The NY Times compares Obama's 10 year reduction in spending to just one year of that change by Republicans

From the New York Times:

President Obama, who is proposing his third annual budget on Monday, will say that it can reduce projected deficits by $1.1 trillion over the next decade, enough to stabilize the nation’s fiscal health and buy time to address its longer-term problems, according to a senior administration official. . . .

The administration readily concedes, even boasts, that the president will not win any race to outcut Republicans. In the House, Republicans are trying to slash up to $100 billion in the current fiscal year alone before they begin writing their own proposed budget for 2012 and beyond. But the administration contends that its plan would leave the country in better overall fiscal health than the path Republicans envision. . . .

Half way through the article they finally note:

House Republicans will begin work on a 2012 budget after they finish trying to shrink current spending. But their proposed $100 billion cut for this fiscal year, already four months old, would translate over a decade into more than $1 trillion in deficit reductions, budget analysts say. . . .

So how are the two proposals different? After reading that the Republican proposal is draconian, the NY Times makes it look like they are actually cutting a similar amount. Fox News at least has a reaction from the Republicans.

House Republicans' top budget planner said Sunday that President Obama's soon-to-be-unveiled budget proposal does not appear to go far enough in cutting back spending over the long term.
"Borrowing and spending is not the way to prosperity," Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, said on "Fox News Sunday." . . .