According to an article in today's Washington Post, the Congressional initiative to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is "faltering before it's even unveiled." The proposal that House Ways and Means chair Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Select Revenue Measures subcommittee chair Richard Neal (D-MA) "had planned to unveil their plan in May [is] not likely to occur before September, if then." The problem is that unless you want to blow a hole somewhere between $800 billion and $1.5 trillion in the budget over the next ten years, you've got to raise a lot of revenue to pay for AMT repeal. You can already hear Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) mouthing the mantra "biggest tax increase in American, no, world, no, galactic history." Actually, Ryan said, "If you have anything close to a marginal district, I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole." That's the kind of leadership that doesn't seem to mind the ever-increasing costs -- $50 billion a year and growing -- of the annual AMT ostrich act, aka, The Patch, holding harmless the tens of millions who would otherwise fall prey to the AMT each year. Which leads to this keen Post quip: One factor complicating Democrats' task is the unusual dynamic involving the minimum tax. Most people don't know they may be facing the tax, so there's hardly a grass-roots outcry for AMT reform. At the same time, those facing tax increases are sure to rebel. Now, by this logic, when, if ever, does it make sense to tackle the AMT problem?