To the extent there was a deal between Senate Democrats and Republicans over which tax cut proposals would get brought to a vote — and it is probably better described as a tenuous agreement in principle written in invisible ink on toilet paper rather than a deal — it has fallen apart. That means Harry Reid now has to go through the cumbersome and lengthy procedural machinations to bring the two Democratic proposals to a vote. Remember, Democrats want to vote on extending tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income and on the first $1 million of income. Neither of which, I should hasten to point out, is expected to pass.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) voted against censure for Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), one of two Republicans to vote against censure.

The other was Rep. Don Young (R-AK).

Amazon responds to Wikileaks controversy, says it wasn’t Joe Lieberman who got them to terminate the Wikileaks account. It was just that Wikileaks had violated their terms of service.

Reid spokesman Jim Manley confirms that the Senate will hold four tax cut votes tomorrow — two Democratic-sponsored plans, two Republican-sponsored plans.

We’re being told that Senate Democrats will force a vote on the middle class tax cut bill just passed by the House — as well as hold a vote on a separate bill to extend the Bush tax cuts for those with income below $1 million.

By a final vote of 332-79, the House has voted to censure Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY).

TPM Reader MM asks:

I’m afraid we need TPM to explain the difference. We’re political junkies but we’re not that into it. I mean… are there actual consequences or are these harsh looks?

Reprimand is harsh looks. Censure is harsh looks with finger wagging.

Sen. Lieberman (I-CT) works on getting other Internet service providers to drop Wikileaks.

The House just defeated an amendment to reprimand Charlie Rangel, 146-267, and has moved on to a vote on censure.

The vote is not yet final, but already enough yea votes by a wide margin to censure Rangel.

TPM Reader DB fights the good fight to get his local paper to understand how the tax code works …

I’m in a feud with the local paper over the exact nature of the tax cut the house just passed. The tax cut is extended *for all Americans* on their first 250,000 correct? It’s not as is typically reported that the tax cut is only for familes making less than 250,000. I mean, a family making 275,000 will still enjoy the tax cut on the first 250, right? My local daily is wanting to dispute that notion on the ground that “that’s not how the AP reports it.” I think this is a huge distinction, improperly handled by most media reports, but maybe it’s me that’s got this one wrong?

I was actually mulling a post yesterday about how much tax politics is driven by people not understanding how marginal tax rates work.

Just so we’re all clear, under this plan everyone in the country would pay lower rates on the first $250,000 of income. Bill Gates would get the same tax cut on his first $250,000 of income as everyone else.

The Rangel ethics matter is now on the House floor. Ethics Committee Chair Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) is presenting the case against Rangel now.

Rangel supporters are now moving for reprimand, trying to head off the censure recommended by the Ethics Committee.

The House is voting now on the motion to amend the sanction from censure to a reprimand.