US Presidential election – shock result

Tags

Barack Obama, Berke Breathed, Bill the Cat, Bloom County, Democrat, election, Meadow, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, Mitt Romney, Opus the Penguin, Party, President, Republican, result, US, USA, Vox Political, White House

It’s back to the White House and business as usual for Barack Obama after his shock victory against opponents the Meadow Party, headed by campaigning veteran Bill the Cat.

Political commentators expressed amazement at the shock turn of events, having predicted a much tighter result after Bill’s slogan, “Give me all your change”, struck a chord with voters in these straitened economic times.

Critics who had been dismissed for claiming a dead cat could not be a serious candidate as leader of the Free World said they were “vindicated” by the result.

Rumours were flying that there was a third candidate in the race, and the BBC – ever vigilant, assembled a photofit picture of his name.

But “Ritt M’money”, whoever he may be, failed to make an impression, possibly due to an economic policy that, on the face of it, was slightly more crazy than flushing all the country’s cash down a toilet.

(Bloom County by Berke Breathed (c) The Washington Post Company – or it was when I read it back in the 1980s)

Should movie stars keep their politics to themselves?

Tags

"greenhorn", Barack Obama, California, Carmel, celeb, celebrity, Clint Eastwood, Coalition, Conservative, Democrat, endorsement, government, Kate Moss, Kenny Everett, Labour, Margaret Thatcher, Medicare, Michael Caine, Michael Foot, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, Mitt Romney, Parliament, people, politics, Republican, social security, sponsorship, Tiger Woods, Tories, Tory

Would it be better if celebrities like Clint Eastwood and Michael Caine kept quiet about their political views, leaving voters to make up their own minds about which political party to support?

Celebrity endorsement is always a bit “hit and miss”, isn’t it?

How many times have you seen a big name pimping themselves out in a sponsorship deal that has left you cringing with embarrassment for them? How many times have the deals gone sour because of events in the celeb’s personal life (think of Tiger Woods, or Kate Moss, for example).

The unpredictability of the endorsement effect is magnified in politics. Will you still respect a celeb if they are exhorting you to vote for a party you despise? What if it’s a person you don’t like, asking you to support your own choice? What if it’s someone you do actually rate, but they’re soliciting your vote in an unpalatable, tasteless way?

I remember my 13-year-old self turning his nose up at the late Kenny Everett when, supporting the Thatcher government in 1983, he said “We’re going to kick Michael Foot’s walking stick away!” (Mr Foot, also now deceased, was the leader of the Labour Party at the time).

On the other hand, when Sir Michael Caine supported the Conservatives in 2010, it didn’t bother me at all. I’m a fan of this prolific actor and will continue to enjoy his work, despite his unfortunate choice of allegiance. But then, I was never persuaded by Sir Michael to vote for the worst government in living memory. I wonder how many moviegoers were.

All of the above brings me to the announcement by Clint Eastwood that he is backing Mitt Romney’s US presidential election campaign.

Mr Romney’s plans involve tax cuts for the very rich, but he won’t offset their effect by closing other tax loopholes or creating other revenue streams. He’ll use the increased debt this creates as an excuse to strip social security and medicare down to nothing.

Put yourself in Mr Eastwood’s position. He’s a very rich man, and would probably benefit from Romney’s planned tax cuts. He has served as Republican mayor of the town of Carmel, in California. Also, he’s on record as saying that Barack Obama is a “greenhorn”, without the necessary experience to run the US government.

That’s fine for him. Now ask yourself: What effect will his endorsement of Romney have on an Eastwood fan of meagre means, whose life is enhanced by social security and medicare and who would suffer if these were dismantled?

They’d probably vote for Romney because their idol told them to do it – and then, if he gets in, repent at leisure.

USA – another great depression or greatly depressing?

Tags

austerity, Barack Obama, beast, breaks, British, Coalition, Conservative, Credit Crunch, David Cameron, deficit, Democrat, fabulous growth effects, fiscal, flatline, flatlined, GDP, George Osborne, George W Bush, Liberal, loophole, loopholes, Medicare, Mitt Romney, President, presidential, public, recession, Republican, security, services, social, starve, starving, tax, Treasury, UK, US, USA, White House

Will the American public realise what Mitt Romney’s fiscal plans mean, or will they elect him anyway?

Now that the Olympics are over and everybody’s having a rest from medal-counting (don’t forget the Paralympics will be starting soon, though, providing the opportunity to do it all over again), may I just take this opportunity to ask readers in the USA, just what the blazes is going on with your Presidential candidates?

A few years ago, your economy was devastated by comedy president George W Bush, with a policy known as ‘starving the beast’. For those with short memories, this involved tax breaks for the very rich, creating a deficit in the US Treasury, which made it possible for him to claim public services were costing too much – and then cut public services.

Bush left the White House in 2009 to pursue his career in stand-up comedy (and sank without a trace) but his ideas were taken up on my side of the Atlantic by one David Cameron and his bestie, George Osborne.

They realised that, after the credit crunch of 2008, there wasn’t enough money coming into the British Treasury to pay for public services and launched their policy of fiscal austerity on the UK’s already-depressed economy. The tax breaks for the very rich arrived a few years later.

Now, back in the States, you have a new Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, who – and please, correct me if I’m wrong – wants to starve the beast all over again.

Mr Romney wants to impose tax cuts for the very rich, but has no plan to offset the effect of these cuts by closing other tax loopholes or the like.

As one influential commentator has it: “Romney is just intending to blow up the deficit to lavish favours on the wealthy, then use it as an excuse to savage Social Security and Medicare.”

He claims there will be fabulous growth effects.

Well.

Seeing as Mr Romney’s policy seems so similar to Mr Osborne’s, lets look at what’s happened here in Blighty since fiscal austerity started biting, shall we?

It tanked.

From the moment Osborne’s first spending review (a mini-budget in late 2010) took effect, the economy flatlined. Since the beginning of 2012 it went back into recession in a big way, knocking a whole one per cent off GDP.

Meanwhile, the Coalition (Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties) has cut taxes for the very rich but also raised the amount people can earn without being taxed. This inevitably means less revenue for the Treasury. Services are already being cut and they’re discussing ways to cut further than previously planned.

Does anybody really think those poor people who’ve been lifted out of tax are going to be better off for the loss of the public services they need?

Do any US citizens reading this seriously think that lower and middle-class people in your country are going to benefit from the loss of public services that will be required to make your ultra-rich even richer?

And what’s the incumbent, President Obama, going to do? Are his budget plans any better?