Our dilemma – just put it off until the year 2013

Now, what would you pay?
But, wait, there's more!

Washington – The dilemma: They made a deal to reduce the debt by cutting spending by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

It's a super idea for a super committee. You kind of wonder whatever happened to the U.S. Constitution's concept of how to spend that cash, but – whatever. That's for old fuddy duddies, control freaks and – you know – sticklers for the way things are supposed to be.

Now, for the good news.

They can't come up with a deal.

No joke.

If you raise taxes by closing loopholes, it would anger the conservative base. If you cut spending by reducing entitlement benefits, you risk raising the ire of the liberal base.

Either way, Congressional approval ratings are so low, they're out of sight.

So - stand by to stand by – the deal is this.

Let's just put it off until after the elections?

Yeah. When the nightly news was safely in bed on the east coast, the L.A. Times broke the story just in time for the Friday night broadcasts no one watches in Tinseltown, the Gay Bay, el Logorithmo de Portland, and Seattle.

Writing in ceramics in the dialect of high glaze, “Roll Call” led with “President Barack Obama called the co-chairmen of the super committee today and warned them he would block efforts to partially defuse automatice spending cuts if they fail to cut a deal on deficit reduction.”

Well, that's one way of putting it. Steven T. Dennis of the "Roll Call Staff" updated his story at 7:10 p.m. Some poker game, huh? Gin? Spades? Something like that.

The L.A. “Times” was a little more direct, running a subhead that read this way: “Rather than risk stark failure, the congressional panel could decide now on only the outline of a deal, deferring the tougher calls until after the 2012 election.

Lisa Mascaro, “Reporting from Washington,” led with “With time and compormise slipping out of reach, the congressional 'super committee' may punt its toughest deficit decisions to next year rather than strike a deal that would enrage both parties' political bases heading into the 2012 election.”

The compromise would involve a complicated scheme that would require both sides to agree now to a level of revenue from new taxes.

From there, the Super Committee – kind of sounds like a dusty little group of Marvel comic book superhero alter egos – would have the tax writing committees “revamp” the tax code with “fixed dates and goals” and “generate new revenue while lowering corporate rates and keeping the top individual bracket no higher than the current 35%.”

This way, la Mascaro explains to the world, they could avoid costly “failure (which) could roil the financial markets as the holiday shopping season begins and further trash the already record-low approval ratings for Congress.”

Ho. Ho. Ho. And a happy New Year to you, too.

Question: Whatever happened to all that tough talk we heard during the run-up to the elections of 2012?