Now that the Super Committee has failed — or succeeded — by doing nothing, the media are starting to notice that doing nothing would slash the federal deficits far more that anything the Committee, Catfood Commissions or White House have been proposing.

Washington was buzzing yesterday about a Washington Post story detailing the cost of the Afghanistan conflict, and how that may be a constraint on continuing the war. First of all, I don’t really believe this….just read some of the quotes, from hawks like Howard Berman and Norm Dicks, in that piece. They’re not talking about wasted funds, they’re talking about a war that has failed. And they’ve consciously shifted toward getting out.

Obama will present four buckets: keeping domestic spending low, cutting defense, “reforming” Medicare and Medicaid, and reforming the tax code. And this will all build off of Bowles-Simpson, which shared much of these ideas. The details are important, but they won’t really be discussed today. An administration official said that “The president will make clear that while we all share the goal of reducing our deficit and putting our nation back on a fiscally responsible path, his vision is one where we can live within our means without putting burdens on the middle class and seniors or impeding our ability to invest in our future.” The watchword is “balance.” As in, there’s a good way to cut the safety net and a bad way, and we have to put in place the good way.

The President created the cat food commission, reviving it after it failed in the Senate. The Ryan blueprint, with its design to deliberately tweak programs liberals hold dear, was clearly going to be something that turned the Bowles-Simpson plan, which did not get a passing vote from the commission, as the bipartisan baseline. There’s certainly enough to read into Chris Van Hollen’s tacit approval to suggest that this will happen tomorrow. Yet this would be a pre-emptive surrender, and a needless one at that.

What you have to understand about this is that Republicans are frauds. They don’t want to cut the budget deficit, they want to cut programs that liberals like. Nothing we’re arguing over in this budget fight costs even 1/10th as much as the tax cut deal from last December. So Republicans will not want to broaden the conversation. That would mean they’d have to reduce subsidies to their favorite industries, or cut defense spending, or (gasp!) raise revenues.

Consumed by fear, Garin insists that Democrats play on the Republican’s side of the field, and try to out-cut them. The implications for real people doesn’t really matter in this game.

Responding to the Obama Administration’s apparent decision to cut Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funding, Larry Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute says that progressives “are losing the argument at a higher level” about the budget in general, putting all programs and services at risk.

It’s completely different to support raising the retirement age, which is mainly a benefit cut and an attack on workers in menial labor jobs who cannot hold out the way someone sitting at a desk can, than it is to “consider all options, including raising the age,” according to Hoyer. I’m not sure it’s so different, really.

We’ve officially gone around the bend. That’s right, the organizing project of the Democratic National Committee wants you to organize in support of freezing public worker salaries.

The freak show has come to staid, pedestrian Delaware, in the form of Christine O’Donnell and her litany of crazy. But while the national media and late-night comics focus on condoms, masturbation and witchcraft, the man who is likely to become the next Senator from the state has quietly gone about his business. I had the opportunity to talk with Coons about the race, the O’Donnell madness, and his specific positions on issues he could face shortly in the Senate.