So, my working assumption with the Bush tax cuts was that the House didn’t have the votes to overcome a motion to recommit that would attach tax cuts for the tax rates over $250,000 to any Obama plan on the first $250,000. Enough Democrats have already said they prefer letting all the tax cuts expire for that motion to recommit to succeed. And I assumed that, short of putting the bill on the suspension calendar requiring a 2/3 vote, there was no way to stop that motion to recommit.

I was wrong. David Waldman explains the procedural genius that will result in today’s vote, only on the tax cuts for the first $250,000 of income, by majority vote, without the chance of amendment.

The Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part III was originated in the House and passed back in March. (And remember, if there are going to be revenue provisions in this thing, it has to have originated in the House, so that’s important.) It then went to the Senate, and sat around until September. When it came to the floor, the Senate amended it, passed the amended version, and sent it back to the House.

Now, the House plans to take up the Senate amendment, which it does under a rule governing debate, just as it would with any bill. And if you want to, you can write the rule for the bill to disallow any amendments to it, and that’s just what they’ve done with this one. But writing a rule to disallow a motion to recommit is just not done. It could be done, but it would be a very, very serious infraction against the rights of the minority. So it’s not done.

But guess what? Because this is a bill that’s already passed and left the House, and the only changes in it are Senate-made amendments, it can’t be recommitted, which means there can’t be a motion to recommit. Why not? Well, when a motion to recommit passes, it technically sends a bill back to the committee that reported it out. But this bill has already left the custody of the House when it passed the first time. That material can’t be recommitted, and neither can the Senate material, which was never in the hands of the House committee in the first place. So by definition, it can’t be recommitted. The only thing that can happen is that the House can agree to the Senate amendment, disagree to it, or agree to it with additional amendments. That’s it. No recommittal. And only the amendments the Rules Committee allows.

And what amendment will the Rules Committee allow? An amendment to strip out the current contents of H.R. 4853, and replace it with the new, Middle Class Tax Relief Act.

The Senate isn’t going to be able to pull off quite this trick, but as I noted earlier, if they really wanted to pull off a majority vote on this tax plan, they could run the nuclear option and get it done.

Here’s the point: rules are made to be broken. With sufficient will, you can bend procedure to your advantage. It may be easier in the minority, given Congressional rules, but it’s able to be done in the majority. And the House knows how to do it. For instance, they got the child nutrition bill blocked yesterday, on a motion to recommit. So how are they dealing with that? They’re holding two votes, separately, to dispense with the motion. They did this before on a science and technology bill where they held nine separate votes, isolating the motion to recommit, allowing everyone to pass the silly Republican sand-in-the-gears vote, but still getting the bill passed intact.

There’s always something that can be done. I’ve learned my lesson. Never take “procedure” for an answer.

P.S. On the substance, it should be interesting to see if the House does, then, pass these tax cuts. Will Republicans really vote against a giant tax cut for individuals? Will Blue Dog Democrats?