Posted on 11/13/2025 4:18:13 AM PST by MtnClimber
If you want to run for office as a Democrat, there is a new catchword that you need to make as your main promise: “Affordability.”
As anybody paying attention knows, the cry of “affordability” was the central theme that carried the Democrats to victory in all the big races this year, most notably those of Zohran Mamdani for Mayor in New York City, Abigail Spanberger for Governor in Virginia, and Mikie Sherrill for Governor in New Jersey. The same theme also carried two Democrats to victory as Public Service Commissioners in Georgia — the first victories by Democrats in statewide elections for state office in Georgia since 2006.
But here is the question: Is the promise of “affordability” by these politicians something that has any prospect of being delivered through their proposed policies? Or are the proposed policies instead more likely to be useless, or even counterproductive, thus making the promise of “affordability” a scam from the outset?
In the campaigns, the theme of “affordability” got applied across multiple areas of household spending, including such areas as housing, healthcare, and transportation. But one spending category was the biggest focus of the campaigns above all others: energy. In a piece at Vox on November 7, Umair Irfan exults at the success of the Democratic candidates’ appeal to affordability as to energy, under the headline “Clean energy could become a huge political winner.” (available outside paywall at MSN here). Excerpts:
This off-year election was a pressure test of Democrats’ broad message on affordability and who voters hold accountable for the rising cost of electricity. . . . In New Jersey, Gov.-elect Mikie Sherrill, a Democrat, ran on a promise to fight skyrocketing energy bills. She even vowed to declare a state of emergency and freeze utility rates on day one in office. And it worked. . . . In Virginia, Democratic Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger also made affordable energy a tentpole of her campaign against republican Winsome Earle-Sears. . . . [In Georgia] Democrats Peter Hubbard and Alicia Johnson defeated two incumbent Republicans [for seats on the Public Service Commission]. . . . Frances Sawyer, founder of Pleiades Strategy, an energy analysis firm, [said] “It is just a huge sign that Georgians are fed up with rate hikes. They’re fed up with high bills. . . .”
So what are the policies that are supposed to deliver “affordable” electricity rates? For Sherrill and the Georgia PSC Commission candidates, number one was a freeze (or opposition to increase) of rates. And for both Sherrill and Spanberger, next came big expansion of wind and solar generation. From Sherrill’s website:
By prioritizing the right investments in new clean power resources, we can reduce our carbon footprint, increase energy independence, and help families across the state save money. . . . Prioritize and support low-cost, in-state clean energy investments and innovations to bring down rates. . . . Increase the use of state properties to host solar projects. . . . Assist New Jerseyans in adopting clean energy solutions, like community solar. . . .
Sherrill appears to be clueless that wind and solar generators require vast additional backup, energy storage, and transmission capacity to make an electricity grid work full time, thus making their end costs to consumers a multiple of those for traditional thermal generation. The same blindspot applies for Spanberger. From the Spanberger for Governor website:
Abigail knows that Virginia has the opportunity to be a national leader in clean energy, including by bringing high-paying clean energy jobs to the Commonwealth through investments in offshore wind, rooftop solar, and other renewable energy sources. In Congress, Abigail supported commonsense incentives for increased deployment of clean energy sources such as wind and solar, as well as electric vehicles and grid-scale energy storage. As the next Governor of Virginia, Abigail is committed to making sure Virginia can meet its energy needs while growing its economy and keeping costs low for Virginians.
Back here in New York City, electricity costs are not so much on the Mayor’s agenda, but Mamdani preached “affordability” of everything from housing to groceries to buses. How to deliver that? For housing, how about a rent freeze? For groceries and buses, subsidies from the taxpayers.
Why anyone would ever again build or maintain a rental apartment building in New York under a regime of permanent rent freeze is an issue that apparently has never occurred to Mamdani (or the people who voted for him).
To give you an idea of just how far the fantasy cry of “affordability” has penetrated the ranks of current Democrats, take note that one Jack Schlossberg has just declared that he is running for Congress from New York’s 12th Congressional District. Have you heard of Schlossberg? He is JFK’s grandson, via daughter Caroline. The 12th Congressional District includes much of Midtown Manhattan, plus the Upper East and West Sides (currently represented by the execrable Jerrold Nadler, who is retiring). According to an October 2024 piece here at Yahoo Finance, New York 12 is the third wealthiest district in the country (ranked by median household income), trailing only two Silicon Valley districts in California — although NY12 is second in “mean” household income, and also has more people earning $200,000+ (156,102 households out of 393,204) than either of those two pikers in California.
And of course Schlossberg’s number one issue according to his announcement: the “cost of living crisis.” OK, it’s slightly different messaging from “affordability,” but only slightly. Schlossberg attended the Collegiate School in Manhattan for high school, where the current tuition is about $66,000 per year (it probably was in the range of $45,000/yr 15 years ago when Schlossberg attended). He makes a point in his announcement that he took the cross-town bus each day, from the Upper East Side to the Upper West Side, to get to school. In other words, he is a true man of the people.
Schlossberg has not yet addressed what policies he intends to implement to address the “cost of living crisis.” But as we know, there are really only two policies in the Democrats’ playbook to deal with such a thing, namely price controls and taxpayer subsidies. I might suggest to him as a start that he impose price controls on exclusive Manhattan private high schools.
You might think that the voters of NY 12 would have to realize that in any effort to control the “cost of living” via government subsidies, the wealthy like them would have to pay far more in taxes than any benefit they might receive in lower prices. Don’t count on it. The more solidly Democratic is any voting group, the more innumerate it proves to be.
There is no cure for inequality
If foreclosures really are up 20% from a year ago, there is reason to suspect that the campaign will be effective.
There actually is a major “affordability” issue. It’s worldwide and obvious to everyone - except the author. Autos, energy, housing, insurance, groceries, labor, services, water, beef, ferilizer, equipment - nearly everything. But “let’s pretend” because the opposition exploits it.
It’s mainly due to currency devaluation and socialism, so not really Trump’s fault, though he’s a huge spender as well who doesn’t seem to grasp the issue.
Pretending a major problem doesn’t exist is foolish and gets us nowhere.
I agree, the inflationary rise in prices is largely due to the massive government spending on the global mass migration and on “green energy”. The leftists behind all all of this spent money they did not have and had to devalue their currencies. And here we are.
Simple minded will stand in line in the pouring rain to vote for ‘affordability’ never knowing what it means or what it costs them. There’s no free lunch, most adults learn this early on. There’s no Santa Claus or unicorns farting magical skittles. And there is no Commie/Socialist scheme of controlling the means of production, taxation, special fees, price controls, or having CEO’s testify before Congress that solves it.
It
Does
Not
Work.
“Prices are sticky on the downside”. - Old economists’ saw.
Once prices reach a certain level, they tend to stay there. I believe there are two main reasons:
1) Companies have already experienced the reduced demand harm from the higher prices, and those people who left have good memories of being burned by “the man”. They won’t tend to come back. So you might as well keep the higher prices your current customer ARE willing to pay.
2) Never has the money printing of the Feds been reversed with effective money BURNING. So the new large money supply that caused higher prices never goes away. Instead, if we’re lucky and the gubmint gets out of the way, productivity and incomes expand faster than the rate of inflation, and we finally some years later are actually more well off.
The Democrats own most of the affordability problem, due to their: forced use of high cost energy and expensive cars; blocking affordable housing construction; war on rental housing; high property taxes in urban areas; and their war on farming.
But Trumps tariffs contribute to the problem — by making the prices of the taxed imports less affordable. Hopefully, his mega tariff deals will reduce this.
We know tariffs make some products marginally more expensive. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. Suffer a little now and then have a productive industrial base.
You have the foresight of a gnat.
Bkmk
Forcing the power companies to replace coal fired plants with the wind/solar boondoggles, which are unreliable, is why the power companies are asking for rate hikes. Coal is cheap and can be stored for future use, unlike wind and sun.
Republicans can never win this argument and should not enter into it. Talk to the other voters, instead: "Hey, living in New York is expensive. Why should you have to indemnify people against the cost of Democrat zoning decisions?"
“Affordability” has come to mean somebody else subsidies (pays for) what you want.
“Cost of Living is a serious issue.”
When hasn’t cost of living been an issue?
This pack of lies is to avoid the simple solution in a free market system: correct the corrupted demand side of the equation.
All prices, housing included, are corrupted by gov’mt subsidized extra demand: 20M illegals and 50M visa holders.
Oh, and notice, those numbers add up to what both BeijingBiden and Harris claim voted for them.
It's tone death argument, one Donna Brazile during the Biden years.
Inflation is still much higher than it was during Trump's first term. And, because of Democrat policies, is much higher in blue states.
Isn't it affordable already? If not, was it bad law that failed to deliver on its promises?
Democrats want people to forget that the reason they're suffering from an "affordability" crisis is the culuative 25% inflation caused by Biden's economic policies. They want the voters to put back in charge the very same people who caused the affordability crisis in the first place.
-PJ
No policy can reduce prices to previous levels once inflation has occurred. Prices don't go backwards; they stabilize at new higher levels.
The FED target of 2% baseline inflation means that prices are always expected to increase. Democrats created the baseline they're now using to judge President Trump with narratives like "Trump failed to reduce prices since taking office." Democrats are trying to establish a false strawman argument that President Trump has failed to "reduce prices" from the absurdly rapid increase that the Democrats created. They're trying to blame Trump for not "fixing" the problem that they created by not bringing prices back down to pre-Biden levels.
There is only one "policy" that can reduce prices dramatically to pre-Biden levels, though it's not really a policy. A full-on 1930s style depression would lower prices, but nobody wants to go back to the days of "brother can you space a bitcoin".
When Democrats start pushing the "Trump failed to reduce prices" narrative, Trump can retort with "Democrats are calling for "The Great Depression 2.0" that nobody wants. Maybe even post AI memes like Chuck Schumer wearing a barrel strapped over his shoulders or other 1930s era political cartoons.
President Trump should say:
-PJ
EVERYONE SUPPORTS GIVING FAST FOOD WORKERS $20 AN HOUR & MORE.
HOW MUCH DO THEY THINK THESE PEOPLE ARE WORTH:
ARCHITECT
CARPENTER
PLUMBER
ELECTRICIAN
DRY WALL HANGER
PAINTER
CARPET LAYER
WINDOW INSTALLER
ROOFER
AND PRIOR TO ALL OF THAT: THE LOGGER !!!!!!
THEY NEED TO GET BACK TO BASICS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.