The interview question put to the Republican congressman was what he thought of Michelle Obama's anti-obesity campaign. The Republican's reply said much, much more about where he and his GOP colleagues are coming from than anything he could possibly have intended. His reply: "I eat organic."

::::::::

Did you know that Wisconsin's conservative Paul Ryan eats organic?

The interview question put to the Republican congressman by the New York Times Deborah Solomon was what he thought of Michelle Obama's anti-obesity campaign. The Republican's reply said much, much more about where he and his GOP colleagues are coming from than anything he could possibly have intended. His reply: "I eat organic."

Talk about crass! With millions and millions and millions of Americans out of work, trying to get by however they can, and losing more and more ground every day in the process; with many more millions facing the loss of that tinsel-weak thread of social support -- the state-issued, bi-monthly unemployment checks from states on the rim of the precipice, looking at the terrible pit below -- facing cut-off . . . You ever priced "organic"?

Talk about out of touch with average Americans! The CPAC conference wrapped up on Sunday, February 21. And while not every conservative leader made a showing, consider for a moment who did, and who the leaders are. Glenn Beck gave a rousing talk, focused on cutting government spending. (It re-aired on C-SPAN, and yes, I forced myself to watch it, primarily to get my juices into overdrive.) Others of the ilk, besides Ryan, a fully-fledged card carrier, include Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and the now omnipresent Sarah Palin; each and all ever on the prowl for opportunities to extol what they contend are the superior virtues of conservative fiscal policies. And each and all are the alpha-icons atop the apex of American financial success -- or, more accurately -- excess.

While comfortable with the sufficiency of their own medical care insurance, they castigate as profligate Obama's and the Democrats' efforts to extend, under the federal government's aegis, even minimal preventative and restorative care to those who have none.

What about the 50-plus million, or one in six Americans with no health coverage, and the 45,000 who perish each year as a direct consequence? And what about the millions more who each year are added to that tragic population segment because of jobs lost, or whose employers can no longer afford the soaring health insurance rates? Or those who supposedly have insurance, but whose coverage is rendered meaningless when the insurance company tells the doctors and the hospitals it won't pay for the expensive care the doctors and hospitals recommend?"

The reply to those life-and-death scenarios is that it's not in the federal government's panoply of constitutionally mandated job-descriptions to either provide such care, or to see that such care is somehow made available. (Why do I feel some disconnect between that argument and the convenient dismissing of the $255,000 federal farm subsidy checks that Minnesota's arch-conservative Republican US Representative Michelle Bachmann has always been happy to deposit?)

We're constantly fed the mantra that medical care for those unable to afford it is -- or, at least should be -- obtainable through the many religious and other charitable organizations. And that there's also Medicaid, through the states. But the religious and other charitable organizations have never had the wherewithal to meet the critical demand, and they, like the states' Medicaid budgets have been disemboweled, much like Serengeti carrion. So what? Throw the hands in the air, as if nothing else can be done? If they gotta die, well, as sad as that may be, there's really nothing else that can be done . . . because the country cannot afford it? Are these the "conservative values" we're talking about?

I'm reminded however, that conservative values are not absolutely synonymous with so-called "Christian values." "Conservative" and "Christian" are -- as they have been construed and advertised by the throngs espousing the supposition -- adjectives that go together. While not a believer in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, I truly believe in the progressive social messages preached by the fellow. Whether it's the Parable of the Good Samaritan or in the "least of these thy brethren" talk in Matthew 25, I can't discern in them the same sort of "leave 'em by the wayside to die" notions that conservative fiscal policies equate to.

That's health care. There are other spending categories that reap conservative's ire.

Before heading into that storm, let's agree to one fact of life: What each of us enjoys and are victims of are overwhelmingly attributable to either fortunate or unfortunate circumstances we really had little to nothing to do with. Good luck. Bad luck. As the old saw goes, "if you want to make God laugh, make a plan."

You pleasure in good health? Ever hear of anyone who, from a healthy lifestyle, did everything right, yet was nonetheless felled? Why them and not you? Luck; good luck for you, bad luck for them. You worked diligently and hard for a prospering company, and rose through the ranks, while someone else, in some other company, worked just as diligently and hard, but saw their position out-sourced, or the company trimmed back or went completely out of business. Why them and not you? Why their company, and not yours? Luck; bad luck for them, good luck for you. Two lessons: Bad luck can befall any of us, so don't be smug.

Prior to embarking upon GOP conservatism's other targets, it's essential we dispense with two basic accounting terms, terms that conservatives are either ignorant of or that they disingenuously skip right over: "expenses" and "costs." They are not the same. Nor are they even remotely synonymous, though they are frequently, erroneously, used interchangeably.

Expensing accounts for cash outlays that cover normal annual operations such as wages and salaries, rent, utilities, etc. Costing covers investment items spread over years, a portion of which are dealt with on every year's books; buildings and equipment, for example. The key word here is "investment," or that which is secured -- most frequently via borrowing by both private and government entities -- in the expectation of benefits that will over time exceed the purchase prices and loan costs.

As with nearly all social programs, unemployment compensation is another target conservatives take aim at.

Unemployed individuals fall into distinct subsets of "the unemployed" such as youths trying to enter the workforce for the first time, mature adults making the same effort; for example, women whose labors previously were confined primarily to the home. Another subset includes all who had been employed, but for a variety of reasons are not now. The first two subsets are serious, critical in too many cases. However, I want to remark on the latter subset, those who had been employed but no longer are.

Within this major grouping are also subsets based on age, educational levels, and existing skill sets, among other characteristics. On behalf of finding employment, each subset has its own array of possibilities and obstacles. Those under 45 or 50, for example, and those who are older. The older one is, the more difficult -- if it's even possible -- not only to find a replacement, but for any position. For a variety of sound business reasons the older worker is frequently not as good a bet as is, say, a 30- or 35-year old. If the job comes with health benefits, health insurance for the older worker will be increasingly more expensive for the employer, regardless that it's statistically unlikely the older worker will be more productive, commensurate with the higher insurance expense the employer will bear.

Retraining the laid-off worker to another field is often touted. Think about it, however. Retraining means precisely that: going out and being educated to do something one previously was not qualified to do. How long will it take? How much will it cost? Who or what entity will pay for the education and training? Then, once completed, the graduate will have no actual experience in the field, or so little as to effectively have no actual experience; experience that, given current job competition and employer's demands, will still, for all intents and purposes, leave the mature applicant unemployed, unemployable, thus vitiating the value of the retraining in the first place.

The out-of-work mature person intimately knows all of this. There are no illusions, but a host of very real, Fortune 500 types of business decisions that the mature person is forced to confront, not the least of which are, where's the money for the retraining going to come from; personal savings, when there are none? From funds the family needs just to eat, pay the rent, utilities? Borrow the money? From where? And once borrowed and the schooling completed, how will it be repaid, given the low wages or salaries paid to those with limited practical experience? What if the to be retained person either has no personal means of transportation, or cannot afford to put gas in the car, not for employment, but to the training facility? Perhaps the training is available over the Internet. By definition that means one must own a computer and subscribe to some utility providing Internet access.

The real life facts of life are that many of the millions unemployed don't have either of those prerequisites. As a country, as a government, what fundamental obligations do we have to those who find themselves victims of bad luck? Tell them to suck it in? Pull themselves up by their own bootstraps? Because conservative fiscal prudence says that's just the luck of the draw?

None of the above were noted as excuses to do nothing. Rather, they are issues the conservative fiscal mantras overlook entirely. After all, by their own admission, they eat organic.

According to Education Secretary Arne Duncan, fully 75% of all public school facilities in the US are seriously deficient for more than one of the integral building components (electrical, HVAC, plumbing, etc.), or are so obsolete in one or more necessary structural components that the basic education task is negatively impacted.

A school facility is not an expense, it is an investment made with the expectation that the benefit to the purchaser, in this case, the society, will far exceed the construction costs. With the full expectation that the country will be better off in the future, we commit to investing in the education of our young. Or that's what we claim, no matter that the proof of school facilities give lie to the assertion. Once again, as with private enterprise, borrowing the "cost" sums necessary to cover an "investment" is how business is transacted. Cringing against the enterprise because it will add to the national debt is simply penny wise and pound foolish.

But conservatives rant that education is a local issue, that the federal government has no valid place in the mix. It wasn't wasteful overspending that catapulted our school districts into the financial toilet in which they find themselves today. One reason was a surging population base the local electorate chronically refused to acknowledge and, via adequate taxation for new or revitalized facilities, to adjust for. The other was the collapse of the stock market, the housing market, and the economic base that should have funded new or revitalized facilities. Arguing whether education ought to be a federal or strictly state responsibility misses the point entirely. Educating our youth, whatever it takes, is not something a country that hopes to have any future economic role puts aside.

Ray LaHood, the current Secretary of Transportation, not too long ago testified before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that the condition of the United States transportation and infrastructure is decrepit; too often dangerously so. The overwhelming majority of bridges and overpasses are at least 40 years old -- their anticipated life expectancies when they were first built. Many are more than 60 years old and in seriously deteriorated condition. Regardless that our traffic load has more than quintupled, we haven't made an earnest improvement to the Interstate freeway system since the early '70s.

Per the secretary, backed by insurance company records, across the US, the motoring public and private enterprise waste more than $1 billion annually on vehicle repairs that are made necessary only because of the condition of our roads. Additionally, American competitiveness is adversely impacted because we sit for hours on freeways, wasting time and fuel while we spew millions of tons of carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the air.

Freeways and local roads are not the only elements of our national infrastructure we have, as a nation, blithely and foolheartedly ignored. Our airport facilities, by and large, are completely obsolete, causing major delays and risking air traveler safety.

A short time ago, the transportation secretary attempted unsuccessfully to cajole Chris Matthews, host of "Hardball," into buying the notion that the administration's pledge of $5 billion to build a high speed rail line between Tampa and Orlando, was a major investment down payment on high speed rail in this country. While China, Japan, and Europe have dedicated 200 mph-plus lines linking their major metropolitan areas, the US has not one, and not a one on the drawing board. The 45-mile Tampa-Orlando link will not reach beyond 180 mph and does nothing serious about ameliorating what has become a highly expensive national transportation deficiency. What about tying the Bay Area to LA, to San Diego? Or Houston to Dallas-Fort Worth and San Antonio to El Paso? Or Chicago to the eastern seaboard, and the eastern seaboard metropolitan areas -- Washington, DC to Boston, and everything in between?

The sewer systems of many of our urban cities are a century or more older, held intact on not much more than prayers. Our water treatment plants are wholly inadequate to present needs. We don't have an efficient energy grid. And on and on and on.

Everyone who has ever purchased a house or an automobile knows that the purchase is merely the beginning of what can be anticipated in the way of cash outlays for everyday maintenance or borrowed sums to cover major rehabilitation. Major rehabilitation is not an expense, it is a costable item, an investment. But whether it's been making the serious investment or just maintenance, we've been negligent to the point of inexcusable stupidity.

But that's where the conservatives and Republicans insist prudent fiscal policy inheres, and that borrowing, while prudent for private enterprise, is a sacrilegious betrayal of sound fiscal policy when the borrower is the federal government. That is, of course, unless the borrowing is for military adventurism in foreign lands, or to fund agricultural subsidies.

But then . . . they eat organic.

Authors Bio:
An "Old Army Vet" and liberal, qua liberal, with a passion for open inquiry in a neverending quest for truth unpoisoned by religious superstitions. Per Voltaire: "He who can lead you to believe an absurdity can lead you to commit an atrocity."