For all the complaining about Bush era spending, the new administration has already spent more than the entire Iraq War.

And they are..not…done!!

Obama also wants $634B for a health care reserve fund (read: socializing healthcare). And Bank Bailout II which could be as much as $750B! Then there’s the cap and trade debacle that will just cripple this economy by causing energy costs to skyrocket.

This is no longer Bush’s mess. The deficit and debt being racked up by Obama and the Democrats is now THEIR MESS.

Of course, we all know where this is leading to. Taxes that will inevitably go through the roof. Obama wants us to believe that he can do this by letting the Bush tax cuts expire and just taxing the ‘rich’ who make over $250k. But even the ‘rich’ won’t be able to subsidize all of this. An article today in the Wall Street Journal, which I highly recommend reading, explains:

Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and “the wealthiest 2%.” Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That’s about 7% of all returns; the data aren’t broken down at the $250,000 point.) These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% — about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 — paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income.

Note that federal income taxes are already “progressive” with a 35% top marginal rate, and that Mr. Obama is (so far) proposing to raise it only to 39.6%, plus another two percentage points in hidden deduction phase-outs. He’d also raise capital gains and dividend rates, but those both yield far less revenue than the income tax. These combined increases won’t come close to raising the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that Mr. Obama is going to need.

Bottom line: the money isn’t there and the middle class will have to eventually bear the burden.  There’s no way around it.

It’s only taken a month and this Congress and Administration are already the most reckless and irresponsible we’ve ever seen.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

Unfortunately, this common sense step for addressing our energy needs has been met with criticism from the environmentalist group Clean Ocean Action (COA). COA opposes the project on every level. In essence, there is no acceptance of a balance between environmental concerns and the need to produce the energy we need for our economy and our quality of life. Moreover, there is no acceptance that we need short-term answers (such as harvesting natural gas and oil off our shores) until long-term solutions (such as solar energy) become more feasible. This closed-mindedness is what renders environmental groups like COA extreme (not to mention somehow being to the left of the quite liberal Corzine).

COA’s primary criticisms of the project include claims of:

• Safety concerns
• Harm of the environment (the group claims we’d witness an increase in our carbon footprint of 40%)
• Significant damage to marine ecosystems
• Being a potential threat to coastal economies
• Increased dependence on foreign energy
• Increased energy costs through global price wars

However, in looking at the LNG website – as well as researching the Pickens Plan website – I find these criticisms to be either overstated, if not altogether inaccurate. For example:

• Safety is a top priority for LNG and all energy companies are subject to strict regulations in this area. The industry has a record of safety with no major accidents for some 45 years.
• LNG contends that impact on the ecosystem is minimal.
• Natural gas will gradually be replacing oil for our transportation energy needs and is a cleaner alternative to oil and coal. The Pickens Plan points out that the “Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach recently announced that 16,800 old diesel trucks will be replaced, and half of the new vehicles will run on alternatives such as natural gas.” Thus, turning to natural gas, and away from oil, actually is better for the environment.

With respect to COA’s economic arguments, their logic defies the laws of supply and demand. Earlier this year, when oil prices were skyrocketing and the push for drilling was intense, liberals and environmentalists also claimed that increasing supply would have little impact on price. However, these claims were debunked by numerous economists, including Harvard Professor Martin Feldstein and Kevin Hasset, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

Additionally, one would expect if America began harvesting more of its natural gas resources, not only would it steer us in the direction of energy independence, but it likely would allow us to potentially export this product and benefit our economy. Not to mention the project will also create jobs.

In sum, this shows just how the extreme environmentalist movement is harming America. The green movement eschews all common sense interim approaches to supplying the nation with its energy needs. Environmental concerns entirely trump economic concerns that affect the quality of life for all Americans.

For more on this, check out both the LNG and Pickens Plan websites.