The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities gives the details on the House GOP's budget proposal (chart warning):
The House GOP tasked itself with cutting $60 billion from the budget without touching entitlements or military spending. Naturally, this results in massive cuts to social services, regulatory agencies, and federal support for infrastructure. Among other things, the GOP budget would cut Head Start services for 157,000 "at-risk" children, reduce Pell Grants for 9 million students, cut $26 million from community mental health services, and reduce WIC funding by $752 million, which would literally take food from low-income women and children.
Even with double-digit reductions in most federal agencies, Republicans could only find $60 billion in "savings," which illustrates an oft-made point on this blog: There isn't much waste in the federal budget, and certainly not enough to meaningfully reduce the deficit. By and large, the GOP plan for budget reduction will only harm the least well-off and hinder the federal government as it attempts to enforce its regulations.
That said, this assumes a shared definition of government "waste." Liberals tend work with a neutral definition of waste, i.e., "anything the government spends inefficiently." By contrast, conservatives seem to view "waste" as anything spent on programs they don't like. It's why Republicans can tout farm subsidies while attacking unemployment insurance. Proposed GOP cuts to the Social Security Administration, for instance, have less to do with "waste" -- the SSA is extremely efficient, in fact! -- and more to do with an ideological opposition to the idea that government would keep people from destitution in their old age, even if the SSA exists to write checks and has nothing to do with funding Social Security itself. For programs conservatives like -- large subsidies to oil and gas companies, for example -- spending remains intact, even if it's genuinely wasteful.
