American voters are almost unanimously critical of the negative campaign advertisements, the exaggerations and plain "untruths" put out by both parties. In the critical "swing" states, such as Ohio, Florida and Virginia, regular commercial advertising on TV has almost given way to political ads, not only by the campaigns themselves, but also by the hugely funded and anonymous "superPACs" legitimized by the Supreme Court in January 2010.
But the voters should really look to themselves for the solution. Much of the voters' vocal criticisms are directed only towards the candidate they oppose. They legitimize their own candidate's retorts as a necessary response to the other side. Only when the voters make it clear that they will express their dissatisfaction at the polls will the practice change.
In the first presidential debate, most viewers were surprised -- not only by the strong performance by Mitt Romney, but even more by the lacklustre performance by Obama. Some suggest that it could prove to be a game changer unless Obama puts up a stellar showing in the next two debates.
But, as Romney denies having the $4.8 trillion tax plan that he has been touting for months, denies that he will eliminate key portion of Obamacare -- the bill he promised to repeal on Day One of his presidency, and confuses everyone as to his real stand on abortion, one has to wonder what sort of Trojan Horse a Romney presidency would really be. Perhaps he would be better placed as Harvard's Chairman of the new Department of Voodoo Maths.
Never wanting to miss an opportunity to capitalize on the country's misfortunes, Romney is pouring relentless criticism on the Administration for the terrorist attack in Benghazi. This, despite the fact that Republicans cut $280 million from the funds requested by the Obama Administration for the protection of overseas diplomatic missions. Romney portrays Obama's reluctance to start another war or two as a sign of global US weakness. Perhaps the greatest sign of US weakness though is the inability for the two sides to reach agreement on almost anything -- including whether the US should even continue to pay its debts.
In spite of all of this, we can expect most voters to make their decision based on who they think will do most to improve their personal economic situation. Romney promises tax cuts -- but backtracks to say that this is only to the extent that he can close loopholes and increase growth to pay for them. Given that when it comes to growth, the US economy is a "supertanker" and not a "speed boat", and he has not yet mentioned any loopholes he will close, it is a sure bet that the tax cuts will either not happen or will add even more to the burgeoning US deficit. Add his proposed additional $2 trillion in military spending (to support a war against Iran?), and it seems a sure bet that the US will be borrowing more from China -- if Xi Jinping or whoever takes the helm in China will let them.
The US national debt now stands at more than $16 trillion -- or over $50,000 per man, woman or child. That's a scary thought to many, and is often used to bludgeon Obama's policies over the past four years. But much of the increase is due to unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to large tax cuts implemented by Bush and extended by Obama while Congress held other programs hostage. But how worried should people really be? Are we really depriving future generations? After all, we can hardly consume what hasn't yet been produced. And we are not going to populate the housing stock after death. In reality, most of the debt is owned within the US and will only serve to create a further imbalance in the distribution of wealth, adding to the pressure on the US to implement measures to "level the playing field". More harm will inure to future generations if the US allows its infrastructure to crumble than will be done by increasing the national debt. Moreover, investing in infrastructure, education and technology will create jobs and provide some of the growth that both parties desperately seek.
Even so, some 35% of the national debt is owned by other countries, such as China. That is caused, not so much by government policies, as by US consumers anxious to find the best bargains regardless of the source. Romney would like to declare China a "currency manipulator", for all the good that will do. He could impose extra tariffs on imports from China, but that would just lead to inflation and to the sourcing of more expensive products from other countries. It would take many years for US manfacturers to replace a significant portion of imports from China, and that is even assuming that they would risk doing so when a future government might reverse the policies. At some point, the US will have to find a trade balance and even turn the tide to start paying off some of the debt plus interest, but that can only be good for the US job market. Otherwise the free markets that Romney embraces will fix the problem anyway -- as countries shun the US dollar because of US credit downgrades, its value will fall, imports will become more expensive and exports cheaper.
The US system of government all but guarantees gridlock these days so the choice of the next US president is not as important as it seems. The race for the democrats to retain control of the Senate may be at least as important and, with icreasing use of filibusters, even that may not be so important. The US economy is a giant supertanker and the appointment of the next captain won't make as much difference as many expect. After November 6, all eyes will turn to China.
alw
But the voters should really look to themselves for the solution. Much of the voters' vocal criticisms are directed only towards the candidate they oppose. They legitimize their own candidate's retorts as a necessary response to the other side. Only when the voters make it clear that they will express their dissatisfaction at the polls will the practice change.
In the first presidential debate, most viewers were surprised -- not only by the strong performance by Mitt Romney, but even more by the lacklustre performance by Obama. Some suggest that it could prove to be a game changer unless Obama puts up a stellar showing in the next two debates.
But, as Romney denies having the $4.8 trillion tax plan that he has been touting for months, denies that he will eliminate key portion of Obamacare -- the bill he promised to repeal on Day One of his presidency, and confuses everyone as to his real stand on abortion, one has to wonder what sort of Trojan Horse a Romney presidency would really be. Perhaps he would be better placed as Harvard's Chairman of the new Department of Voodoo Maths.
Never wanting to miss an opportunity to capitalize on the country's misfortunes, Romney is pouring relentless criticism on the Administration for the terrorist attack in Benghazi. This, despite the fact that Republicans cut $280 million from the funds requested by the Obama Administration for the protection of overseas diplomatic missions. Romney portrays Obama's reluctance to start another war or two as a sign of global US weakness. Perhaps the greatest sign of US weakness though is the inability for the two sides to reach agreement on almost anything -- including whether the US should even continue to pay its debts.
In spite of all of this, we can expect most voters to make their decision based on who they think will do most to improve their personal economic situation. Romney promises tax cuts -- but backtracks to say that this is only to the extent that he can close loopholes and increase growth to pay for them. Given that when it comes to growth, the US economy is a "supertanker" and not a "speed boat", and he has not yet mentioned any loopholes he will close, it is a sure bet that the tax cuts will either not happen or will add even more to the burgeoning US deficit. Add his proposed additional $2 trillion in military spending (to support a war against Iran?), and it seems a sure bet that the US will be borrowing more from China -- if Xi Jinping or whoever takes the helm in China will let them.
The US national debt now stands at more than $16 trillion -- or over $50,000 per man, woman or child. That's a scary thought to many, and is often used to bludgeon Obama's policies over the past four years. But much of the increase is due to unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to large tax cuts implemented by Bush and extended by Obama while Congress held other programs hostage. But how worried should people really be? Are we really depriving future generations? After all, we can hardly consume what hasn't yet been produced. And we are not going to populate the housing stock after death. In reality, most of the debt is owned within the US and will only serve to create a further imbalance in the distribution of wealth, adding to the pressure on the US to implement measures to "level the playing field". More harm will inure to future generations if the US allows its infrastructure to crumble than will be done by increasing the national debt. Moreover, investing in infrastructure, education and technology will create jobs and provide some of the growth that both parties desperately seek.
Even so, some 35% of the national debt is owned by other countries, such as China. That is caused, not so much by government policies, as by US consumers anxious to find the best bargains regardless of the source. Romney would like to declare China a "currency manipulator", for all the good that will do. He could impose extra tariffs on imports from China, but that would just lead to inflation and to the sourcing of more expensive products from other countries. It would take many years for US manfacturers to replace a significant portion of imports from China, and that is even assuming that they would risk doing so when a future government might reverse the policies. At some point, the US will have to find a trade balance and even turn the tide to start paying off some of the debt plus interest, but that can only be good for the US job market. Otherwise the free markets that Romney embraces will fix the problem anyway -- as countries shun the US dollar because of US credit downgrades, its value will fall, imports will become more expensive and exports cheaper.
The US system of government all but guarantees gridlock these days so the choice of the next US president is not as important as it seems. The race for the democrats to retain control of the Senate may be at least as important and, with icreasing use of filibusters, even that may not be so important. The US economy is a giant supertanker and the appointment of the next captain won't make as much difference as many expect. After November 6, all eyes will turn to China.
alw
