In a column published in The Hill today, House Ways and Means chair Charles Rangel (D-NY) reprises the case for AMT reform. He points out that, without reform or another set of hold harmless "patches": ...working families making under $100,000 are increasingly more likely to pay the tax than those making more than a million dollars. This amounts to an average $3,600 tax increase that will hit one out of every three taxpayers. This would amount to one of the biggest tax increases on the middle class in the history of our country. What he didn't write, and didn't revealed to reporters until later today, is that the time line on his planned AMT reform legislation has slipped into June, instead of his previous and oft-stated goal of around Memorial Day. This despite these remarks by subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures chair Rep. Richard E. Neal (D-MA) last week: "We've reached consensus. We're ready to go." Neal indicated that no couple with annual income below $250,000, $125,000 for singles, would pay the AMT again and that he would also index the tax for inflation, going forward. But the details beyond that make the scale and complexity of the Rangel/Neal bill staggering. Rangel expresses his belief -- in the final sentence of the article -- "that a bipartisan consensus can be reached that is both revenue-neutral and provides tax relief for millions of American families." 'Revenue neutrality' is a laudable goal but hard to hold to: he and Neal will need to find hundreds of billions of dollars in new revenue. And Neal's note that the forthcoming proposal is "going to be more encompassing than just addressing the issue of the AMT; it will be a bit more ambitious," hinting that it may involve EITC and the child care tax credit expansion, suggests exponentially increased complexity. So coming soon means June. For now.