Draft recommendations for deficit-reducing savings from the House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats contain few surprises, tacking left to the president’s position on many policy items but holding firm on not cutting government programs without increasing revenue.

They are preparing a letter to the super committee that has been meeting to find ways to fix the deficit and which is set to reconvene behind closed doors at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday.

Many of the recommendations will not trigger actual savings. Instead, the letter is a marker for liberal Democrats, fulfilling a Friday deadline for all House and Senate committees to propose ways to reach $1.2 trillion in cuts. Staff for House Energy and Commerce Democrats did not immediately return requests for comment.

“I want to emphasize that any product of the Joint Select Committee must be balanced across spending and revenue accounts. Significant cuts in spending have already been enacted this year through the appropriations process and the Budget Control Act,” wrote Energy and Commerce ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

“As a result, the majority of the $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion in additional deficit reduction the Joint Select Committee is considering should be composed of revenues to balance the spending cuts already enacted.”

President Obama promised to veto any package that did not increase government revenues in an effort to save $1.2 trillion, but Republicans have not relented in refusing all tax increases.

On health savings, Waxman wants the super committee to hold off on asking Medicare beneficiaries to pay more for their care, something Obama has backed in his own deficit-reduction plans.

“Proposals that shift costs to states or to beneficiaries do not control health care costs; they merely shift around the burden to less-privileged groups that are less able to defend their interests,” Waxman wrote.

Waxman also asked the super committee to reject any changes to Medicaid that might force states to spend more money on the health program for the poor and disabled, including an Obama administration “blended rate” proposal that would change how federal Medicaid dollars per state are calculated.

The largest cost-saver recommended by Waxman would require pharmaceutical companies to go back to paying a rebate for drugs provided to seniors who are on both Medicare and Medicaid. Currently, pharmaceutical companies only pay the rebate for Medicaid beneficiaries. Waxman says that would save $135 billion over 10 years. That proposal will be roundly opposed by Republicans.

Waxman also said any Medicare savings must be used to permanently fix the perennial Medicare doctor’s pay problem, known as the “doc fix,” but does not give specifics on how that should be done. A permanent repeal of the sustainable-growth rate formula used to calculate doctor’s pay is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost upwards of $300 billion, making the super committee's already difficult task of cutting $1.2 trillion even tougher.

The proposal also included three relatively minor energy policies that Democrats say would create jobs without hefty price tags.

The super committee is unlikely to pursue any of these policy recommendations, which all passed the House last Congress, for both cost reasons and GOP opposition to more clean-energy and environmental policies. The recommendations are nonetheless important because they show how much House Democrats have lowered their expectations about what they expect this Congress to pass compared to the 111th session, which included a close vote passing legislation that placed a price on climate-change pollution.

The Democrats suggest the committee pursue legislation that would give rebates to homeowners to make their homes more energy-efficient. The bill passed the House in May 2010, but it never mustered enough support in the Senate, largely because of its $6 billion cost.

The Democrats also suggest the committee pursue two other measures the Democrat-controlled House passed last Congress but that never gained traction in the Senate. One proposal would establish a Clean Energy Technology and Manufacturing and Export Assistance Fund to help American businesses export clean-energy technologies. This would cost $67 million between 2011 and 2015, according to the Congressional Budget Office estimates from last Congress.

The other would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to increase assistance for states and strengthen the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to enforce requirements of the act. This bill would authorize an additional $5 billion for EPA. For that reason alone, this policy recommendation is unlikely to be adopted by the super committee.