The US GP at Austin, Texas, appears on the schedule for 2012. For a terrible moment, I dared to think that Bernie's Christmas stocking might be light of 25 million bucks. Perish the thought.

The story of Formula One and America has been like the plot of a chick-lit novel. You have two parties eager to consummate and something always manages to get in the way. In 1938, Indycar adopted the then Grand Prix formula in the hope that there would be cross-fertilisation. The Indianapolis 500 was included in the World Championship in 1950 because both series allowed engines of 4500cc unsupercharged. That Indy was included until 1960 was plain silly.

In the case of Austin, as Jim Casey explained recently, the change of date from June, when it would have been impossibly hot, to November, when it would clash with elections, seems to have caused problems. Decisions in America often seem to be tied to elections.

Texas has a Major Events Trust Fund (TMETF) which permits State funding to go to projects which promote tourism and the State of Texas itself. Texas imposes a local sales tax (6.25 per cent) and the revenue generated by an influx of visitors buying tickets and programmes, and using hotels, bars, restaurants and car hire companies, normally repays the investment required to bring a major event to the State.

Originally, it was thought that the TMETF would pay the promotion fee for 2012, to get the ball rolling. Now it seems that this money will not be forthcoming. Susan Combs, for the fund, has said that the race must first take place so its fiscal impact can be assessed. I am not sure that the Superbowl had to be so assessed before Texas landed the event.

You could say that the Superbowl is a known quantity and that it has a zero factor of risk. You could also say that the TMETF cannot always have a cast-iron guarantee, that there are occasions when it must speculate to accumulate.

It is at times like this that I recall Mark Twain's definition of a banker: someone who will lend you an umbrella when the sun is shining, but who wants it back if it starts to rain.

The impression was given that the TMETF was behind the Austin bid. My understanding was that the circuit would be central to a load of year-round attractions. With the right management, a circuit can earn money. Track days have grown in popularity everywhere and there is a special frisson in driving on a Grand Prix circuit, even a new one.

Drive your car on the circuit and you pay Texas tax. Buy drinks or a meal afterwards and you pay tax, as you do for your hotel room. Austin has a contract for ten years, that is one large heap of sales tax.

Susan Combs visited Silverstone for the 2010 Grand Prix and she was reported to have come away impressed and enthusiastic. Something has cooled her ardour. My guess is that it is the local political scene. The governor of Texas is Rick Perry and if you have been following the Republican race for the Presidential nomination, I need say no more. If you have not, think of a box of tools, not all may be sharp.

In the background is the prospect that Port Imperial, New Jersey, will have a Grand Prix in 2013 on a road circuit. Susan Combs has said that it is a cause for concern. Why? Austin is 1,700 miles from Port Imperial, roughly the distance from London to Moscow. Monza is only 150 miles from Monte Carlo, does that cause problems?

My guess is that another part of the Austin saga is power play. Like Bernie, Billy Joe 'Red' McCombs is a self-made billionaire and it is one of his companies which is putting up the money to build the circuit. A separate company owns the land and various parties hold minority interests in the different companies.