Robert Greenstein, president of the nonprofit, nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities , said the cuts required by House Speaker John Boehner's new budget proposal are tantamount to a form of class warfare.

Boehner's proposal, according to Greenstein's analysis, would require Congress to ultimately choose between deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare benefits for current retirees, the repeal of health reform's coverage expansions, and/or cuts to basic assistance programs.

According to Greenstein, the proposal calls for large cuts in discretionary programs of $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, and requires additional cuts that are large enough to produce another $1.8 trillion in savings to be enacted by the end of the year as a condition for raising the debt ceiling again at that time. It also contains no tax increases, so the entire $1.8 trillion would come from budget cuts.

Because the first round of cuts will be of discretionary programs, discretionary cuts will largely or entirely be off the table when it comes to achieving the further $1.8 trillion in budget reductions, Greenstein said in his statement. Virtually all of that $1.8 trillion would come from entitlement programs. More than $1.5 trillion would have to be cut in order to produce sufficient interest savings to achieve $1.8 trillion in total savings.

To secure $1.5 trillion in entitlement savings over the next ten years would require, according to Greenstein, "draconian" policy changes. Policymakers would have to either cut Social Security and Medicare benefits heavily for current retirees, repeal the Affordable Care Act's coverage expansions while retaining its measures that cut Medicare payments and raise tax revenues, or eviscerate the safety net for low-income children, parents, senior citizens, and people with disabilities. According to Greenstein, obtaining $1.5 trillion in entitlement cuts in the next ten years is otherwise impossible.

Greenstein cites numerous pieces of evidence which led him to his conclusion:

• The "Gang of Six" plan contains total entitlement reductions of $640 billion to $760 billion over the next 10 years, not counting Social Security, and $755 billion to $875 billion including Social Security. (That's before netting out $300 billion in entitlement costs that the plan includes for a permanent fix to the scheduled cuts in Medicare physician payments that Congress regularly cancels; with these costs netted out, the Gang of Six entitlement savings come to $455 billion to $575 billion.)
• The budget deal between President Obama and Speaker Boehner that fell apart last Friday, which included cuts in Social Security cost-of-living adjustments and Medicare benefits as well as an increase in the Medicare eligibility age, contained total entitlement cuts of $650 billion (under the last Obama offer) to $700 billion (under the last Boehner offer).
• The Ryan budget that the House passed in April contained no savings in Social Security over the next ten years and $279 billion in Medicare cuts.

The House-passed Ryan budget included much larger overall entitlement cuts over the next 10 years. But Greenstein said that was largely because it eviscerated the safety net and repealed health reform's coverage expansions. The Ryan plan included cuts in Medicaid and health reform of $2.2 trillion, from severely slashing Medicaid and killing health reform's coverage expansions. The Ryan plan also included $127 billion in cuts to the SNAP program (formerly known as food stamps) and $126 billion in Pell Grants and other student financial assistance.

Greenstein spoke out against both the Boehner budget and the House bill, claiming that the "Cut, Cap, and Balance" bill that House Republicans recently passed is giving credence to the Boehner budget. The bill would establish global spending caps and enforce them with across-the-board budget cuts — exempting Medicare and Social Security from the across-the-board cuts while subjecting programs for the poor to the across-the-board cuts. By doing this, Greenstein said it seemed Congress — in the face of an impending election — was targeting those of lesser means and lesser political power.