Why aren't SSL certs only to encrypt the transmission so data can't be packet sniffed? Why must the cert also certify that foo.com's owners paid $X for a cert?
SSL uses PKI(public key infrastructure). PKI provides two things, authentication and encryption. Authentication is critical because it proves the encrypted message is going the the recipient and there is nobody in the middle.
Why must the cert also certify that foo.com's owners paid $X for a cert?
It only certify that foo.com owns the certificate, it says nothing about how much the certificate costs.A certificate is a signed public key.
If I connect to mybank.com, can't I clearly tell from the URL that I'm going to where I think I'm going?
If you type "mybank.com" on your browser, your browser will make DNS request to get "mybank.com" IP address. Somebody could high jack the DNS request and return "iownyou.com" IP address and all of your data will send there instead of "mybank.com". Here is the part where the authenticity of the connection comes in.
In contrast, when I ssh between computers, I don't need any certs for that. Assuming I typed the host's name correctly, I'm going to where I think I'm going. Right?
When you ssh to a new computer, you will be presented with the other computer signature and asked if you trust the connection is coming from where you think its coming from and it is your responsibility to authenticate the connection. The CA system puts the responsibility on somebody else. The way ssh works is equivalent to self signed keys online. They will give you encryption but not authenticity. If you go to "mybank.com" and they say "we are mybank.com, trust us,we are who we say we are, here is an encrypted connection, use it to send your bank info", would you proceed? i hope you wont.
Adding features does not necessarily increase functionality -- it just makes the manuals thicker.