Center for American Progress' John Irons recently wrote an interesting column describing various important budget and economic issues we are currently facing such as the estate tax, entitlement and discretionary cuts, and the cutting of health care for low-income earners. Irons' column suggests that while the fight to save Social Security is important, it is perhaps a tactic being used by the administration to shift some focus and attention away from important budget and economic issues, and on to Social Security. The column can be read here.

Today the CBO released a major report on Social Security, analyzing the effects various proposals to shore up Social Security would have on the program's projected financing, and the impact of proposals on changes in lifetime benefits for workers of various ages. The report was released in conjunction with various hearings on the issue this week. The Senate Finance Committee held a hearing today on solvency. Witness Douglas Holtz-Eakin of the CBO said the new analysis shows low-income earners will do better under progressive indexing than they do under current law; however ranking member Max Baucus (D-MT) was skeptical, saying "Once you look at the details, I think it becomes clear that these three new options cut benefits for Social Security beneficiaries far too deeply. We need to scour all other ideas for improving Social Security's long-run finances." The House Ways and Means Subcommittee continues to hold hearings as well. They are scheduled to hold another hearing May 26, during which subcommittee members will hear from different Congressmen on their specific plans for reform. Rep. Shaw (R-FL), along with others, will testify. Subcommittee Chairman Jim McCrery (R-LA) has stated that key House lawmakers will be ready to write Social Security legislation by July 1. Whether or not they actually choose to write it, he said, "is a political question." In the meantime President Bush continues to tour the country speaking on behalf of Social Security reform and specifically private benefits accounts, despite the fact that many reform experts have stated that he should back away from his push for private accounts. On the same issue, some Congressmen involved in the recent Senate compromise over judicial nominees and the nuclear option are suggesting that this spirit of bipartisanship may spill over into Senate work on immigration and Social Security issues. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR), stated the compromise could "lead to us working through an agreement on Social Security and immigration," and added, "There are a lot of other issues pending out there. It feels awfully good to work together."

Senate tax writers plan to introduce legislation this week that would repeal the unpopular alternative minimum tax. The bill, to be offered by Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley, ranking panel Democrat Max Baucus of Montana, Jon Kyl, (R-AZ), and Ron Wyden, (D-OR), will propose eliminating the tax, known as the AMT, effective January 1, 2006. It is unlikely to pass this year, however. President Bush wants the issue to be considered as part of a broad tax overhaul debate, which will most likely occur next year. Repealing the AMT would cost at least $600 billion over 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office estimated last year. The tax is expected to bring in $15 billion in the current fiscal year. Rep. Phil English, R-Pa., also introduced repeal legislation (HR 1186) in March. But congressional Republicans are expected to push a one-year extension of expanded AMT exemptions that expire this year rather than permanent repeal.