This doesn't happen very often. In their lead editorials today, both the Wall Street Journal and New York Times agreed on a fiscal policy proposal, sort of. Both newspapers gave their tentative approval to the so-called "Gang of Six" proposal that would grapple with the nation's growing debt problem and, potentially, win the Repuublican votes necessary to raise the debt ceiling and avoid, in the words of the WSJ, "a fiscal crack-up and a debt downgrade."WSJ editorial emphasizes lowered tax rates and suggests the proposal "could be by far the most pro-growth tax change since the 1980s." Meanwhile the NY Times editorial points to "at least $1 trillion in new tax revenues by eliminating and reducing tax breaks and deductions."

The NY Times considers it a chance to "avert disaster."

Somewhat disconcertingly, at times it sounds like the two newspapers are talking about two different plans. The

What this suggests is that it is not a plan at all, but an outline so broad that editorial staffs on either end of the political spectrum can project in it their own ideological desires. The Times calls it "really more a collection of talking points than a budget plan" containing "highly dubious provisions."

The WSJ cautions that it could turn into good policy only "if -- and this is a big if -- its inviting generalities can be matched by useful details."

But with two ideological opponents finding things to like, and certainly dislike, in the conceptual proposal, it suggests it could lead to substantive policy. But that can't happen by Aug. 2, the deadline to avoid debt-ceiling Armageddon. That's why President Obama is now willing to OK a short-term deal to buy time and work out the details of a grand compromise.

Can it happen? The WSJ put it well: "Maybe, just maybe."