Last week, the House GOP leadership proposed a budget outline that provides an alternative to President Obama’s. Here’s Citizens for Tax Justice’s [PDF] analysis of how it compares to President Obama’s plan:

Over a fourth of taxpayers, mostly low-income families, would pay more in taxes under the House GOP plan than they would under the President’s plan. The richest one percent of taxpayers would pay $100,000 less, on average, under the House GOP plan than they would under the President’s plan. The income tax proposals in the House GOP plan, which is presented as a fiscally responsible alternative to the President’s plan, would cost over $300 billion more than the Obama income tax cuts in 2011 alone.

Grist relies on the support of generous readers like you. Donate today to keep our climate news free. All donations matched!

Meanwhile, in its fight for polluters against climate and clean energy legislation, the GOP is attacking the bill because, the party falsely alleges, it would raise costs on the poor. In fact, energy efficiency, conservation, and productivity gains from a switch to clean energy would save money, create millions of jobs, and reduce the costs of global warming itself. Enviros have done a pretty good job debunking the GOP lies, but the Republican budget does a better job than anyone to show that the GOP — shocker — can’t really be trusted when it comes to helping poor, working class, and middle class Americans.

While I’m on the subject, can Republicans really be trusted to help rich people either? I know, if you had to boil down their party’s purpose to one essential item it would be making the rich richer, but with the stock market where it is and Warren Buffet and Bill Gates’ fortunes down billions, it seems they’ve failed at that as well. Frankly, at this point, I wouldn’t trust the Republicans even with telling me what yacht to buy, much less handling the future of the planet.

Grist thanks its sponsors. Become one.