As Congress struggles to find a compromise between the House Republicans’ and the Senate Democrats’ budget proposals this week, the House conservatives have jumped into the fray with their own budget proposal. The Republican Study Committee (RSC), helmed by Chairman Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) released an even more radical plan than the official House Republican budget, which disproportionately guts programs for low-income Americans while giving even bigger tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. The RSC budget purports to eliminate the deficit in just 4 years and limit total discretionary spending to $950 billion, the lowest level since 2008. In order to achieve this goal, the RSC cuts non-defense spending by $6 billion over four years, while the GOP budget slows spending growth over the same period.

Here are 5 of the most extreme proposals in the budget from the RSC, of which roughly two-thirds of Republicans in Congress are members:

1. Raise the retirement age to 70. The RSC budget would delay eligibility for Medicare and Social Security benefits to age 70, while calculating cost-of-living adjustments using chained CPI, which cuts benefits by $1300 a year for each recipient. Raising the eligibility age for Medicare would force seniors to pay $11.4 billion in extra costs.

2. Reinstate Bush tax cuts. Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans have greatly exacerbated income inequality while doing little for economic growth. As such, President Obama allowed the tax cuts for people making over $450,000 a year to expire at the end of 2012. The RSC would reintroduce those tax cuts, eliminating $823 billion in revenue and adding $950 billion back into the deficit over ten years.

3. Freeze all spending for four years. In order to meet the fantastical goal of eliminating the deficit in four years, the RSC budget would cap all discretionary spending to $950 billion, allegedly close to 2008 spending levels but actually around $100 billion less when adjusted for inflation. It would then freeze all discretionary spending at that level until 2017, when the budget would supposedly be balanced.

4. Eliminates the National Labor Relations Board, the National Endowment for the Arts, and Public Broadcasting. The RSC budget entirely does away with the NLRB, which oversees labor practices, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which the budget states is a “government-supported media outlet” against the principles of “a free society,” and the National Endowment for the Arts, which is “an inappropriate function of the federal government and is nowhere justified in the Constitution.”

5. Repeal Obamacare. The House has wasted more than 30 votes trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, undeterred by public opinion or a Supreme Court decision. Still, the RSC budget would repeal Obamacare, kicking more than 30 million Americans off their insurance and once again allowing insurance companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.

Last year, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and his radical House budget rode a wave of conservative popularity all the way to a spot on the Republican Party’s presidential ticket. Six months and one resounding electoral defeat later, Ryan’s popularity has collapsed and even his Republican allies are disavowing his ‘cut first, ask questions later’ approach to the federal budget. And yet for the third straight year, Ryan has put forth a plan that would gut Medicare for future beneficiaries, reduce spending on programs that primarily benefit low-income women and children, protect tax loopholes for oil companies and Wall Street banks, and lower taxes on millionaires and billionaires.

Last week, Democrats unveiled a budget proposal of their own, one that stands in stark contrast to the plan put forth by House Republicans. Here’s a quick look at the key differences between Sen. Patty Murray’s (D-WA) proposal and Ryan’s:

The House Republican budget’s vast spending cuts are overwhelmingly aimed at low-income Americans, so much so that nearly two-thirds of its budget cuts would come from poverty programs that aid the neediest people in the nation, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), the plan’s author, claims his budget will cut a total $4.6 trillion in spending by using a baseline that includes current policies like the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration, among other policies. By counting those cuts and other policies that are unlikely to remain in tact, CBPP estimates that the House Republican plan would cut even more — a total of $5 trillion. Of that, 66 percent of the cuts — a total of $3.3 trillion — would come from programs that help low-income Americans, CBPP found:

This version of the House GOP plan cuts even more from low-income programs than the 2012 version, which found 62 percent of its cuts from similar sources. That version was even more draconian than its predecessor, meaning Ryan’s budgets have gotten more devastating for the poor each year.

The social safety net keeps millions of Americans out of poverty each year, but the House GOP plan seeks to convert many of them, including food stamps, into block grants to states that follow the model of the 1996 welfare reform law that has failed to help children and families in poverty, particularly during and after the Great Recession. At the same time, Ryan’s plan provides $5.7 trillion in tax cuts aimed largely at the wealthy and corporations. Under his proposal, the average millionaire would see a tax cut of at least $200,000.

The new report from Pew on modern parenthood is filled with important data about how Americans are handling a variety of work and family issues. Reading through the report, the most glaring conclusion for progressives is that unmarried mothers are in dire financial straits, facing much worse economic conditions than most other people in America.   Look at this table:

A full 61 percent of unmarried mothers report income of less than $30,000 per year.  In contrast, a roughly similar proportion (62 percent) of married mothers report family incomes of $50,000 or more annually.   What does this mean for single mothers? As this chart highlights, it means the recession really crushed them and they need decent-paying, full-time jobs:

Nearly half of unmarried mothers in 2012 said that their ideal situation would be to work full time (49 percent) — almost double the percentage from 2007 (26 percent).  The percentage of married mothers reporting a desire for full time work also increased but at a much lower rate (23 percent in 2012 vs. 17 percent in 2007).  Pew also finds that among working moms, “there is a significant gap between those who are married and unmarried in terms of the value they place on having a high-paying job. Only 26 percent of those who are married say this is extremely important to them personally, while 39 percent of those who are unmarried say having a high paying job is extremely important.”

Read more

The latest House Republican budget would grant taxpayers with incomes above $1 million at least $200,000 in tax cuts even if the GOP closes tax loopholes to help pay for the plan, according to an analysis from Citizens for Tax Justice.

The GOP plan, authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), aims to reduce the top income tax rate to 25 percent and repeals many other taxes on the rich, including the Alternative Minimum Tax and increases included in Obamacare. Ryan wants to pay for the tax cut by closing loopholes and ending tax expenditures. The budget didn’t specify which loopholes and expenditures would be eliminated, but even if all of them that benefit the rich were done away with (except for preferences for capital gains and other investments, which Ryan has said he will keep), the budget would grant millionaires a tax cut in excess of $200,000. If it doesn’t eliminate loopholes, the tax cut would only grow larger, CTJ found:

In fact, under Ryan’s plan taxpayers with income exceeding $1 million in 2014 would receive an average net tax decrease of over $200,000 that year even if they had to give up all of their tax expenditures. These taxpayers would see an even larger net tax decrease if Congress failed to limit or eliminate enough tax expenditures to offset the costs of the proposed tax cuts.

Like former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Ryan insists that his plan will simultaneously grant a large tax cut to the wealthy, avoid tax increases on the lower- and middle-classes, and maintain the current level of revenue. The Tax Policy Center found during the election that those goals were impossible to maintain under Romney’s proposal and that to avoid adding to future deficits and debt, the plan would have to raise taxes on the middle class by an average of $2,000.

The current House GOP proposal provides an even bigger tax cut, making it even less likely that Ryan could raise sufficient revenues from the closure of tax loopholes to offset the estimated $5.7 trillion cost. To pay for the plan, then, the GOP would have no choice but to raise taxes on the middle class (by an average of $3,000) while granting a massive tax cut to millionaires. If it doesn’t, the Republican plan to reduce the debt will instead add trillions of dollars to it.