Starbucks and the Fiscal Cliff: Just Who Needs to Compromise?

     Starbucks Howard Schultz just sponsored a new promotion he hopes will end the fiscal cliff. He calls for both sides to compromise.

     "So Washington-area Starbucks are putting “Come Together” on their cups for the next few days in support of a deal on “fiscal cliff” issues, with CEO Howard Schultz blogging a can’t-we-all-just-get-along type of explanation on the company’s Web site."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2012/12/26/coffee-cup-politics/

     This is the usual centrist confusion that Krugman does such a great job in skewering.

     "he has the politics all wrong, in the characteristic centrist way: he makes it sound as if the problem was one of symmetric partisanship, with both sides refusing to compromise. The reality is that Obama has moved a huge way both in offering to exempt more high-earner income from tax hikes and in offering to cut Social Security benefits; meanwhile, the GOP not only won’t agree to any kind of tax hike at all, it also has yet to make any specific offer of any kind."

      http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/28/a-double-shot-of-misunderstanding/

     What this whole both sides do it game ignores is that if you treat both sides as equally culpable when both sides aren't in fact equally culpable, that's not fair and you're actually giving the culpable party special treatment.

     Another point we must be crass enough to point out is that, yes, there was just an election and the President and the Democrats won, and as no less than Bill Kristol acknowledged elections have consequences.

    “Both sides” don’t need to compromise. Rather, Republicans need to reconcile themselves to the fact that the public voted decisively against their policies, both in the presidential election and in congressional elections around the country, where Democrats won most open Senate seats and came away from House elections with a larger share of votes (which, due to redistricting and population movement, didn’t translate to a large gain in the chamber itself). The fiscal cliff shouldn’t be used to circumvent the clear preferences of the electorate."

       http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2012/12/28/in-discussing-compromise-remember-republicans-lost-the-election/

        Even more to the point, neither should the debt ceiling be so used-as the GOP actually has suggested it plans to do. If the GOP wants draconian cuts the the safety net it needs to run on this and actually win:

       "This isn’t to say that Republicans have to give up their interests, but if compromise requires the White House to adopt GOP priorities, then it won’t happen — and more important — it shouldn’t. If Republicans want to strip down the social safety net and craft a low-tax, low-service environment, then the first step is to win elections."

       When you remember that the Dems already made big compromises in 2011 both in the budget and the debt ceiling, it's the GOP's turn to compromise. They are the ones who the electorate expects to do most of the big compromising going forward in the near term at least.