That seems to sum up (as of this writing, which is shortly before the Super Committee deadline) the rather expected results of the work of said Super Committee.

It isn’t as though many people expected them to get to their set targets or to the target the Go Big crew wanted them to get to. Republicans wanted to treat this exercise as a way to cut more taxes for their wealthy funders, even though Democrats did show up with some cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. And even though the media will be doing their both sides do it dance today (they were doing it over the weekend), an honest look at this thing shows that Democrats showed up to govern while Republicans showed up to get more goodies for their pals. They’ll point to a completely bogus deal where the GOP would trade some small increase in revenues in trade for making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Which, if you just think about the math for a minute, *still* leaves a pretty big hole in the budget that they didn’t do anything to fill.

But E.J. Dionne last week wrote about how to get $7.1 trillion in budgetary savings — and it is as easy as doing nothing. Absolutely nothing — which should be a position right up this Congress’ alley — and should be something of a comfort to those who keep screaming about the crisis of the budget. And how many times to you get to deal with a crisis by doing nothing?

How it works:

Budget experts agree that federal budget deficits and debt will grow to unacceptable levels in coming years and decades if policymakers do not make changes in current policies. What’s also true, but less widely discussed, is that, under current law, changes in current policies that would reduce deficits to acceptable levels will take place unless Congress intervenes to stop that from occurring. That is, Congress can reduce deficits to acceptable levels simply by not passing certain new legislation.

The savings:

● $3.3 trillion from letting temporary income and estate tax cuts enacted in 2001, 2003, 2009, and 2010 expire on scheduled at the end of 2012 (presuming Congress also lets relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax expire, as noted below);
● $0.8 trillion from allowing other temporary tax cuts (the “extenders” that Congress has regularly extended on a “temporary” basis) expire on scheduled;
● $0.3 trillion from letting cuts in Medicare physician reimbursements scheduled under current law (required under the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula enacted in 1997, but which have been postponed since 2003) take effect;
● $0.7 trillion from letting the temporary increase in the exemption amount under the Alternative Minimum Tax expire, thereby returning the exemption to the level in effect in 2001;
● $1.2 trillion from letting the sequestration of spending required if the Joint Committee does not produce $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction take effect; and
● $0.9 trillion in lower interest payments on the debt as a result of the deficit reduction achieved from not extending these current policies.

And as E.J. notes, all of these cuts may not be the smart ones. But $7.1 trillion in savings by not doing anything should make the deficit hawks very happy. Watch, however, how they’ll all come out of the woodwork to argue against the sequestration (and the 10% defense cuts) and argue against the Bush tax cuts. Meaning that they really don’t care much about resolving the budget problem, that they don’t believe in the “balanced and fair approach” and that all they are doing is fighting over what special interests get the greatest amount of tax dollars sent to them.

While I’m at it, bonus points for journalists who ask politicians about the essential disconnect between screaming for budget cuts, but getting set up to restore alot of this stuff in 2012.