when Obama decided to cut a deal with Minority Leader McConnell so all this will do is make the President look lame.
Given that the Democrats are in full Circular-Firing-Squad mode and willing to throw each other under the bus, this is entirely likely.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's Bush's fault
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Power Pickle - Wow, I didn't realize that this was technically a transportation bill! The Democrats legislative efforts for the past two years (or should I say four?) go beyond unimpressive, and border on pathetic. The fact that the Obama administration is trying to spin this as a victorious compromise is completely ridiculous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse