U.S. Rep. John Boehner's apparent flirtation with bipartisanship lasted about 24 hours. A cynic would say that's how long it took the Ohio Republican to realize he might be lynched by his GOP colleagues if he persisted in suggesting a compromise with the Obama administration on tax policy.

Last Sunday, Boehner said he would vote for President Obama's plan to extend tax cuts for households earning less than $250,000 a year if he had no other choice. The last six words in that sentence were lost in translation for many. To be fair, Boehner added that the better choice would be extending all of the Bush cuts, but even a reluctant hint that he'd vote for the Obama plan if backed into a corner drew shock and awe. We're not used to seeing that kind of pragmatism from GOP congressional leaders.

Boehner regained his partisan footing on Monday with this statement: "Republicans are unified: To boost our economy, we need to stop all tax hikes and cut spending now." That's more like what we've come to expect from the powerful congressman, who may well be the next majority leader if the GOP gains control of the House. Democrats pounced on the inconsistency, making much more of the flip-flop than it deserved.

To understand Boehner's apparent willingness to deal, it's worth considering the political challenges for the GOP, which preaches deficit reduction at the same time it supports extending tax cuts that were written in 2001 and 2003 with an expiration date of 2010.

Because all of the tax cuts will expire in the absence of congressional action, simply filibustering away any type of extension is a no-win for Republicans. If they block Obama and the Democrats from proceeding with a partial extension (to all but the wealthy), they can be blamed for standing against tax relief for the majority of Americans -- about 97 percent, in fact.

What has too often been missing from the politically charged debate is analysis of what the best policy decision might be for a country that is still trying to recover from a deep recession while staring at huge budget deficits.

A refreshingly pragmatic solution has been offered up by economist Tom Gallagher, senior managing director of International Strategy and Investment in Washington. In a commentary he wrote for the Economist's website, Gallagher proposed extending the Bush rates for the top two brackets for one year (through 2011) and for the bottom four brackets for three years (through 2013).

The obvious goal would be to buy time for an economic recovery that can ill-afford the impact of higher federal taxes. But the real beauty of the proposal is that it would unlink the top two and bottom four brackets, meaning that some version of the Obama plan would kick in automatically for 2012, when the economy should be better able to withstand the impact.

Gallagher's plan would force a debate about the deficit the year after the next presidential election, by which time political and economic conditions might improve enough for the nation to turn its attention -- finally -- to meaningful deficit reduction.

It should be clear to Republicans and Democrats that it must be a question only of when, not if, this country will get serious about the deficit and about revising the highly flawed federal tax code. Extending the Bush cuts in the manner that Gallagher suggests would give the recovery some breathing room, but not getting serious about deficit reduction as soon as possible is a prescription for long-term stagnation.