But both Reuters and The Hill also report that it is unlikely that Democrats will have the "60 votes" required to pass the legislation.
Democrats will need to win the support of at least one Republican to reach the 60 vote threshold needed to advance legislation in the 100-seat Senate. That appears unlikely at this point, Democrats have said.
Let's ignore the absurd fact that that when Democrats hold a majority in the Senate, it is taken as a given that 60 votes is automatically required to advance any legislation.
What we are talking about here is a partial extension of the Bush era tax cuts. Neither the 2001 nor 2003 Bush tax cuts had 60 votes in the Senate. Both pieces of legislation were passed via reconciliation, which only requires a simple majority.
So why on earth wouldn't Democrats use reconciliation to extend the tax cuts, minus the portion for the wealthy?
Is it somehow not possible procedurally? I really would like to know the answer. Can anyone this shed some light on this?