Europe. Cameron comes in from the cold,- and effectively.

David Cameron will have come home from his couple of days in Brussels with some satisfaction.None of this will have been derived from the £120 a bottle wine served at the leaders' inevitably non austerity dinner. They just don't do the under £10, the under £20, £50 or even £100 ranges on these occasions and must have some peculiar assumption that their millions of constituents wouldn't want them to either. "Nothing but the best for our leaders" must be the Eurocrats assumption of what the struggling masses would be saying if asked. Indeed the same rule of opulence extends everywhere one finds the officials, from the front of aeroplanes to the creature comforts of their offices. As is well known though, nobody in Brussels does actually ask "the people" what they want,- even whether or not they want an EU in its political rather than free trade area form at all.

Having flown over (What, no Eurostar?) against a background of media and Labour pictures of how foolish it would be to isolate the UK from the centre of vital European decison making and all those "can't/mustn't do it" bogeymen  and Guardianista and Blairists' handwringing about how vital the EU monolith concept is to Europe's survival in the face of the world's other and trading giants, it was expected that Dave would return isolated ,with a bloody nose and a straight "No" from everything to all he demanded.

Instead he was far from isolated . Instead there emerged a new grouping of the UK, the Nordic countries, Holland and a Germany split from its usual bedmate France. These countries all said "Enough" and agreed that spending must be curbed.  Holland's socialist, agriculture subsidy addicted, France risked Angela's scowls and positioned itself  with the southern  and ex Soviet satellite "We want more money" group . These good people also believe that the financier of their cargo cult should be Germany. What would anyone be saying if they were a good, hard working German especially if  one of those on the western side of the country who have paid for former East Germany to become part of the unified country?

The UK and Germany, despite their historic propensity for knocking nine bells out of each other, always been far more natural allies than adversaries. The Franco/German alliance has on the other hand been a much less natural one born of politics and a sort of German conscience. In general it has tied Germany's hands and benefitted France. Maybe, just maybe, the relationship  will now become less cosy or at least excluding of others . If that happens the EU could be much more free to rethink its own future. To do that , the politicians will also have to take on the biggest block to debate, -the very highly paid officials who have ben allowed to create a dream world in which they have been all powerful.  They were,- at last,- the clinically targeted aim of much that Cameron had to say this week. They personally have everything to lose and little to gain from any major change in the way the organisation does its business. They have always seen the scowling UK as the biggest threat to their power and glory. In natural response they are the biggest block to debate or anything that smacks of a real democracy rather than top-down rule by the unelected Commission itself. Their power control needs are very high and ultimately threaten the EU as an institution. Again Cameron scored a bullseye the machine rather than the member states this week. The boy done well.

Inevitably there were some ritual denialist mutterings from the UK's Labour Party about Cameron having (again) upset the EU and left Britain friendless (it always has been) and without influence (which the Europhiles, unware of the conversations that really happen in the offfice blocks, bars and restaurants of Brussels have always deluded themselves into believing the UK ever had.). In fact by drawing a line in the sand of profligacy, the UK brought a fundamental split into the open and  moved back to centre stage. It did not end up alone as hoped by Van Rompuy, Barroso and friends but was now joined by others  talking good, hard , financial sense.

Far from isolating Britain this week, Cameron has brought the country to centre stage as part of a rational group for whom continuing profligacy by the EU and the serious control ambitions and self indulgence of officials is not an option. The next round is "In the New Year". There is much to be done to consolidate this week's gain before then . For sure the "Spend" group will be working hard to overturn it and the Commission officials will be seeking every way to consolidate, perpetuate and grow their power,- their comfort ,and even those £120 bottles of wine.

Quickies behind the headlines...

-David Cameron is saying it is time to pin back profligate EU Commission spending. Absolutely right even if predicatably unpopular in Brussels where the spenders live,play and eat very well. Ed Miliband warns against standing up to the EU as the UK might lose influence. The reality ,to which Miliband either is blind to/denies or just doesn't comprehend ,is that the UK has never had much real power in the core of the EU.  There is little love for Britain in the largely socialistic and centralising corridors of Brussels, a city which itself would be pretty much dead if it were not for presence of the huge and free spending organisation. To seek to appease it by rolling over and accepting further profligacy is absurd as well as demeaning. Britain's greatest, if lonely, role is to be counter the self indulgent culture and get the organisation to be a realistic and useful addition to Europe's effectiveness rather than a huge financial and administrative drag on all it does. Does Asia lumber itself with such a cumbersome overarching, controlling and initiative,- stifling burocracy? No.

-The ongoing sad saga of Syria with the added complication of Gaza continues to goad western, and particularly British , consciences to "do something about it". But what? With whom? How? America is weary of the Middle East and  (New)Obama has clearly said that its real foreign policy interests are clearly in Asia. They are certainly not going to put boots on the ground and nor should anyone else. Nor will America rein in Israel as they should have done decades ago. That tail will continue to wag the dog. In Syria the multiplicity of factions and the lack of a clearly desirable, nice, clean, human rights orientated potential victor means that although it is different to Afghanistan there is nothing any military intervention is going to get other than a good hiding. The policy therefore has to continue with the diplomacy, probably unsuccessfully , and meanwhile to work with the country's neighbours to do everything possible to ease the humanitarian crisis by building and supplying (temporary) refugee camps along the borders.

-The penny or cent is slowly beginning to drop in some places that many so called eco-friendly policies of using only renewable sources for fuel and power generation are far from being what they claim and come at a massive price. Converting power stations to wood burning has to be lunacy. They do not carefully consume handfuls of sticks gathered in from the nearest woodlands. They gulp down piles of wood,- every hour, night and day. Wood doesn't renew itself in a few days. It takes years. That means that to meet eco targets we would have to cut down practically every rainforest on the face of the globe,- and still not have enough wood. The results would include extensive desertification and world food shortages. Eco? Good for mankind? No. Hideously expensive and self defeating? Yes.

- Moves in the UK to speed up and simplify planning approvals, particularly for strategic infrastructure projects, are being noisy resisted by countless "Say No To...." groups.  It isn't that hearings are being abolished. Nor are appeals on the way out. It's simply proposed that those be reduced to to from the current four. Similarly the ability to demand judicial reviews of almost anything the government proposes to do /has done is also under question. The reviews aren't being abolished, just reined in so that the government is more free to do what it was elected to do,- get on and do the things necessary to run the country now and in the future. That does not seem unreasonable in the face of UK's visible slide from sclerosis into paralysis.

-Talking of sclerosis, the Sunday Times reports that poor old diarist Samuel Pepys had to spend a whole Saturday in the 1760s producing a report on how to sort out the naval dockyards at Portsmouth. A whole Saturday for one man!  That's not bad compared to the 3 years Sir Howard Davies , working with countless others, has been given to come up with (another) review of UK airports policy. The reality, -as many know,- is that the recommendations of this group could be produced at the end of a single day spent in some gloomy hotel basement by a gathering of real aviation experts. They might lack a few of the minutae, minutes of meetings with newt conservationists, badger protection groups and others but they would on a few flipcharts converted into a plain old fashioned Powerpoint presentation knocked up by a couple of young grads in the teabreak simply and clearly declare the obvious. As it is, the 3 year study, due for mid 2015 ,is in the best British tradition likely to simply form the basis for..... further discussion and consultation. Stretch , yawn and  the popping of more corks in Amsterdam and Paris.

Footnote: The Roskill Commission  thoroughly investigated the airports question and came up with the answer in 1973. According to 7 commissioners who did not live in Buckinghamshire ,the best alternative to Heathrow ( seen then as an addition to , not a replacement for it) is at Wing/Cublington in Buckinghamshire. The 8th member, who lived in Buckinghamshire, dissented and,- won. The answer still is correct. Apart from leaving it where it is at Heathrow, the right place for London's primary hub airport would be Wing/Cublington ,nicely situated between London and the large population areas around the south midlands and Birmingham. It could even be linked to the much objected-to new HS 2 high speed rail line. That would allow both "Say No To..." protest groups to be rolled into one. A big cost saving for the protest groups. Buckinghamshire County Council is already spending six figure sums of taxpayers' money on fighting HS2 or at least its preferred route through the "influential" mid Chiltern corridor. They would though probably consider more favourably an alternative, more southerly, route closer to where many more but much less "influential" people live. That's the reality of local "democracy". There aren't too many celebreties, retired actors, barristers and the like in High Wycombe. 

The US Election goes to the wire.

With just 24 hours to go before those who haven't already voted go to the polls at least everyone seems to agree that this one will go to the wire and a photofinish, followed maybe by days of legal wrangling to. Nothing other than an orderly world ever seems to be bad news for lawyers.

There is though a feeling that Obama will just about squeeze home. He's made it more difficult for himself by that one slip,- his disastrous, lacklustre performance in the first televised debate with Romney. Maybe one day we will know why he allowed himself to perform so badly. Exhaustion goes with the job and electioneering in particular so it's no excuse.

His victory would be partly because most people approve of the way he has handled the aftermath to Sandy ("God's indicator" say some) but it would probably be more because of the way the Electoral College works. There are many websites which explain this, one being http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012 elections electoral college map.html;.

There are more paths to victory for Obama than for Romney although if Romney won all the states that Bush gained in 2000 he would have a much bigger victory due to changes in population. If though he wins those states but loses Ohio he loses. That's one reason why everyone will be watching Ohio.

It is quite possible that Obama will win the Presidency though with fewer votes than Romney . That's what happened in 2000 in Bush v Gore when Gore won more votes overall.

If it does turn out that way the Republicans may be very sore losers and, with a continuing majority in the House of Representatives/Congress , they may make life even more difficult for Obama in his second term.

Either way the next President is going to have to make some very tough choices. It might,- as in the UK in 2010, be easier for the losers.


Andrew Lloyd-Williams.

A bit breezy in East Coast USA.- Hurricane Sandy gatecrashes the election circuses.

Reports from our eastern seaboard Twiga a little south of where Hurricane Sandy is forecast to do its worst indicate that it's getting a bit breezy.

It is, he says, "pretty foxy of the Democrats to rustle up a megastorm to convince voters that eliminating all government spending and letting everyone fend for themselves is not a good idea. This will be particularly so if the storm produces a predicted $3.2 million catastrophe.

One more humorous effect may be that if there are widespread power losses, the Presidential campaigns will be hard pressed to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars they have amassed for the last week's advertising. They seem to brush aside the notion that the electors may have seen enough already and are unlikely to be swayed by more TV commercials at this stage. Up to now it has been spend, spend, spend, a policy which should at least have taken advertising agencies out of the financial downturn. This incontinent fruit machine  behaviour may though be less attractive to those who want to see budget defecits reduced.

Meanwhile both Presidential hopefuls will be in front of their mirrors rehearsing expressions of relief, joy, anguish or despair, one or more of which to be wheeled out depending on what Sandy actually does. They might be a useful rehearsal for when the election results are announced too. There's an efficient use of time for you.

Once the storm and the election are over ,life in the US may seem rather flat and dull . After all the excitement that may be something to add to the things for which to give thanks at the forthcoming national turkeyfest.  

The clocks go back- and winter (democratic) gloom sets in.

Afraid to upset the few inhabitants of the far north of Scotland lest they vote for "Uhuru" or "Independence" in the same way as restive folk in the more distant colonies in the 1950s and 60s, the ever courageous UK government has quietly shelved any talk of retaining year-round BST, British Summer Time. The cost is estimated to be high, but what the hell, why modernise when you can stay still or even move backwards?

As result, from this evening , or rather afternoon, the British nation faces gathering gloom from not long after lunch to dampen its already not very high spirits. "Mustn't grumble" is the old favourite response . This of course means we will do exactly that in spades. (That's linguistic guidance for mystified foreigners,.-especially those who say what they mean.). UK plc needs every ounce of productivity and good cheer that it can muster but is the country up for it? The answer looks rather like a big fat, even obeise, "No".  Most are agreed that manpower intensive infrastructure projects building things to meet current and future needs are an excellent way out of recession. The only thing is that the hint of a new bypass to prevent locals from choking to death raises an immediate "Say No To...." campaign. This weekend there is a whole nationwide conference to educate people in how to oppose and obstruct any road project, however large or small. To be successful, competitive , open for business or just to get people where they want to go we need more runways for London, more and improved roads and an additional railway line to the north. Much of the response takes us back to the 1880s (Say No To the Great Western/Central/Northern/Eastern Railway) and all those jolly demos and scowling aristocrats defending the boundaries of their estates. Localised and parochial democracy is all very well, but.........Anyway, we will eventually get some good things done although at huge extra  cost and after delays which will leave us trailing behind our competitors. Never mind. In the meantime we can spend our Sunday evenings watching Downton Abbey and then exporting it to the USA. That should bring in a few dollars. Our democracy's OK then.

Meanwhile across the Atlantic those who haven't followed Obama's lead and voted early are into the final run in to the Presidential Election. To most foreigners the whole American democratic process is difficult to believe. The contestants spend the year- and now over $100 billion between them- in the warm up. The mud that used to be slung manually and the promises that used to be made verbally are now largely conveyed electronically and on billboards. Mass gatherings, huge auditoriums complete with leaping cheerleaders and slick haired orators (well, OK , Obama's hair isnt so slick though it is greying as befits a President) gather pace leading up to the big day while the normal functioning of government and decision making is suspended for a good six months before and at least another one ot two after the event. The winner then has just 2 years until the mid term elections. Campaigning for those starts a little later, -maybe only six or nine months ahead. That means that the time for fulfilling all those pre-election dreams and promises can be as short as 15 months and certainly no more than 18. Once the mid-terms are over it is possible that the President then no longer has a majority in the Senate or Congress or both. In those events he or one day she (Hillary? You may have left it a bit late though Regan made it despite a one year older start) is either seriously impeded or totally stopped dead in their tracks. Then comes the bid for the second term in office,- by now just 2 years away. The serious bow wave for this starts 9 or even 12 months out, so not much time for changing the world in the meantime.  Come the new Presidential Election and the result, the whole process and fund raising for it starts all over again. If the incumbent has won a second term but still hasn't a majority in the Senate and /or Congress he/she is faced with another four years of misery and a feeling of being bound head and foot. In the worst case (the loss of majority in the first mid term elections ) and assuming the President gets two terms that means that he/she has just those first 15-18 months out of the whole 4 years to do anything. It's and amazing process and reality.  That's where their democracy is.

While Americans may ponder that last question, things aren't looking too good for individual freedom, choice or leadership in the other 2 global powers either. The Russian top tier,- namely President Putin,- feels so threatened by the antics of a couple of young ladies entertainingly questioning the status quo that it has had them sentenced to two years in  two diabolically grim prison camps in the wastelands far to the east of Moscow well out of reach of their friends and families and any contact with the world. This evilly disproportionate reaction by the regime to an expression of dissent/disagreement is frightening. Any governmemt which actually doesn't like sections of its own citizens is disturbing and those which behaves like a thug is terrifying. Logic would say that Putin would not want to risk Russia's standing in the world by simple brutality to groups and individuals.  Unfortunately for the imprisoned ladies the only logic being employed here is the old sledghammer totalitarian one of making them a terrifying example to discourage others from expressing what many fellow Russians feel. The ability of the two to mentally and physically survive their terms in prison amongst both the prison authorities and some of their well chosen fellow prisoners is far from certain. Partly because of the US election and others reluctance to offend the Russian bear , the world has been deafening silent, -and totally neglectful,- on the whole affair. No cheer for democracy there.

Moving further east, -it's new chairs time in the other megapower,-China. They don't do elections but there is some kind of process by which rival contenders are selected or select themselves as the top dogs.  It can involve the sudden fall or disgrace of one or more who might be in the frame. Some self destruct . The killing of a British businessman by one powerful clique who thought themselves above the law was a major mistake . It has cost Mr Bo any chance of anything but incarceration and possibly execution . Once someone is down the instincts of any rival politician are to stand on their stomach or shoulders to ensure they stay there.( Yes, it happens here too,- you've noticed?). That little episode apart, although personal freedoms and choice in spheres other than politics have improved enormously  in China over the past 20 years,  political democracy is a long way off.

Interestingly all three of the world's major powers have one thing in common. In each of them the military is extremely powerful. Now that really is worrying.  It all makes our weekly Prime Ministers Questions look like a shining beacon for freedom in a world of democratic paralysis or repression.  Get worried when Dave asks Ed to step outside "for a little chat".

UK politics,- Why the ( actually quite successful) Tory Party isn't smiling.

Britain's Conservative Party should be riding high in the poll ratings just now. In the last fortnight it has booted out Abu Hamza, kept in Gary McKinnon who the US wanted to extradite, announced improvements in job creation (above US levels), falling hospital waiting list times, better crime figures while other figures indicate the end of double dip recession if it ever happened at all. September government borrowing was down on last year too. All good stuff which should be causing Tory smiles and further lengthening the habitually miserable faces of the opposition.

Why then have the Tories lost another few percentage points in the opinion polls and why is HerMajesty's opposition getting away with accusing the government of being incompetant, chaotic, out of touch and Prime Minister David Cameron weak?

First offender is the party's hopelessness at PR and presenting its case, especially when it has a good one.  Right from the beginning in May 2010 its programme of expenditure "cuts" mislabled as "austerity" was never explained simply and coherantly as part of an overall political philosophy of smaller, though still by no means small, government and the encouragement of a return to self reliance and self respect after decades of increasing ever deepening welfare and government spending dependency. There has never been an all-embracing wrapper in which to enfold all its policies as a coherent whole. Instead too much has appeared uncordinated, piecemeal and reactive rather than visionary. Indeed the word "vision" or notion of "This is where we are going" has been entirely absent . That fact does reflect a failure by the Prime Ministerial team to grasp the basics of winning in politics,- or business,-or more or less anything else.

Second offender is the difficulty of being in a coalition, especially with an increasingly difficult and fractious partner, many of whose members would rather be in bed with the opposition. The LibDems are  often, despite their label, extraordinarily illiberal and intolerant, two things which make them much closer to Labour than Conservative ways of life. Cameron has tried hard to bend to give Clegg some much needed successes to show his party but this has not been greatly appreciated or reciprocated. Cameron has also been straightforward about what he can't deliver,-eg House of Lords reform. In response Clegg has been petulant and is set to derail much needed previously agreed and entirely democratic constituency boundary changes and size equalisation before the 2015 General Election.

Third offender and strategicaly the most potent is Labour's brilliance at picking and repeating ad nauseam over and over again at every opportunity and in all sorts of contexts key dog-whistle words which over time take root consciously and subliminally and become accepted as fact.  All of its team use the same key words in almost every statement they make. It's an old advertising trick which the Tories , especially the many with a background in PR , should have identified and dealt with but haven't. The tactic is ruthlessly and lethally deployed all the time every week. Brown tried it but failed because he picked strangulated phrases which achieved no resonance. Eds Miliband and Balls, Mrs Balls and the rest are politically cleverer and more succinct. "Out of touch" is a wonderful class loaded phrase with unspoken addon implications about competance, caring, and not sharing the national pain. "Incompetant" has all the subtlety and the menace of an Exocet missile, "For the few not the many" wraps in tax cuts for the better off and so on. Each MP acts as if they have a  laminated card with the word(s) of the year, month,week in big bold capitals. They are relentlessly deployed so that they appear to be part of a coherent, consistent platform of opposition. Once up and running they displace the need to do anything about expounding any policies .This enables that powder to be kept dry until close to the next election when emotions are up and running and it becomes too late to examinefor them to be thoroughly examined and for rational judgements to be made away from the immediate battlefield. The whole dog-whistle concept and well cordinated practice is a wonderful trap for the government and electorate alike.

Fourth offender is an example of the success of the third and the unashamed class warfare platform so beloved of  Labour Party's main financial sponsors the unreconstituted unions . It is willingly adopted by the ever scowling Ed Miliband. "We are not all in this together" feeds through to an unspoken subtext of "We are victims of the wicked rich and unfeeling upper classes" which in turn , aided by a media always on the hunt for blood and increased sales, fuels hysteria about anything from a Minister who foolishly swears at an unhelpful policeman to the Chancellor seen , shock , horror, travelling in a First Class seat on Standard Class ticket on which his aides have already set about paying the upgrade fee. George Osborne is number 2 in the government. We should be delighted that he is travelling in a comfortable seat. Whether you like him or not he deserves it for spending his life on the underpaid and thankless job he's doing . Sadly unless he's a footballer, lottery winner, or X-factor contestant he is deemed not to be worthy of this more comfortable ride. The politics of envy are close to those of hatred and very dangerous .Amongst other things , particularly to young and impressionable minds ,they plant the notion that real aspiration and success are somehow antisocial and undesirable and at very least attract approbrium. To the Left that may be good. They do well where there is lack of success and government/welfare dependency. They use the class ticket with corrosive and devastating effect to gain votes.  The fact that the whole philosophy may discourage able young people from striving to better themselves and reach their full potential and , horror of horrors, even become rich, is of no interest to them. That's what they are about. Their message not that we are all in it together but "bar the rich , we are all victims together". It is is,-for them, -brilliant . For the Tories who haven't got the heavy guns to cope with it, it's currently election-threatening.

The Conservatives'  recent successes aren't getting the acknowledgment they deserve. For them they should be on a high or at least the up but thanks to a mix of the four factors above they have been submerged beneath a string of class war nonsenses which have got out of proportion and out of hand.  The relentless street fighters opposite are highly successful in peddling theie corrosive messages. The Tories are poor at getting theirs across and giving as good as they get.  To win in 2015 the Tories must get much better at the real rough and tumble of strategic and tactical politics . They must become streetwise and develop much better antennae and depth of feeling for and understanding of what is really going on and being said throughout the country at all levels of society. They could also do everyone a favour by dopping the Yah- Boo stuff of the weekly Prime Ministers' Questions knockabout . Once quite amusing (when it was a cleverer battle of wits) ,it has descended into being tedious. The fact is that theTory party and particularly the rather cosy and too exclusive Number 10 inner circle are being seriously outplayed by the hardened bruisers sitting opposite. The polls are showing it.

That's why the Tory Party isn't smiling. Except for Boris of course. He is and he's winning.  As a parting thought, could there be a direct relationship between the two things? Smile=winner/win. Frown=loser/lose? That's a different debate though. We'll come back to that.

A view from America: Does it really matter who wins the Presidential Election?

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