Not that this wasn't expected (if you add the health care cost of $634 billion, this is certainly approaching estimates we were hearing for the new spending Obama had in mind during the campaign), but Obama's new budget is packed to the point of bursting with spending that looks wholly untenable and thoroughly irresponsible. The Washington Post, tomorrow's edition, notes:

The White House budget request seeks to increase federal spending by at least $500 billion over the next decade, excluding the cost of health-care reform. While Obama would pay for that initiative as well his plan to lower taxes for the middle class by raising taxes on high earners and corporations as well as cutting federal health spending, his budget would not generate enough cash to finance the additional spending he seeks for routine government programs.

As a result, his plan would produce annual deficits far larger in dollar terms than any recorded before the recession. As a percentage of the overall economy, the budget gap is projected to settle down to a more manageable 3 percent by the end of Obama's term. But Washington would continue to borrow heavily, and the national debt would double over the next five years.

During 2006 and 2007 (i.e., before I took up employment with the RNC and shut down my blog), I routinely blasted the Bush administration in particular, and many, many other Republicans for profligate spending, jacking up the national debt, high deficits because spending restraint was not an option anyone was terribly concerned with, etc., etc. I wish the GOP hadn't engaged in these things or promoted them-- really.

But let's get two things straight. ...

I know that oil and gas companies won't like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that's how we'll help fund a renewable energy economy that will create new jobs and new industries.

Since I was one of the Republican attack dogs who particularly attacked him for this during the campaign, I'll bite and go there again: Obama being concerned about the implications of these tax breaks where potential for developing alternative energies is concerned is all very well and good, but if this is how he feels, it's too bad he didn't have the balls to vote against the 2005 energy bill (you know, the one written by Dick Cheney), which contained $2.8 billion in tax breaks for oil and gas companies.  Obama voted for that bill.  (For what it's worth, he also took more money from employees of companies like Exxon, Chevron and BP than did John McCain during last year's campaign, at least as of August). [intro]

It's CPAC week here in DC, and as much as I hate to say it, this post written almost two weeks ago by Rick Moran over at The Next Right is really ringing true for me right now:

The theme of this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) should be “Cocooning our way to Irrelevancy” or perhaps “How to lose the next 5 elections in 10 easy steps.”

OK, "Cocooning our way to Irrelevancy but enjoying catching up with friends" might be more appropriate in my view. But seriously, Moran points out that the notion underlying the conference is that:

there isn’t much really wrong with conservatism that a dab of message clarification here and a spot of renewed enthusiasm there won’t cure....