Politicians in campaign mode tend to be generous with promises of new benefits but stingy with the details on how they would be paid for. Their frequent vague answer, when asked — that the programs could be funded by reducing “waste, fraud and other abuse” — is unsatisfactory.

But in a recent American Association of Retired Persons forum on health care and economic security, Democrats running for president did offer unusually specific sources of new money to go with the proposals. And more often than not, they involved higher taxes.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards was especially forthcoming. He had previously said that his plan for universal health coverage could be funded by getting rid of the Bush-era tax cuts for households making over $200,000 a year.

But when forum moderator Judy Woodruff, of PBS’s NewsHour, asked whether that would be sufficient to raise the $100-plus billion a year that would be eventually needed, Mr. Edwards said he would do more. He would also raise the capital-gains rate to 27 percent from 15 percent for people making over $250,000 a year.

The senator further argued for the fairness of increasing the capital-gains tax rate: Under current law, many working people pay a much higher tax on the fruits of their labor than investors do on their capital gains. (We will add that when the great tax-cutter Ronald Reagan left office the capital-gains rate was 28 percent.)

Delaware Sen. Joe Biden said the journey to universal health coverage could start with a program spearheaded by the federal government that insures all children and provides catastrophic coverage (insurance against very serious illness or injury) to everyone. He said that those two items would cost less than $85 billion a year and could be paid for by canceling the tax cuts for the top 1 percent.

All the candidates endorsed letting the government negotiate prices on Medicare prescription drugs. Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd offered a number on the savings that could be achieved — a not inconsiderable $330 billion over seven years.

On caring for the elderly and disabled, Mr. Dodd noted that an assisted-living program averages about $35,000 a year, and a skilled-care center, about $75,000. He said that in addition to tax credits to help pay the costs of long-term care, money could be provided to states and local governments for services that help people who wish to remain at home do so. The numbers on how much could be saved by such programs were not put on the table – nor for that matter was the unquantifiable improvement in quality of life for elderly people who dearly wish to stay in familiar surroundings.

We cannot vouch for the soundness of these numbers. Government programs tend to cost a lot more in the real world than in the dream phase. But talking about costs is an important first step and a change for the better over the “wouldn’t it be nice” kind of campaign promises that the public has become used to.