The United States federal government should substantally increase alternative energy incentives

I suppose in a world where irresponsible spending is allowed and encouraged, then we can "substantially increase" anything we want. But since no responsible parents will teach their kids to max out all credit cards without reasonable plan for repayment, such economical trade-off must occur. Even if my opponent practices such irresponsible financial planning himself, I hope the voters can maintain better credit scores. Since my opponent has simply built his arguments around my contentions, I shall defend them and continuing pointing my opponent's inability to see the fundamental issue at core. Firstly, it is clear that my opponent has only focused on increase spending in Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) development alone rather than increasing substantial incentives to the alternative energy industry as a whole. Therefore, his burden of proof lies within providing justification to provide incentives to the whole industry rather than any singular project. Although I agree to many projected benefits of IFR development, the real problem is whether the federal government is allocating its LIMITED RESOURCES in the most effective and efficient manner by increasing alternative energy incentive to the whole industry. The Energy Improvement and Extension Act increased funding for nuclear, wind power, and various other initiatives. All projects reported positive projections yet many are now inactive. Regardless of whether IFR can actually save the day, the core question is whether the government should once again divert its limited resources toward another "positive projection" at the cost of the American taxpayers. Secondly, since we disagree on whether the government has unlimited ability to spend, I shall maintain the position of responsible spending and continue my analysis of various trade-offs. Although you may admire my opponent's number crunching ability, you should also note that he maintains a "IFR is only small money. If the rest of the nation's balance sheet is already crap, why not spend just a little more?" The problem, however, is not the cost of IFR relative to the rest of our deficit schedule. My opponent continues to justify substantial incentive increase to the alternative energy in part or in whole! As a proxy to the will of the American people, the government has the responsibility to spend money only on projects which have already gathered significant public interest. Any diversion of funding toward minor pet projects of the congress or special interest group is a betrayal to the responsibility of legislators to represent the will of their constituents. Without evidence of the public interest comparison to those for education, welfare, defense, and healthcare, the federal government does not have the constitutional right to put my money into one of her pet projects no matter how small it may be. Lastly, I agree that free market may not be a cure-all solution. Government interventions are sometimes necessary for the welfare of the general public. But plenty of long-term innovations have been developed in the private sector, and the opinion of one man is hardly a sufficient reason to violate the cardinal of free competition. I agree that the government should establish protection measures such as preventing future dumping at Yucca Mountain. To invest in a competing technology, however, is establishing a nationalized entity with unlimited national resources to compete in a supposedly open market. And if federal subsidies is not the BEST method of reaching alternative energy, then why should we increase federal alternative energy incentives when other BETTER methods can be implemented? I completely agree that the society as a whole should pay more attention to the issue of energy crisis. However, the topic specifically asks for federal government initiatives and it is clear that the popular concerns reside in other more prominent issues. It may be proper for the government to promote private sector involvement without diversion of resources from other programs or printing more money. But it is constitutionally wrong to allocate resources toward projects which do not reflect the majority will of the people of the United States.