Given that columnist Paul Krugman relied on Tax Policy Center estimates to level claims that Congressman Paul Ryan is a “flimflam man” and that Ryan’s plan to address our fiscal problems is a “fraud,” I think a defense of the Congressman is in order.

Those who would extend all of the Bush tax cuts, including for the highest-earners, are zeroing in what would happen to small business if Congress lets those top tax rates rise. And they are not subtle. Allowing top rates to increase would be a “job-killing tax hike” says Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

Washington is about to spend months trying to answer the wrong question. Instead of reprising their partisan, tiresome, and largely unproductive argument about what to do with the Bush tax cuts, President Obama and Congress ought to be asking a very different question: How do we build a tax system capable of generating the revenues we need to fund the government we want in the most efficient and fair way possible?

If you think this year’s battles over health care, stimulus, climate change, and financial regulation have been nasty, just wait ‘til Washington tackles the Bush tax cuts. Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill say they will consider the fate of those tax cuts--due to expire at year's end-- just before the congressional elections. That will set up a high-stakes brawl on a political and economic high-wire.

In a Washington Times column today, two Heritage Foundation researchers argue that the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act is a trillion dollar government bailout waiting to happen. The CLASS Act is a national voluntary long-term care insurance program that was included in the new health care law. And to listen to the authors, you’d think CLASS will make Fannie Mae look like a Salvation Army Christmas kettle.

Senator John Kyl’s (R-AZ) recent insistance that tax cuts should “never” be offset with tax increases got me thinking about the governing philosophy behind this argument. In part, it is based on the idea that tax cuts are always good for the economy while tax increases are always bad. I’ll leave that one for another day, and instead focus on a second premise: The best way to cut government spending is to cut revenues.

Kudos to Marty Feldstein, who this morning called for scaling back tax expenditures. These are highly-targeted tax breaks that are often little more than spending programs in mufti. Lawmakers of both parties love them, which is why they will reduce federal revenues this year by nearly $1 trillion, equal to almost the entire federal deficit.

When President Obama proposed to cap the value of itemized deductions at 28 percent, the philanthropic sector came out foursquare against the idea, claiming that it would decimate charitable contributions. Cutting the tax savings from gifts to charities for high-income taxpayers would raise the after-tax cost of giving and lead people to give less. For taxpayers in the 35 percent top tax bracket, the cost of giving away a dollar would jump 10 percent from 65 cents to 72 cents (ignoring any state tax savings). That would lead to perhaps a 2 percent drop in giving—about $9 billion. (Len Burman explained the math in TaxVox last year.)

What should Congress do about the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year? That question is going to absorb much of Washington’s attention through the fall and—if present hyper-partisan trends continue—perhaps even beyond. On Wednesday, the Senate Finance Committee kicked off the coming drama by bringing in a group of tax experts to set the stage.

If Social Security reform is political dynamite, the battle over whether to raise the retirement age may be the fuse. I got a hint of the passion behind this issue at an Urban Institute panel I moderated yesterday on Capitol Hill. In recent weeks, both Steny Hoyer (D-MD), who is the number #2 House Democrat, and John Boehner (R-OH), the top House Republican, have put the idea on the table. Ah, you say, there is finally bipartisan support for something in Washington. Not so fast. Both are far out on a legislative limb with little public support from fellow lawmakers.