Yet this quote, and the insistence that listeners have somehow misunderstood, seems awfully familiar.  After all, Senator Obama’s running mate, Senator Joe Biden, got into his own trouble over coal policy when he told voters “We’re not supporting clean coal…no coal plants here in America,” and then later clarified by reversing course.

This should be of particular concern to voters in key coal producing states- which also happen to be critical “swing” states like Pennsylvania and West Virginia.  But all of us will be greatly affected by the next administration’s energy policy.  And although the media hasn’t pressed Senator Obama on many of the details, a look at Senator Obama’s “New Energy for America” plan also makes his vision of energy in America clear:  he wants to “invest” taxpayer money in favored alternative fuel endeavors, create new mandates for the use of renewable energy sources and higher fuel efficiency standards, and advance a so-called “cap-and-trade” program designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by taxing carbon, but which would greatly raise the costs of energy-particularly energy generated by fossil fuels like coal and oil.

Senator Obama is careful to throw a bone to the coal industry as a part of his official energy plan:  the website proclaims:  “Obama’s Department of Energy will enter into public private partnerships to develop five ‘first-of-a-kind’ commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology.”  But it’s clear that Obama believes fossil fuel use should go the way of Atari and Betamax.  And while those technologies were sunk by superior technologies in the competitive marketplace, a President Obama would use the power of the state to pick winners and losers in the energy industry. And make no mistake – coal and oil would be the big losers.

That shouldn’t just be of concern to those involved in the energy industry.  Senator Obama claims to be a friend of the working class, by promoting progressive tax increases and refundable tax credits for many who currently don’t pay income taxes.  Yet even those who are supposed to benefit from this redistribution should be cautious before assuming that an Obama presidency will be a boon to their financial fortunes.

After all, Senator Obama’s definition of who should be subject to tax increases has been changing throughout the campaign.  Do we really want to take the chance that once elected, a President Obama would then simply state his previous tax policies were taken out of context, and that all taxpayers (actual taxpayers) will be subject to his costly whims and reversals? Moreover, if Senator Obama advances anti-business policies that “bankrupt” companies, that will lead to greater job loss.  No tax rebate is going to replace the financial security that comes with having a paying job.

And Senator Obama’s tax proposals could act as a significant drag on business.  He hasn’t suggested explicitly raising the corporate tax rate, yet his campaign has estimated that his efforts to remove “loop holes” will increase corporate tax revenue by 25 percent.  Many like to portray business taxes as only affecting “greedy CEOs,” but corporate taxes are paid by all of us:  we pay them in the form of higher prices for goods, fewer jobs, and lower wages.

Senator Obama also wants to raise taxes on investment, such as raising the capital gains tax rate and the tax on dividends.  Again much of the press depicts these tax policies as affecting only investment bankers and multimillionaires.  Yet discouraging investment and savings affects everyone.  Such investment is the lifeblood of the economy, allowing businesses to expand and entrepreneurs to create new companies.  The end result is new jobs for workers and a healthy economy.

Voters should take Senator Obama’s statement seriously.  It isn’t just what he says about coal.  His big government vision and plan for a more progressive, anti-investment tax regime threatens workers everywhere.

Here’s what Obama said:

“You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know – Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it – whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”

Oh, thank you, great President Obama!

And just as Obama’s “spread the wealth around” tax plan has nothing to do with raising revenue and everything to do with making productive people suffer by having their money taken away from them in the interests of “fairness,” Obama’s planned electricity hikes are also about making people suffer. The idea, as Obama said in the Jan. 22 interview, is that Americans would feel so much pain wondering how they could afford to keep the lights on and the heater running that they would goad legislators into building the global-warming-panic regime dear to Obama’s heart.

“The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, ‘This is really important,’ and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.”

Gee, I just can’t wait to be “mobilized” myself.

This summer, Republicans from the House of Representatives conducted a survey of teachers, administrators, and parents from around the country to get a sense of the impact that rising energy costs are having on the education sector. They received nearly 1,000 responses that together provide a snapshot of how energy is creating problems for America’s education system.

Nearly half of respondents reported a cut in field trips as a result of high fuel costs. One-third said that schools were limiting bus routes to save on fuel costs, and nearly a quarter report that school are raising school lunch prices in an attempt to make up for energy costs’ effects on the budget. In total, nine out of ten respondents believe higher energy prices are having an effect on their local schools. And the National School Boards Association has reported that at least 86 school districts have moved to 4-day school weeks to curb energy costs.

The good news is that some energy costs have gone down in recent months. According to the AAA, gasoline prices reached their peak on July 17, when the average price for a regular gallon was $4.11. Today, that gallon costs $3.35-a decline of 18 percent. Yet, this decline doesn’t change the fundamental problem the United States faces when it comes to energy policy. Global demand continues to rise. If supply doesn’t keep pace, then prices will climb. The potential for supply interruptions (and the ensuing price spikes) is greater because so much of the world’s oil supply come from unstable, often hostile, regions.

That’s why increasing domestic energy production is crucial. There may be bipartisan hope that alternative fuels will ultimately play a bigger role in our energy sector. Yet policymakers need to be realistic about their potential in the short term. Just seven percent of America’s energy supply came from renewable energy sources last year. Fossil fuels are, and will remain, our primary source of energy for the foreseeable future.

The good news is that the United States has vast potential resources within our borders-although much of it has been inaccessibly because of government restrictions. Eighty-five percent of our coastal waters have been off-limits to drilling. This area is projected to contain 19 billion barrels of oil and 83 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Heritage Foundation estimates that the natural gas alone would be able to supply America’s homes for 35 years.

A growing majority of Americans today recognize the importance of increasing domestic energy supplies and support allowing additional oil and gas exploration from coastal areas, as well as inland to leverage our vast oil shale deposits in the West. A Gallup poll taken this summer found that 57 percent want to allow drilling in U.S. areas that are currently off limits.

To this end, the Congressional Majority-who had made great effort to block proposals that would have meaningfully increased America’s capacity to drill-have been forced to relent and allow a 26 year moratorium on coastal drilling to expire as of October 1. Yet, as House Appropriations Chair David Obey (D-Wis.) recently noted, “this next election will decide what our drilling policy will be.” In short, the prospect of accessing our vast reserves will likely be determined soon after November 2008.

Perhaps Congressional Democrats hope that lower gas prices will reduce the pressure to allow for greater drilling. But higher energy costs will undoubtedly be on many families’ minds as they prepare for winter and what promise to be some record-breaking heating bills.

Of course, it’s not just families who will be hit by higher heating costs. Just like with gas prices, these costs ripple through the economy. It will cost more for office buildings, factories, and store fronts to stay warm, just as it will cost more for hospitals, public libraries, and schools.

The public shouldn’t feel too bad for our nation’s public schools, which have seen massive budget increases in recent decades. But the pressure on school budgets may help liberals understand the growing burden energy costs are placing on our economy in terms they understand: Yes, Speaker Pelosi, it’s time to drill-for the sake of the children.