Frankly between John Edwards, Barack Obama & to a degree Hillary Clinton I have never seen such a willingness by presidential candidates to openly say they are going to cost people more money when elected. Whether it be through new programs, tax increases or running up deficits the democrats are teetering back to the “tax and spend” label that plagued them throughout the seventies & eighties.

The latest is from Barack Obama who said the following while discussing the environment in Iowa. Quoted from The Swamp:

“On the front end at least, when you set up a cap, that is going to increase the costs, the production costs of electricity, for these companies. What will they do? They are going to pass them on to you,” Obama said. “And so, I hope everybody understands, if we are serious about dealing with global warming, there is going to be a spike in the unit costs of electricity.”

“Now, technology I believe, will adapt in such a way that those electricity bills go back down as the technology gets absorbed. But at least on the front end, there’s going to be some costs and we can’t pretend like there’s a free lunch,” he said.

Though the premise is somewhat sound, stopping greenhouse gas emissions will cost consumers and early adopters of technology always pay a premium for alternative technology before it drops in price (just ask Steve Job’s about the iPhone) when people work to get elected president they traditionally play down the costs of things. The reason? Because selling yourself to American’s by promising that their bills and taxes and deficits will rise won’t get you elected president.

Now I made the same argument a few months ago when John Edwards pledged the same thing. He said American’s would be willing to ditch SUV’s IF they knew the price to the environment. Frankly I don’t think anyone driving an SUV and paying the enormous gas bill’s has any misconceptions about what they are doing. In my experience I have met plenty an American who wants to help the environment but not if it costs them more money, time or a radical change in lifestyle.

The second point here is about honesty. Obama is going to use this as a way of saying “I am honest with people, unlike other candidates. This is what makes me special.” The problem is the honesty here is cherry picked. I don’t see him being honest about the true costs of his healthcare plan. Frankly I don’t see him talking about his healthcare plan at all anymore.

I don’t see him being honest about what “bundlers” are and how his campaign utilizes them to raise money from lobbyists even though he says he doesn’t take lobbyist money. Nor do I see him being honest about what it will really take to get the country out of Iraq. He has slightly and slowly changed his rhetoric on the issue as it seems he has received more advice on the outcomes, but there is still a sense of “I will just end this tomorrow” when in reality that won’t happen. (Kucinich can also attest to the reality that the Dems could end the War tomorrow with much fallout and detriment to the lives of troops, but still end it by not approving funding.)

So ultimately I think Obama picks up a few points for seeming honest about an issue BUT any idea of raising taxes, the cost of goods or services or altering the lives of Americans will be used endlessly against him in a general election. I am not sure the Obama campaign is measuring the true weight of all these “plans” and how they will be presented against him in a general campaign.

From the Blogosphere on the Subject

- Obama Links Faith to Environmentalism

- Obama admits his energy plan would raise prices