In August, when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney picked his running mate, he showed his hand.  Potential VP Marco Rubio, a man of Cuban descent and therefore thought to be able to garner a share of the coveted Hispanic vote, was the politically expedient choice, and Tim Pawlenty was seen as the safe choice.  Instead, to the surprise of many and shock of a few, Mr. Romney tapped Paul Ryan, a representative from Wisconsin who has authored several budgets that seriously address Medicare – a sacred entitlement that politicians are loathe to challenge.

Opponents of the Ryan plan argue that it will end Medicare as we know it.  Clearly, Mr. Romney is more worried about the end of America as we know it.  Romney/Ryan are concerned that America is quickly reaching Greece’s debt-to-GDP ratio.  (To see the numbers for yourself google “America’s debt to GDP ratio.”) The numbers may or may not make sense to you, but what should be perfectly clear as well as very scary, are the images you see on your television screen of the riots in Athens because the Greek government has promised more than it can deliver. American politicians having been making promises that they can’t keep for too long.  Romney’s pick of Ryan sent a signal to voters that there is no way around our budget woes without taking on Medicare.  Truth number one: Romney is prepared to lead on hard problems that won’t be popular with voters, but may be necessary to save America from going broke.

Truth number two:  Mitt Romney works well with others.  Mr. Romney as the Republican governor of very liberal Massachusetts passed his signature health-care legislation with a legislator that was over 80% Democrats.  By comparison, President Obama pushed his health-care bill through Congress without a single Republican vote, thus creating an even greater tension between the two parties and major gridlock.

Truth number three:  Mr. Romney is always prepared.  If you are one of the 67 million people who watched the presidential debate you are aware of this.  There are numerous accounts from Romney’s Harvard classmates extolling his extraordinary focus and work ethic.   Can you imagine if instead of a debate to be re-elected President (no small thing!), Mr. Obama had shown up at a meeting with an important head of state so unprepared?

Further revealing the truth of Mr. Romney’s character are two anecdotal stories that have not been widely distributed by the media, but have been solidly verified.

The first is from Romney’s time at Bain.  Mr. Romney got word that a colleague’s daughter had gone missing.  Upon hearing such horrible news you would expect the President of a large financial corporation like Bain to step out of his meeting to call the distressed colleague and offer supportive words while directing his assistant to send flowers or a basket of fruit to the home.  Not Mitt!  Romney went into full crisis mode shutting down the office for business as usual and putting people to work posting flyers, making phone calls and sectioning the city into a grid for searching.  There are two truths here:  Mitt Romney is not a man who shrinks from a crisis and his compassion extends beyond words to actions.  Not to mention, this story shatters the myth put forth by his opponents that Romney is a man out of touch with humanity and solely focused on profits.

The second story took place over the summer when Mr. Romney was recording a campaign advertisement in a staffer’s back yard.  He was asked to wait in the garage, out of the sun, while they prepared the shot.  While waiting, Mr. Romney not only organized the garage he also swept it out.  Most people won’t clean out their own garages much less someone else’s.

Mitt Romney’s opposition is pressing the notion that he’s not like you and me.  Truth number six:  HE’s NOT!  He’s nothing like you and me.  He doesn’t drink, smoke or swear; he has been married to the same woman for forty-plus years with no hint of scandal (he glows in her presence!); he’s never tried drugs, but as a pastor of his church he helped counsel people with drug problems; he got a double degree in graduate school (a law degree and a business degree simultaneously) while making top grades; he sees a mess and he fixes it even when it’s in someone else’s; and, maybe the most surprising of all, he’d rather work for his money than have it handed to him — he gave away his inheritance.

The truth is maybe we shouldn’t elect Mitt Romney president — maybe we should just clone him.             

The Iowa caucuses are the official start of the Republican primary season. For months we’ve had the chance to meet the candidates through a series of televised debates. The press has boiled the choice down to Mitt Romney or the non-Romney candidate du jour.

Michele Bachmann started strong with her Iowa Straw Poll win but was soon upstaged when the governor of Texas threw his ten-gallon hat into the ring. But, oops, it turns out Rick Perry is all hat and no cattle. Everyone wanted to like Herman Cain but it seems his libido got in the way of his good judgment.  Libertarian-leaning Ron Paul will make you love him with one answer and be terrified of him with the next. Newt Gingrich, who has been a brilliant debater, surged when Cain suspended his campaign and Perry self-destructed. But, alas, Mr. Gingrich’s past relationships — marital infidelities and Fannie & Freddie — left voters wondering about the strength of his character. Rick Santorum, a solid debater and tenacious, was rewarded with a timely surge just before the caucuses but is probably too conservative for independent voters in the general election. Jon Huntsman, the former ambassador to China and governor of Utah, is popular with independents but has barely made a blip on the primary screen. (Mr. Huntsman’s inability to gain any traction is unfortunate; he has bold ideas and a pragmatic sensibility.) This leaves Mitt Romney as the most viable choice to top the republican ticket.

Mr. Romney has shown intelligence and deftness time and time again on the debate floor and is squeaky clean in his personal life, yet America hesitates and Mr. Romney’s poll numbers stay constant but somewhat anemic. Some say the hesitation is due to a weak Republican field. I don’t think so. Every person running has helped define the type of leader that America needs, and voters have been paying attention — the many debates have been widely watched.  If voters have been slow to fall in love with Romney it may be  because they are a little “gun -shy” after electing Mr. Obama — another great debater from Harvard Law, but unable thus far to get America back on track.

What separates Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney as leaders? In a word: Experience. Mr. Obama was a community organizer, briefly a state legislator, and even more briefly a U.S. Senator before becoming President. Mr. Romney graduated from Harvard with a law degree and a business degree, went to work for a management consulting company, later co-founded and ran a private equity investment firm, took over the financially troubled 2002 Olympic games turning them into a success, and from 2003 until 2007 was the republican governor of the very “blue” state of Massachusetts. Mr. Romney has been demonized for making a lot of money but if you look closely at his resume you will notice that he has also been very successful in crisis management.

So, why is this election so important? Where do I start? Unemployment is incredibly high, Europe is going broke and America is not far behind. Almost half of every dollar we borrow goes to pay the interest on our debt. Entitlements (Social Security, Medicare) are unsustainable and will either go broke or break our children and grandchildren if they aren’t reformed. There is an Arab revolution taking place. Iran is run by a crazy man that will soon have a nuclear weapon and North Korea, which already has nuclear weapons, just lost their long-time dictator and the country is now being run by his son that we know nothing about. We are nearing crisis mode.

In the mid-term elections Republican candidates led by Tea Party types were wildly successful, Obama dug in his heels, became divisive, resorted to class warfare and America suffers.

Mr. Romney will never be loved by the far left or the far right and the press doesn’t find him exciting. There are however, plenty of people who appreciate his success in working with a democratic legislature (as a republican governor!) to move his state forward, and his business background that allows him to seek solutions to problems without letting ideology get in the way. Mr. Romney is not a dreamer he’s a doer. He’s not a cool uncle that will give you a beer and take you to a concert — he’s the dad that will make you take your medicine (and it’s not going to taste good) but you will feel better the next day, not hungover.

Here’s a look at the candidates:

MICHELLE BACHMANN — The only woman in the field, Ms. Bachmann had to answer a question at the debate about a statement she made regarding wives being submissive to their husbands. Apparently, this is how Ms. Bachmann decided to become a tax account — something she wasn’t keen on but her husband thought she should do. Ms. Bachmann is not only a tax lawyer, she is also the mother of five children and 23 foster children, was a state legislator, and is currently a congresswoman and presidential candidate — there is nothing about her that makes me think submissive. However, when she tried to explain the statement away by saying that to her and her husband, submissive means respect, I wanted to laugh. This, along with some strong rhetoric on gays, has put Ms. Bachmann in an uncompromising social conservative corner. She’s considered a top tier candidate but I don’t see any subtlety, just enthusiastic talking points. Although she won the straw poll I don’t think she stands a chance against Rick Perry, another social conservative, but with executive experience and a lot of Texas swagger.

HERMAN CAIN — A successful businessman with tons of charisma, but no political experience. Americans may be tired of career politicians, but when it comes to the presidency, they generally won’t vote for someone with no political experience . I am hoping that Mr. Cain will bring his common-sense business approach to California — I’ll volunteer to run his gubernatorial campaign. Cain in 202o?

NEWT GINGRICH –I’m always impressed by just how smart Mr. Gingrich is (in an IQ sort of way). I just can’t get past the extra-marital affairs, and his Tiffany affair. It just seems to me if someone wants to appeal to conservatives they should not have repeated affairs, and if they want to make decisions about fiscal policy they should not owe Tiffany and Co. a half a million dollars. We want intelligent politicians, but it’s imperative that we make sure they have good common sense too. And, wouldn’t it be nice if they could lead by example?

JON HUNTSMAN — Some say that his service as ambassador to China for the Obama administration is a negative. I disagree. We need a president that can bring democrats and republicans together. I liked his answers at the debate — he’s in favor of a flat tax and he recognizes that cyber warfare is a threat that we have to take very seriously — not only for national security but for financial security. His experience with the Chinese could prove to be very valuable over the next eight years. Mr. Huntsman could attract the independent vote in the general election with his moderate stance on social issues, but the primary will be tough. The problem with Mr. Huntsman is that no one knows who he is. He doesn’t command attention, and with America and the world in a mess of troubles, we need a strong leader. Mr. Huntsman has the experience and proven record to add substance to the debate. It will behoove the process to have Mr. Huntsman become a strong candidate.  Make no mistake, the White House fears Romney and Huntsman more than anyone else in the field.

RON PAUL — Everything Mr. Paul says makes perfect sense to me.  Like Keynesian economics, Mr. Paul’s Libertarian viewpoint is perfectly sound in theory; however, in the real world we have to keep an eye on Iran and we probably shouldn’t completely dismantle the Fed. There is no hesitation from Mr. Paul when he is asked a question — he knows exactly where he stands and he sees no reason to politicize his answer. He doesn’t have much of a chance of winning, but this Texan is a straight shooter and he keeps us all thinking.

TIM PAWLENTY — Mr. Pawlenty dropped out of the race after a “whooping” at the debate and a third place finish in the straw poll. Mr. Pawlenty is a nice man but if Michelle Bachmann could take him down just imagine what Rick Perry would have done with him. He was smart to get out when he did.

RICK PERRY — Mr. Perry did not perform in the debate — he announced two days after, but he still managed to steal the show. Mr. Perry is an evangelical Christian conservative in the same vein as Ms. Bachmann, Mr. Pawlenty, and Mr. Santorum, but with a jobs-creating track record as governor of Texas. For Mr. Perry, the “T” in Texas stands for testosterone, and there is no one in this race that can “out Texas” him, and, he will eviscerate anyone who tries. His Texas “talk” will help him in the primary, but it could be the end of him in the general election — it sounds an awful lot like George W. Bush.

MITT ROMNEY — Mr. Romney has appeared in two of the three republican debates — winning both on substance if not on charisma. As the nominal front runner, Mr. Romney has taken hits from all sides and has done a remarkable job of staying calm, cool, and keeping his responses above the fray. Romney has run a successful business, he took over the Salt Lake City Olympics when it was in crisis and turned it into a financial success, and he was the republican governor of the very “blue” state of Massachusetts for four years. Not a bad resume’ considering America needs jobs, is in a financial crisis with its debt, and is suffering from gridlock due to partisan politics.

RICK SANTORUM– Mr. Santorum was passionate and aggressive during the debate. But, the bottom line is he had to raise his hand to get a question  and he couldn’t win his last senatorial race. One of my son’s friends posted on Facebook: “When Tim Pawlenty dropped out of the presidential race I was disappointed cause I was worried we lost the best worst candidate, thank god for Rick Santorum.”  Kind of sums it up.

BARACK OBAMA  –  His health-care bill spawned the Tea Party and his move to the middle on the Bush tax cuts and the debt-ceiling debate have enraged the left. His approval rating is a dismal 24% and yet he has no challenge from the left– AMAZING!  While Mr. Obama is well educated and has a strong vision for America (not that we all agree with it),  his lack of experience has led to a dearth of leadership. Although his approval rating is at a historic low, he is still well liked personally; ultimately, the economy will make or break him.

 Affluent, liberal, and politically correct Marin County, California is probably not the first place you think of when it comes to Tea Party rallies, but that’s where I had my first encounter. Early last fall I walked into the Mill Valley Community Center to the sounds of the Pledge of Allegiance and life-sized cutouts of Ronald Regan, Abraham Lincoln, and Sarah Palin — clearly, I was in the right place.

I am an independent voter but I was interested to see and talk to this group of people that had been so maligned. Nancy Pelosi called the Tea Pary “astro turf” in an effort to marginalize them and the media seemed to only cover the gun-toting types. Were they crazy, bigoted, flash-in-the-pan extremists? A few were (one man wearing camo wanted to talk to me about eugenics — scary!), but for the most part they were a group of people that felt very strongly that America was on the wrong track. Overwhelmingly, their main concern was America’s debt.

I was surprised to see an athletic-looking sixteen year-old young man at the rally. It was a beautiful day and I asked him what he was doing at a Tea Party rally when the beach was just a few miles away. He told me he was trying to figure out “what was up” with his future. Also surprising: While most appreciated Sarah Palin for the focus she brought to America’s debt problem, the majority said they would not vote for her if she ran for president. There was something palpable in the room and it went beyond passion — these people were committed.

A few months later a group of Tea Party candidates got elected to Congress, and with the debt limit debate, they’ve changed the conversation in Washington.

The debt limit has been raised 74 times since 1962 — never with any conditions attached. Republican and Democratic administrations have raised the limit and Americans have not even blinked as our spending has spiraled out of control.

Generally, Deomocrats want to raise taxes to address the deficit and Republicans want to cut spending on social programs. Voters don’t like either of these options, a fact that Congress is well aware of, so Congress gets a new credit card with a higher limit and no one has to feel any pain — or lose their next election. America’s debt continues to mount and Republicans and Democrats blame each other because nothing has gotten done.

Enter the Tea Party.

They came to Washington with a mission to get America’s spending under control and to reduce debt. They were pummeled from the left and the right during the debt-limit debate but they stayed on message.

They continue to be attacked. John Kerry and the media suggested that America’s downgrade from a AAA to a AA credit rating was the Tea Party’s fault. While Standard & Poor’s cited Washington’s inability to work together to address the debt as one of the reasons for the downgrade, no one can doubt that the debt is the problem, not the Tea Party. Blaming the Tea Party for the downgrade is shooting the messenger. Plus, it may surprise you, but contrary to the media’s protrayal that the Tea Party segment of the Republican party was responsible for the no votes on the debt-limit bill, more Democrats voted no than Republicans, with a combined House and Senate total of 101 Democratic no votes and 85 Republican no votes. 

The debt-limit deal is far from perfect: it doesn’t address the big drivers of our debt — Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, and, we have to think about tax reform. The Republicans didn’t get cuts in social services and the Democrats didn’t get tax increases, but the Tea Party got a conversation started —  and the American people are beginning to listen.

*If you want to be part of the conversation call, write, or email your representatives and demand that they make the hard choices to get America’s fiscal house in order. Be prepared, if government does what it has to do to make us a strong nation again, we will all have to feel some pain — better a little pain now than a lot of pain later.  Contact Elected Officials | USA.gov

Does character count in politics? We want our politicians to be smart — we even like them tall– but do we care if they are faithful to their families? Philandering by politicians has been around forever, but if George Washington cheated on Martha, the whole country didn’t find out about it. Now, with Facebook, Twitter, and cable news, cheaters are not only found out, the news spreads across the country within minutes. We, as voters, are privy to information that we can act on — should we?

The recently married Mr. Weiner, after adamantly denying any wrong doing, admitted yesterday that he had sent messages and photos “explicit in nature” to six women he had met online over the past three years via Twitter, Facebook and Email. One of the pictures appears to be of a shirtless Mr. Weiner in his office. While he is not accused of breaking any laws, using government computers or phones  to transmit explicit pictures would be an ethics violation. Mr. Weiner has said that he won’t step down. The people of New York’s ninth district will have to decide if Mr. Weiner engaging in online dalliances is worth their tax dollars, and they will have to ask themselves this: Do I tacitly condone Mr. Weiner’s behavior by giving him my vote?

Meeting with the press last week after his indictment, John Edwards said that he was so sorry for the pain that he had caused his family, but that he had not done anything illegal. I’m betting that he did. He lied about the affair he had with his campaign videographer and he lied about the child from that affair being his. Why should we believe him when he says that he did not do anything illegal? Again, a politician that pushes the boundaries, crossing the line morally, pushing the envelop legally and lying until he is totally surrounded.

Juxtaposed to Mr. Weiner and Mr. Edwards, Mitt Romney stood on a podium at a farm in New Hampshire and announced that he would be running for president; of course, his wife of forty-plus years was with him. Mr. Romney was governor of Massachusetts for four years, ran for president in 2008, and has continued to be is the spotlight, yet there is no hint of scandal around him. He is often described as “squeaky clean” and even held his wife’s hand when the two were on The View. Mr. Romney, a devout Mormon, doesn’t drink, doesn’t smoke and by all accounts, doesn’t fool around. Watching Mitt and Ann Romney last week amid the Edwards and Weiner scandals was like a breath of fresh air.

The movies The Hangover part 1 and 2 went from funny to obscene, music has gone from suggestive to explicit, and politicians aren’t expected to be role models anymore. Raising kids has gone from hard to near impossible. Character has become obsolete and I’m truly getting worried. America is suffering from a character deficit, as well as a fiscal deficit.

John Edwards’ political career is over. Anthony Weiner and Mitt Romney will both be seeking offices next year. I hope that when Americans go to the polls they cast their votes for character. We need more Mitts and less Weiners.

Mr. Daniels, the current governor of Indiana, has been very successful in keeping Indiana’s finances in the black at a time when so many states are drowning in a sea of red.  He worked his magic with good policy decisions: he privatized a toll road and implemented a health-care system where people had “skin in the game” that has saved money and been very popular.  He has managed to bring the people of Indiana together with his soft-spoken, yet wicked-smart ways.

Mr. Daniels has none of the fierce partisan rhetoric that you expect from a potential presidential candidate.  In fact, he deigned to upset the republican base by suggesting that we “call a truce” on social issues. I agree with Mr. Daniels: government’s focus should be on economics and foreign policy, not morality. Leaders should exemplify morality, not preach or legislate it.

Interestingly, the far right is littered with candidates that espouse family values while carrying on with their mistresses.  While Mr. Daniels wants to focus on economic issues and not moral ones, his personal life would make any girl’s heart flutter. He raised his four daughters after he and his wife divorced and she married another man and moved to California.  Four years later he remarried his wife. When the press speculated that Daniels wouldn’t run because his wife’s four-year hiatus from their marriage would be under scrutiny, Mr. Daniels chivalrously declared that she had kept a house in Indiana to be close to her daughters and was the “best mother any daughter could ever hope to have.”

There are other good candidates in the 2012 race: Mitt Romney has a spotless reputation as a family man and is erudite. Tim Pawlenty is from a humble blue-collar background and should be able to relate to middle-America, and Jon Huntsman is a solid family man with good foreign policy experience — all good men, but I’m sure that Mr. Daniels would have raised the level of the debate. At a time when our country, in fact the world, faces so many challenges, more intelligent and measured voices are needed.

Daniels announced he would not run saying, “I love my country, but I love my family more.” Anyone running for public office should be scrutinized to the max, but their families should be left alone; whether they’ve made mistakes or just don’t want to live under a microscope, if they aren’t running they should not be part of the debate.

Character counts — we need more leaders that exemplify good moral and ethical behavior. However, we are losing good would-be public servants because we have a 24-hour news cycle with a voracious appetite. We have to stop feeding this monster by ignoring irrelevant salacious tidbits and start demanding relevant facts presented in a civil fashion.

Pundits are saying that Tim Pawlenty is the big winner with Mitch Daniels getting out of the race. I disagree. Barack Obama is the big winner. But more importantly, America is the loser when we focus on the wrong things, or the wrong people.

Passive/Aggressive:  Mr. Masood wants us to know that he “feels our pain” and then he lets us know that it could get worse:

“The volatile situation in Pakistan is matched by the understandable outrage of Americans that the world’s most notorious terrorist lived unmolested for five years in a city teeming with Pakistani military officers. But any overreaction by Washington could endanger Pakistani democracy and further empower the military — or even lead to an outright military takeover. For the United States, support for Pakistan’s civilian, democratic government is the only way to assure regional peace, stability and prosperity.”

I am glad to hear that Mr. Masood understands that Americans are outraged that Osama bin Laden was living right under the Pakistani military’s noses. And, yes it is better for Pakistan to be run by a democracy rather than the military, but his threat that this is the only way to regional peace is absurd. That there will ever be peace in this region is a long shot, and that they want peace is questionable at best. Pakistan seems perfectly happy to keep the Taliban stirred-up, as well as comfortable in their role as safe haven for al-Qaeda. There is no reason for Pakistan to solve the problem of Islamist extremism in their region.  The United States pays Pakistan to rid these extremist, why should Pakistan get rid of their “bed and butter?”

Continuing his passive/aggressive diatribe Mr. Masood says:

“For Pakistan, America’s military and economic assistance is vital. Moreover, when Pakistan is facing enormous domestic difficulties, it can ill afford to antagonize America. Leaders in both countries must therefore step back from confrontation and find ways to repair the damage. Pushing Pakistan’s political leadership to the brink is not an option.”

The billions of dollars that America sends to Pakistan is indeed vital to their country.  And, it is very likely that withholding money is one of the options that would push Pakistan’s political leadership to the brink — make no mistake: it is very much an option that is on the mind of Americans.  In a May 20 Time magazine article David Von Drehle quotes Senator Frank Lautenberg: “Before we send another dime [to Pakistan], we need to know whether Pakistan truly stands with us in the fight against terrorism.”

(the lack of) Perspicuity: Mr. Masood writes that because of the secret American raid that killed bin Laden, there is now a lack of confidence from civil society regarding the military:

“The ability of the armed forces to guard the border with Afghanistan and the civilian government’s control over security matters have also been put into doubt.”

If Mr. Masood and the Pakistani civil society ever thought that their border with Afghanistan was safe they are all delusional.  When things get too “hot” in Afghanistan for al-Qaeda they head right across the border into Pakistan for a holiday.  Fareed Zakaria questions in a May 11 op-ed piece in the Washington Post: ” How is it that every major al-Qaeda official who has been captured since 2002 has been comfortably ensconced in a Pakistani city?”

It is being reported today that Pakistan has a new nuclear facility. The plant — about 140 miles from Islamabad —  was not there two years ago. It is almost certain that the billions of dollars that America has been pumping into Pakistan have, at least in part, gone toward Pakistan’s nuclear program allowing for this rapid buildup. Pakistani officials say that the buildup is in response to the threat from India.  Herein lies the problem: Pakistan feels their existential threat is India, not radical Islam.  If nuclear material falls into the wrong hands (and there are a lot of them in Pakistan) then ironically, the money that we have spent to fight terrorism may come back to haunt/explode us.

America does not intend to punish Pakistan, but we are out of patience.

I got a text Sunday night at 7:50 saying: “Usama bin Laden dead.  We got the bastard” It took me a few minutes to process the telegram-like text that my sister sent.  I remembered watching 9/11 unfold almost ten years ago and I said out loud, “finally.” I then immediately thought, “what now?”

I answered my own question: OBL’s death is the perfect reason to hasten our exit from Afghanistan.  Although troops are scheduled to start drawing down this summer, there has been a lot of talk about keeping the drawdown to a minimum. I hope this doesn’t happen. We should stay on schedule and start the drawdown in July, and continue quickly, leaving as few troops as possible to train Afghan forces to take over.  The timing of OBL’s death would be a terrible thing to waste.

America is spending billions of dollars a year in Afghanistan and Pakistan with very little to show for it (OSB’s death the exception). An article in the New York Times on Sunday reported on the difficulty and expense of building a road for the Afghans.  Costs skyrocketed because of security: America was not only paying to build the road, they had to pay Afghan tribal warlords to not shoot the people trying to build it!  Afghanistan is not amenable to our help. We are only making their corrupt government officials wealthy; we are not making ourselves safer. Yes, there are still al-Qaeda in Afghanistan but there are al-Qaeda in over sixty countries.  And, yes the Taliban will reemerge and women’s rights will be violated, but women’s rights are violated in Saudi Arabia and we aren’t sending troops there. America’s efforts to root out the Taliban and help the Afghans to a better way of life have been met with folded arms, corruption, and violence. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

It’s been reported that the Pakistani government was not told about the secret Navy S.E.A.L. operation.  This has to be because of one of two reasons: 1) The Pakistani government is not to be trusted, or, 2) The U.S. did in fact tell the Pakistani government, the Pakistani government ok’d the operation but asked to “deny” knowing.  This way the Pakistani government keeps the American dollars flowing in, but also keeps the Pakistani population happy.  Pakistanis do not like America and don’t want American troops in their country or in Afghanistan. Afghanistan cannot be ridden of al-Qaeda without Pakistan’s help.  The people of Pakistan have been rioting in outrage because we killed OSB; they have no intentions of helping us. Pakistan is number three, behind Israel and Egypt in aid from the United States. Why do we throw money at duplicitous governments with populations that hate us?  You can’t buy love.

President Obama is to be commended for his handling of the OBL situation thus far.  It was a gutsy move to fly into Pakistan and take OBL.  A drone attack would have killed more people and made it harder to identify the body. The decision to bury OBL at sea with a proper Muslim burial was also the right decision. OBL was not deserving of the burial, but it shows the moderate Muslim world that we are civilized and respectful of their religion. There is no good to come from releasing the gruesome pictures to quell any conspiracy theory that OBL may yet be alive.  If people believe the crazy theories, they will believe that the pictures have been faked.

Mr. Obama, bring our troops home and put them on the borders.  Instead of building roads in Afghanistan, take the money and rebuild Detroit or Tuscaloosa. We’ve sent a message to the rest of the world that if you kill innocent Americans we will come after you, we will hunt you down, and we won’t stop until we get you. Now send the message that we are only willing to help those that are willing to help themselves.

I recently found myself with three hours to kill at Newark’s Liberty airport so I bellied up to the bar, ordered a burrito, and struck up a conversation with the person next to me.  Reggie is thirty-two, well-educated with a good job (an anesthesiologist), and by his own admission, he doesn’t know much about what’s going on politically.  I gave Reggie my card and told him to tune-in to Qmuze to educate himself on what’s happening in Washington.  Reggie, I hope you are listening — Washington needs your help!

Most people like Reggie have a vague idea that America has a debt problem, but they generally don’t understand how bad the problem is. We naively expect politicians to reach compromises for the greater good. Unfortunately, the only thing politicians have been able to agree on is that something has to be done. Last week Standard and Poor lowered its outlook on U.S. debt from “stable” to “negative” threatening our AAA rating. We borrow almost half of every dollar we spend and the rest of the world is starting to worry about us. Our reputation, and our ability to protect ourselves and to conduct business are at great risks. Congress will soon vote, yet again, on raising the debt limit.  Reggie, this would be like you getting a new credit card to solve the problem of maxing out your old one. Projections for the future show America’s debt problem getting much worse very fast.

The raging debate in Washington over how to reduce the deficit goes something like this:  Reduce entitlements (social security, medicare, and medicaid), or raise taxes.

Most Republicans/conservatives want a small government with lower taxes and fewer entitlements.  They argue that people should be responsible and save for their health-care, retirement, and emergencies. They trust the free markets and competition to keep prices fair.

For years people came to America with not much more than hopes and dreams. These people worked hard, took risks, and created the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world in a very short amount of time, and with no government safety net. Conservatives argue that higher taxes equal less opportunity for people that choose to work hard. Fiscal conservatives believe they can put their money to better use by consuming, and by starting businesses to create jobs than the government can by taxing and creating more bureaucracy. They understand that sometimes people need a helping hand, but they are against creating a subset of society that “expects” a handout. They believe that too much government — entitlement programs, welfare, unemployment benefits — creates lack of incentive for people to do for themselves.

Democrats/progressives, on the other hand, generally agree that we need higher taxes and the defense budget, not entitlements, should be cut.  They believe government has more bargaining power, and is more efficient than free markets in handling health-care and retirement needs.  They see America as a wealthy nation that has a moral responsibility to serve its elderly and less fortunate.

Both sides are well-meaning and both sides may be right — to some degree.

The big bubble in our aging population makes it impossible for entitlements, in their current form, to be sustained.  The average person pays in $150,000 to Medicare but uses $450,000.  The $300,000 difference is passed on for future generations to pay (this means you, Reggie).  The Republicans argue that it’s immoral to lay this kind of debt on our children and grandchildren.

Our deficit is so great that it will be nearly impossible to tackle without higher taxes, at least in the short term. Most polls show that Americans don’t favor higher taxes except for the wealthy.  About half of all voters don’t pay any federal tax and the top 1% of income earners already pay 38% of federal income tax.  There is no way the wealthy can close the budget gap.

Polls show that Americans don’t want to give up any of their entitlements and they don’t want to pay higher taxes.   People don’t want to sacrifice and the politicians have led Americans to believe that they don’t have to.

Politicians like getting re-elected and therefore don’t want to make anyone angry, so they tell everyone what they want to hear and then blame the “other side” for all of the problems.  They “kick the can down the road” for future politicians and generations to deal with.  The “can” is now a land mine.

The next few elections will define which direction America is going to move toward.  The crux of the debate is over who we want to be as a nation:  America with a small government, or America with a big government. The 2010 elections hinted that America has grown tired of the move toward European-style social governance, but the polls show they don’t want to give up their entitlements. We want it all, and we want it all now! This is a problem. Politicians are not magicians.

We need you Reggie.  Study the debates (both sides) and make an informed decision about what kind of government you want — big taxes and big entitlements or lower taxes with fewer entitlements — then call up your senator or congressperson and demand action.  There are consequences to either choice, but one thing’s for sure: We can’t have it both ways any longer.

In the news this week. Moussa Kouossa, the Libyan foreign minister, until his recent defection to Britain, says Libya is turning into “a new Somalia.”  A Libya mired in civil war would not be considered a “win” by the Obama administration, and indeed could prove to be a “distraction” for many years to come.

Libya has always looked more like a civil war than a revolution — the country is tribal and divided (Afghanistan?). I allowed myself to be optimistic after a few high-level defections from Qaddafi’s administration (including Mr. Kouossa), but now it appears that the defectors’ motives may have been trying to save their own hides for fear they would be tried for war crimes, rather than defecting to delegitimize Qaddafi and save Libya.

I was particularly bothered by a recent report from Libya in which a reporter talked about the “ragtag rebels,” saying they come out to fight after their breakfast, and they stop fighting to go home for dinner. This does not sound like people who are committed to a cause. Revolutions need people that are willing to die, and these people don’t even want to miss a meal! The Libyan Rebels, the French, and Great Britain are all looking to the U.S. to do more of the work — this should not be a surprise to anyone.

With so much global conflict, joining the Libyan cause for purely humanitarian reasons creates many challanges: Mr. Obama stated that Arab League approval was instrumental in his decision to go ahead with the no-fly zone.  Now, with hostilities between Israel and Gaza, the Arab League wants a no–fly zone over Gaza — a big problem for Obama and a good example of unintended consequences.

Egypt’s revolution, on the other hand, was organic, focused, and resolute. They were prepared to do what they had to do to free themselves.  They may have wanted U.S. help but they didn’t stand around waiting for it.  Now that Mubarak is gone, Egypt needs help to move in the right direction.  I would argue that any U.S. support should come in the form of private investment and not military intervention.  Private sector assistance should be facilitated by government encouragement — trade agreements, tax incentives and diplomacy.  Having the eyes of the world on Egypt would help keep extremist factions in check.

War is ugly whether you engage unilaterally or multilaterally, and regardless of motivation – strategic or humanitarian.  With a huge deficit problem and a populace that is war-weary, America has to be very careful where we engage. Americans hate the war in Iraq but it may turn out to be a serendipity for Mr. Bush.  A few experts have suggested that the Arab push for democracy is a result of Iraq:  They held free elections in 2005 and 2010 with huge turnouts. After the last election it took months to form a coalition, but they did it.

As American troops get ready to make their final exit from Iraq, the new Iraqi government is preparing Saddam Hussein’s old Republican Palace for an Arab League summit — the Iraqis are ready and proud to take a leadership position.  Iraq has a long way to go, but it could turn out to be a worthwhile distraction.  If they continue to work together to build a democracy they could someday be chasing Turkey as a country that makes Islam and democracy equal economic opportunity.

Libya, I fear, is a distraction that may cost Egypt that same opportunity