December 16th, 2010
05:16 PM ET

Procedural snag delays House vote on tax deal

[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/POLITICS/12/15/government.funding/t1larg.capitol.building.gi.jpg caption="Liberal Democrats are pushing for changes in the tax package." width=300 height=169]

Deirdre Walsh

Washington (CNN) - The House of Representatives moved toward a final vote Thursday night on the $858 billion tax deal negotiated by the White House and top Senate Republicans after an argument among Democrats over possible amendments delayed consideration for several hours.

The bill, which cleared the Senate 81-19 on Wednesday, was expected to win approval eventually, despite strong objections from both the left and the right. Among other things, House liberals remain strongly opposed to what they argue is a deficit-exploding giveaway to the rich in the form of a lower estate tax.

A procedural snag earlier Thursday forced House Democratic leaders to pull the bill from consideration over concerns they lacked support on how the debate would proceed under rules they had set. The House then went into indefinite recess as liberal Democrats seeking changes to the bill huddled with party leaders to work out a solution.

Eventually, debate resumed on a new set of rules that would allow the House to vote on a proposed change to the controversial estate tax provision, and then on the full bill itself. If the House passes the measure with no changes, it goes to President Barack Obama to be signed into law.

Full story

Updated 7:04 p.m.

Filed under: 360° Radar • 360º Follow • Deirdre Walsh • Raw Politics
soundoff (6 Responses)
  1. Susan

    Certain bills won't pass due to the many rich and corrupted congress men/women who don't have to work a 40 or more hour a week. I'd love to have their cushy job with benefits. All Americans should receive their benefits!

    December 17, 2010 at 11:41 am |
  2. mondi

    So what law protects the professionals who went back to graduate school, graduated and are not eligible for unemployment for the past 2 years?

    December 17, 2010 at 12:46 am |
  3. bob from Oregon

    I hear the people making over 250,000 a year say they want a tax cut also. don't they get the same tax cuts on the first 250,000. And if we don't give a tax cut then we aren't raising the taxes we just aren't getting a tax cut. I wish they would state it correct.

    December 17, 2010 at 12:07 am |
  4. Bobby

    In regards to the Republican and the two Democrats arguing about whether the economy was better under Bush or Clinton here's my comment. Using numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics I've figured up the average the two former presidents had while in office including the percentage during their last month in office. Clinton's unemployment average was 5.2% while Bush's was 5.5%. However, one must remember that Clinton took over while the economy was expanding while Bush took over while it was on it's last leg. While Bush got unemployment lower faster than Bill Clinton he never got to the low percentage that Clinton did.

    December 16, 2010 at 8:57 pm |
  5. Steve

    Its a real shame that these so called elected officaks. Are acting like a bunch of damm kids. My 5yr old has more sense than these idiots!!! So far there about 2-3 million people whos benefits have run out and more on they way. And all these idiots are fighting like kids. Yes Im one on those whos benefits ran out and NO my 5 yr old WONT behaving a christmas. I wish I coild get these idiots in washington to explain to my 5 yr old why there wont be any presents this yr. I hate being on unemployment, but doing construction has dried up. So at 47 I find myself in school learning a new career. Now no benefits thats even in danger of ending. YAAAA Washington Thanks for NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!

    December 16, 2010 at 8:28 pm |
  6. alice

    No surprise.... they should not only work Christmas but New Years as well. No they don't need a full staff, work with a smaller staff. They are a bunch of Jokers.

    December 16, 2010 at 6:42 pm |