• UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        From the article…

        Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, and Rep. Jason T. Smith, a Republican from Missouri who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, crafted the deal at the start of the year and secured passage in the House on a 357-70 vote in the hopes of passing it before the start of tax season. But objections from Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee stalled the bill.

        This week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer finally called a vote, in part to force Republicans to take a public stand on the bill ahead of the November election. Sen. Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, handed out pamphlets to Republican colleagues suggesting that voting in favor of the bill would “give Harris a win before the election.”

        Also a quick reminder that this bill needs 60 votes to pass.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          4 months ago

          Also a quick reminder that this bill needs 60 votes to pass.

          Because Democrats are unwilling to do away with the filibuster for good.

      • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s not how this works lol. Everyone still gets a vote and the ones who voted no were only Republicans

        • doingthestuff@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          I thought Bernie voted no too? And the bill gave like two or three times as much money to rich people via tax breaks? Maybe I’m thinking of the wrong bill. But if it’s the one I’m thinking of, then it was probably a good thing because it was more of a distribution to the wealthy than to the needy.