May 14 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama is beginning to look a lot like Gary Hart.

Back in the 1984 presidential campaign, Hart challenged Walter Mondale, the heavy favorite for the Democratic Party nomination, by billing himself as the candidate of ``new ideas.'' Hart was gaining momentum, winning a number of state primaries, including Florida. He began to fold, however, after Mondale famously challenged his ``new ideas'' with the immortal line: ``Where's the beef?''

That line worked because Hart's ideas didn't deliver. For one thing, he mainly focused on how the government spends money, not on how much it spends. Brilliant!

The Hart story suggests an important lesson for those seeking office. It is a bad idea to bill oneself as the candidate with new ideas. If the ideas are truly innovative strategies to solve our nation's problems, then things might work out. But if the ideas are weak or rehashed, the candidate is in trouble.

The problem is, most of the big issues have been studied to death. There are probably a hundred proposals to fix the tax code and even more to fix Social Security. How can any candidate really step in with something nobody ever thought of before?

Obama, who is seeking the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, has clearly not taken notice. His Web site bills him as the author of ``innovative approaches to challenge the status quo.'' Influential Democratic observers have taken note. Former Clinton administration economist Alan Blinder said in an interview with Bloomberg that ``they bring to the campaign some fresh thought.'' Fresh face, fresh thoughts, not bad.

`Health for Hybrids'

But where's the beef? Over the past couple of weeks, Obama has begun to reveal approaches that only a vegetarian could love.

Take his energy proposal. Obama worries that an oil embargo could do serious harm to our economy and offers up plans to help us avert disaster. The centerpiece of the proposal is certainly different but not in a favorable direction.

Obama bills it as ``health for hybrids.'' The idea is to bail out automobile companies by paying a fraction of the health costs of retired autoworkers. In exchange, the auto companies would be required to spend half the money they save on technologies to produce more fuel-efficient hybrid cars.

What's wrong with this proposal? Let me count the ways. The first part is a naked attempt to pander to America's auto unions. That might be new if a Republican tried it, but Obama joins a long line of Democratic candidates who put the interests of Big Labor above the interests of the American people.

Slowing the Inevitable

The fact is, unions have negotiated health benefits that are so generous that auto companies can't possibly afford them. The right answer is for the two parties to get together, renegotiate, and work something out. If that happened, however, benefits would be cut. A bailout would only slow that process.

The second part of the proposal, calling on the automakers to invest money to research cheaper hybrids, is even worse. Auto companies are already making hybrids, and presumably pursuing all the research that's economically justifiable. A subsidy for specific research will only expand those efforts if projects that are currently viewed as losers are suddenly funded. That is a waste of money with a capital W.

So Obama's big new idea is to pair two dumb policies. In math, a negative times a negative is positive. In economic policy, it doesn't quite work that way.

He has other energy proposals, such as higher fuel-economy standards and increased reliance on ethanol, but they are hardly new. Corn farmers are used to having politicians line up to grant their wishes.

Carbon Tax

Fine, a supporter might say. But Obama's real message is that we need to end partisan bickering and look for solutions that both Republicans and Democrats can endorse. By that metric, of course, his energy proposals also fall short. Exactly why should Republicans rush to endorse a costly bailout for a special interest group that is among the most reliable supporters of their political opposition?

A fresh bipartisan energy proposal would speak the truth about the problem. Carbon-based fuels are causing global warming, and we need to reduce our reliance on them through the introduction of a carbon tax. While doing that, we should end all subsidies for alternatives and let the high energy costs that follow from the tax motivate people to aggressively pursue new cost-effective solutions.

That might not reward corn farmers, or unions, but it would be the kind of fresh approach that would be worthy of bipartisan applause. Perhaps that is too much to expect from a politician these days, but it is certainly the kind of thinking one might expect from a candidate who has staked out the territory that Obama has.

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He was chief economic adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona during the 2000 primaries. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at khassett@aei.org

Last Updated: May 14, 2007 00:13 EDT