I've written before on the Internet Tax Freedom Act and the unwillingness of Congressional Democratic leaders to schedule a vote on legislation supported by a strong, bipartisan majority in Congress. Now Congressional Quarterly reports that House Democrats are using a procedural trick to prevent the House from permanently barring internet taxes--even though that bill is sponsored by 55 percent of the House!

House leaders are using a looming deadline and procedural heavy-handedness to thwart the will of nearly 240 House members who support a permanent ban on Internet-access taxes, some supporters of the ban say.

Democratic leaders have scheduled a vote Tuesday on a bill (HR 3678) that would extend for four years the existing ban on taxing Internet access, which is scheduled to expire Nov. 1.

Although supporters of making the tax ban permanent almost certainly would have enough votes to amend the bill more to their liking, it is scheduled for consideration under suspension of the rules, a procedure that bars amendments and is usually reserved for less controversial legislation.

“Basically, what the Democratic leadership has said is, ‘Here’s four years, take it or leave it,’ ” said Republican Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia, cosponsor of a bill that would permanently ban Internet-access taxes...

“If we had an opportunity to bring up Eshoo’s bill as a substitute amendment or as a motion to recommit, it would pass overwhelmingly,” Goodlatte said...

The Judiciary Committee approved the Conyers bill, 38-0, on Oct. 10. The unanimous vote followed a short-lived victory by Goodlatte, whose amendment to extend the moratorium for eight years was adopted, 20-18. The amendment was later defeated, 17-22, on a revote called by Conyers.

So a clear majority of the House backs a permanent ban, the committee of jurisdiction voted for an 8-year ban proposed by a Republican, and Democratic leaders force a re-vote, browbeat Members into changing position, and now muscle a temporary ban to the floor in 'take it or leave it' style? This is a a stunning abuse from leaders who promised an open and bipartisan process.

It also calls to mind Speaker Pelosi's promises of 2007--when she was campaigning to win the majority. At that time she said that leaders should not use procedure to deprive the House from working its will. So important was this principle that as Speaker she said, she would 'absolutely' be willing to lose votes if her position was in the minority. Apparently not.