Talk:United States fiscal cliff/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Some areas to get us started

• I redirected the boldfaced "United States fiscal cliff crisis" and "Fiscal cliff crisis" to this article because I felt that the main reason for looking up the Fiscal Cliff, in spite of WP:CRYSTAL, was to find out more about the debate (or the prospective debate).
  • We could have them as separate articles.
  • We could change "United States fiscal cliff crisis" to "United States fiscal cliff debate" or something else.
  • Please talk here before doing anything.
• You could add to the "tax cuts due to expire" list in the lead.
  • Done. Entire section was eliminated and redone elsewhere. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• You could start a timeline, similar to the one in United_States_debt-ceiling_crisis#Timeline. It should contain:
  • The statement(s) that Geithner made about the fiscal cliff when the Super Committee failed to reach an agreement.
  • The recent statement(s) by the head of the IMF that advised the US not to go over the cliff.
  • Anything else important pre-November-2012.
    • Done. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Find out when the current debt ceiling will run out of money, when the "extraordinary measures" will run out and, based on that, determine if reliable sources say that the debt ceiling will probably be debated in December 2012. Then either:
  • remove the sentence in the lead paragraph about the debt ceiling (and, possibly, add a paragraph in some other section telling why the debt ceiling is unimportant to this crisis) OR
  • leave the sentence in the lead and expand on it in some other section.
    • Done, at least partially. I found and cited other references. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Romans says that the total sequestrations are one trillion dollars over nine years. Other places say $1.2 trillion. Which is right?
• Will the expiration of federal unemployment benefits be important (as a spending cut) to this debate?
  • Yes, by $26B. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I already have a discussion about my difficulties in forming multiple references here.

Fixed yesterday. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A gentle reminder about references

If you can, please try to use named references and, wherever possible, the "cite web" template for your inline citations.

Rather than:

<ref>[http://www.whatever.com/Whatever-report.html]</ref>

try to use:

<ref name="Whatever">{{cite web |title=Whatever Report |author=W.H. Atever 
|url=http://www.whatever.com/Whatever-report.html |date=July 1, 2012 |publisher=Whatever Corp. 
|accessdate=August 1, 2012}}</ref>

You should be able to find the author, date and maybe the publisher by looking at the source itself. But everything besides the url is optional. Leave out the square brackets (but include the "http://") on the url. For more information, go to: Template:Cite web

The name (next to the ref) gives you or anyone else the ability to cite that exact same source again and again and have those same references pointed to by one citation. Just insert:

<ref name="Whatever" /> (remembering to include the slash)

This will create a single citation on the reference list, with raised letters for back pointers. So, if we have the two citations above beginning with <ref name="Whatever"..., the References at the bottom of the article will come out as:

1. ^{a b} W.H. Atever (July 1, 2012). "Whatever Report" ...

'Nuff said. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

First comments

• The Legislative history subsection has been inserted below the Projected effects. Since PE occurs after LH (in real time), wouldn't it be better reversing the order: LH first, then PE?
  • However, I think that the heading of the first, non-lead section is wrong. It doesn't give a Overview of the entire article, just of the beginning months: what led us into the fiscal cliff and predictions about the looming debate. I mean, I wouldn't want to give an overview of the various political squirmishing before September in the first section of the article, would you? Therefore, I propose that the heading of the first section should be changed to Background (followed by Legislative history and Projected effects as subsections).
  • Given this, I wouldn't have any objection to inserting a third paragraph into the lead (which, right now, consists of little more than the definitions), giving an "overview" of the important parts of the article in two or three sentences. These would be revised and extended as the article grows larger.
• It seems to me that there are (at least) two ways of looking at this article:
  • from a technical, economic point of view, emphasizing long-term deficits, GDP and so forth. Like "estimated 8.5% of GDP in 2011 to 1.2% by 2021" and "public debt rises from 69% GDP in 2011 to 100% by 2021 and approaches 190% by 2035".
  • from an "everymans" viewpoint, emphasizing what would happen to average citizens in the near future. Example: "a family of four with an income of $50,000 to $85,000 would pay an additional $2,200 in federal taxes".

The two viewpoints are both equally valid and should be given equal thought (if not equal space in the article).

• The alternative fiscal scenario (defined on page 3 of here) consists of:
  • The expiring tax provisions are extended
  • The AMT is indexed for inflation after 2011
  • The payment rates for physicians are held constant at their current level
  • The BCA sequestrations do not occur.

This leaves in the 2% reduction in the FICA payroll tax. Thus, the "alternative fiscal scenario" (based on the March CBO report by Hawley Anthony) is different, even for the first year, than our "Estimated budget impact by category" section (based on the May CBO report by Page). I'm not sure what to do about this because, in my opinion, most readers will think we're talking about the same thing.

Nope, I was wrong. All scerarios presume that the FICA tax cut expires at the end of 2012. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

All good stuff, go ahead and make any edits you feel helpful. The article keeps getting better. The main thrust of what I did yesterday was to try to move complex, tougher to wade through stuff lower in the article and try to explain the scenarios in plain language and simpler sentences. The legislative history and discussion of the scenarios is complicated so I tried to compartmentalize those. Chronology is good but I think simplicity / readability is more important, especially early in the article. Complexity early should be avoided.

One good trick to avoid complexity is to use end notes -- <ref group="note">... Then people who are interested can go look while others can bypass. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think readers will have these questions: 1) What is going to happen in 2013 if Congress does/does not act? 2) What is the effect on my family?

I would say my family, my friends, myself and my country. In roughly that order. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

3) What is the effect on the debt/deficit? 4) What is the effect on the economy? 5) What are the two party positions or candidate positions?

I sort of disagree with this one when you say "candidate positions". If my crystal ball is working, this debate will be resolved in the lame duck session after the election. Even if they have to kick the can again. This means that Obama and the current Congress will still be in charge. Yes, the election of Romney might persuade Obama to kick it into Romney's playground but, if they do, I'll bet they untangle things so that their successors don't have 10 things to decide at once. And the Fiscal cliff, as a current events article, disappears.

Just my opinion, tho'. :) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Farcaster (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Intro

I like everything you did with the intro except the defense part. U.S. defense spending is still enormous even if we go over the cliff entirely and we'd still be spending more than most of the rest of the world combined. The lead is a bit biased on defense. Either balance with how huge defense spending will still be or use another approach, perhaps using some other way of saying the impact on households, such as how discretionary spending might be cut as well and how that would affect it.Farcaster (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the quote from Penetta is quite long. I was trying to write a short paragraph that "hit the highlights" of fiscal cliff effects, touching on taxes and spending, advantages and disadvantages, macro and micro.
* For going off the cliff: half the 2013 deficit; debt reduced by $7.1T in 10 years
* For avoiding the cliff: double-dip recession; increased taxes; effects on defense

I regret that I couldn't find anything small (that affected one family at a time--your point 2) for the going-off-the-cliff side of spending. I also couldn't find anything on the non-defense effects of the sequestration, probably because OMB makes the final decisions and they're not talking.

If you have found any other micro spending outcomes that you think will effect the average person's family, friends or country, please substitute it for my Penetta quote. For example, the same source mentions that funding Iraq and Afghanistan war efforts "would be adversely affected by the severe disruption in the base budgets". I didn't choose that quote because I wasn't sure that our readers would understand what was meant by "the base budgets".

I have moved the in-cite back next to the quote. The cited source doesn't mention "the world's largest defense budget by far." If you don't substitute something for the Penetta quote, I would find a relialble citation for your clause. While I don't have any problem with it (I'm sure I ran across something similar), eventually someone will put a CN-tag next to it and ultimately remove your material. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK

You know, this would be a very strong DYK candidate. I'd like to nominate it as soon as I get the chance to sit down and do it. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. (But how do you get over the 5-day rule?) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It needs to meet the length threshold in five days, but the nomination isn't a hard deadline and can come a couple of days after that. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I see now. The existence-or-expansion rule may be overridden by WP:DYKSG's D9, in this case, all the way back to June 16th. If 5 days can turn into 6 weeks then, in my opinion, D9 should be brought up front and merged with WP:WIADYK. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it's at Template:Did you know nominations/United States fiscal cliff. Feel free to suggest edits to the hook. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

First, your wikilink to the United States public debt is wrong if you use "deficit" as the pipe. You should say either:

• ...may halve the deficit... (using [[Deficit spending|deficit]] for your link) OR
• ...may reduce the federal debt by $7.1 trillion...

That said, here's my hook:

• ... that US mandated tax increases and spending cuts, scheduled to automatically take effect in five months, have been called a fiscal cliff, due to projections they may halve the deficit and reduce the federal debt but also cause a double-dip recession and a significant increase in taxes?

If that's too long, try this:

• ... that US mandated tax increases and spending cuts, scheduled for 2013, have been called a fiscal cliff, due to projections they may halve the deficit but also cause a double-dip recession and loose an additional two million jobs?

(For the 2 mill in jobs lost, see the first replacement in the Last sentence in second lead paragraph section below.)

Still too long:

• ... that the United States fiscal cliff will be caused by automatic tax increases and spending cuts, scheduled for the end of this year.

Upon reflection, I like the last, shortest one best. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to "annual deficits" with the link to Deficit spending. I think the effects are more important than the formal definition, so another alternative would be:

• ... that the January 2013 United States fiscal cliff is projected to halve the annual deficit, but also cause a double-dip recession with the loss of an additional two million jobs?

This unfortunately loses the explanation that this is the result of specific provisions of law, but perhaps that may pique the readers' curiosity more? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the CBO projection separate from any assertion about job losses.Farcaster (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hm, yes, the fact that they're from different sources is problematic... Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the time criticality is important for the hook. Both of these are fine with me:

• ... that the United States fiscal cliff, effective in January 2013, is projected to halve the annual deficit but also may cause a double-dip recession? OR
• ... that the United States fiscal cliff, effective in January 2013, is projected to halve the annual deficit but also may cause a double-dip recession and a $2,200 increase in taxes for the average family?

Again, the second hook is from different sources but, it seems to me that, recession and taxes are far enough apart that one shouldn't affect the other. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll say again, the second paragraph in the lead looks great as is. Key ideas are in there, in nice separate sentence easy to understand.21:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Spending cuts

This subsection, under Political debate, has no references, is in the wrong place (I think) and is a summarization of Legislative history (which isn't that large in the first place). Does anyone want to remove this subsection? Or object if I do? (Fair warning: I'll remove it next Wednesday if I remember and if no one objects or gets there ahead of me.) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

If defense cuts will be covered in the intro, they should probably be in this section as well. Perhaps cut & paste some of that info into this section. If revenue is one part of the debate, spending is the other.Farcaster (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite know what you're saying. I agreed that my choice of Penetta's quote wasn't the best. If you like, find another source and eliminate my quote. I don't have any love for that material but I do care about keeping the lead short.

It seems to me we have various options. The new source can be:

• about taxes or spending
• if about spending then defense spending or non-defense spending
• long term (10 years) vs. short term (immediate or up to 1 year)
• for going off the cliff vs. for avoiding the cliff

Except for the first sentence, I wanted to talk about effects on the average citizen. I had already talked about:

• short term and long term economics, for going over the cliff (first sentence)
• short term economics and average taxes, for avoiding the cliff
• Now I wanted something about long term spending sequestration, if possible from the average veiwpoint. I really didn't care whether it was for or against going over the cliff. Can you dig up any sources like that, which will hopefully deliver a short sentence to the lead, eliminating my Penetta quote?

If I'm totally off the mark, forgive me. I really don't understand your comment.

Try it a different way. If you have a sentence that you want to remain in "Spending cuts", should the equivalent statement be removed from "Legistrative history"? (Why?) How is the sentence related to Political debate? Do you have a reliable source for that sentence? (Remember, statements in the lead section don't need inline citations -- except for direct quotes -- because the lead is a summary of the rest of the article, which does need citations.)

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're doing now. But wouldn't it be better merged into "Projected effects", rather than being part of "Political debates". You're presenting facts from the CBO (one of the most nonpartisan groups in DC), not giving both sides to an argument. Maybe we should turn "Projected effects" into its own section and/or think of a better name for it.

The one thing that is political is the Penetta quote. That could be left as the sole starting paragraph of "Spending cuts" under "Political debates". In that case, we should remove the non-partisan language and say something like "DOD Secretary Penatta said, in a November 14, 2011 letter to Senators McCain and Graham, that..." You could add it to the Timeline, whether you do or you don't think it's important enough to remain in the main article. This is another reference. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Commentary vs. Timeline

The Commentary subsection, again under Political debate, shows incipient signs of becoming a quote festival. Each paragraph relates to one article about one pundit speaking one time before some committee. (Or just ranting on their own nut.) The paragraph mostly contains quotes (or one quote) of what he or she said.

There are about 100 persons (I'm guessing) speaking before Congress each day (when they're in session) and perhaps another 100 with non-Congressional platforms on which to speak. Let's say one in a hundred is speaking on the fiscal cliff (or some subject that can be interpreted as relating to fiscal cliffs) but, on a lackluster news day, they might be reported by 3 (or 12) reliable sources. You can readily see that this Commentary section might fill beyond flood-stage awfully quickly, if you don't put limits. And, if you do, you'll get into the most incredible arguments about whether Bernanke is a valid pundit but Krugman isn't. Or vice-versa.

In United States debt-ceiling crisis, we tried to stem this outflowing of good will by introducing a Timeline section in the back. All significant events, whether they grow worthy of inclusion in the main text or not, first have an entry in Timeline. This entry gives the bare minimum and is normally limited (by the original contributor themselves) to two, maybe three, lines. In general, these squiggles won't have quotes; if some reader is interested, he or she can look at the source. Please look at United States debt-ceiling crisis#Timeline for a more mature view of what a timeline can mean to a (former) current events article.

(The Timeline serves other purposes. For example, an editor who doesn't have time to research an event to see if it's worthwhile to include a subsection stemming from that event, can just edit a Timeline entry (with a date and a reference) and leave it to someone else to do the scut-work. Timeline isn't perfect; you'll still have arguments. But they should be reduced.)

I have created one entry in Timeline for the second paragraph in the Commentary section about Bernanke. Unless this event became important for some reason, I think this is enough and the material in the Commentary section should be removed but it's up to you. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're doing with the Commentary section as well: Having a lead sentence explaining your intention is much clearer. Nevertheless, my comments about the Timeline above are still, I think, valid in general.

By the way, I would try to reduce direct quotes in the future: remember, Wikipedia is a tertiary source; we can (and should) rely on secondary sources, like a reporter's interpretation of what the pundit said. Even in current events, a Wikipedia editor does not report on a speaker's words themselves but on news coverage of the speaker's words. We are an information aggregation service; we summarize what has already been published, not the underlying facts or opinions themselves. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Language notes

I'd like to suggest some improvements to a few specific language issues with this article:

• Instead of constructions like "might reduce the deficit" and "would probably mean a double-dip recession", it's better to say that such things "are projected" to happen. It's important to be clear what is a projection and who is making it, otherwise these statements can get dangerously close to crystal-balling.
• The term "if Congress does/does not act" appears many times in this article. I feel it's more neutral to say "under current law" and "if the tax cuts are extended"/"if the budget sequestration is repealed", or something similar.

I've made changes to the lead to reflect this, but the rest of the article should be checked too. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems I've had since I started work on this article, is what to call either side of the argument. The "for going over the cliff" is slightly easier because at least the phrases "under current law" and "if Congress does not act" correctly describe one end of the debate. But, as for the "avoiding the fiscal cliff" side, there are so many ways of avoiding the cliff that I can't think of one phrase that is short enough to be used repeatably and describes all the options.

Some people favor just repealing the Bush-era tax cuts and leaving the FICA payroll tax and/or the sequestrations in place while others just care about the defense cuts mandated by the BCA. You can basically pick and choose from the array of options presented in Note 2 in the article, including the ones that both scenarios allow. That's all combinations of eight options (4 that CBO changed and 4 that they didn't). Do you think anyone can phrase all 64 options succinctly? And, if we use the phrases "the CBO Baseline" and "the Alternative Scenario", we are limiting ourselves to just one view (CBO's) of avoiding the cliff.

I agree that "Under current law, which mandates tax increases and spending cuts" and "if the tax cuts are extended and the budget sequestration is repealed" are better than "If Congress does/does not act" but they do not fully describe one side or the other PLUS they are just too long for everyday writing. Who wants to say "if the Bush tax cuts and the FICA cut are partially or fully extended to FY20?? and the budget sequestration is repealed or changed then..." every time you want to discuss the "avoiding the cliff" side?

Couldn't we just use "falling over" or "avoiding" the fiscal cliff everywhere in the article and leave it at that? (Just kidding. :) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I see. I think that if we're talking about a specific proposal, we should specifically name that proposal (e.g., the CBO Alternate Scenario). If we're talking about the effects of legislation in general, I think something like "if new legislation is enacted" would be enough. It would be useful to have paragraph explicitly listing the eight options and explaining that any new legislation could contain any combination of them; it's important enough that is should be prominently in the main body rather than in a note.

I prefer "current law" instead of "if Congress does not act". The latter construction strikes me as the kind of phrase you'd see coming from an advocacy group; while strictly factually accurate, it subtly assumes that the default is for Congress to act. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If only we could. The problem is that there are not only eight options but hundreds of them. The CBO just picked eight that they thought were important. Virtually every law that's in place and non-revenue-neutral (like, say, Social Security, to pick an obvious one) could be repealed. (Repealing SocSec would provide plenty of money and would appeal to some libertarians.) Some options depend on near-but-future legislation, like the FY2013 appropriation bills. Many advocates of various plans, especially partisian ones, choose other options and don't say anything about them. All you can say about avoiding the cliff is that some law(s) must be changed, repealed or enacted, probably before year's end.

Could you come up with three or four short phrases that mean the same as (a) "under current law" and (b) "if the law was changed"? If we don't have a bunch of them, for both sides, we'll wind up starting practically every paragraph with one of two stock phrases.

By the way, I do assume that the "default" is for Congress (and the President) to act because virtually every Congressman and pundit (that has expressed an opinion) wants the fiscal cliff to be cured. (In a strict sense, default always means not acting but I think you meant the overwheming position of those that can affect the fiscal cliff.) I think that should be the "default" of the article as well, unless more people state for the record that they want the fiscal cliff to happen. (I have heard of some plan by Democrats, if Romney wins but they still keep 41 seats in the Senate, to force us over the cliff for a few weeks and let Romney negotiate with them after January 20th.) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sequester

According to Wiktionary and most other dictionaries (see www.dict.org), sequester is only a verb ("The coal-fired plant was ordered to sequester its CO₂ emissions", "The jury was sequestered from the press", "the Budget Control Act of 2011 sequestered certain funds as of January 2nd"); it is not a noun. The noun form is sequestration (or sequestrations, for the plural): the procedure in the BCA is by sequestrations, an individual spending reduction is a sequestration.

Many people and organizations are starting to use "sequester" or "the sequester" as a noun, interchangably with or in perference to sequestrations (eg, BPC's Indefensible: The Sequester's Mechanics and Adverse Effects on National and Economic Security). If this is a new usage then it will be picked up by other dictionaries and eventually reported by Wiktionary. But there is no reason for us to use sequester incorrectly for now. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Last sentence in second lead paragraph

I think the last sentence in the article's second paragraph (starting with "Both defense and...") is too dry and technical for the average reader, certainly for the average lead reader (who's only there to get a feeling for what his news pundit keeps calling the fiscal cliff). My goal in introducing the paragraph was to "whet the reader's appetite", not attempt to summarize the whole article in one paragraph. In my opinion, it's way too early for that. If you disagree, let's talk.

(Don't be discouraged; I'm in no rush to get this resolved quickly. I've noticed that, among us editors, the lead section tends to be very contentious.)

In the second paragraph's first two sentences, we talked about deficit, the debt and recession. In my mind, this would probably be OK with our joe-blow reader. He understands that deficit, debt and recession are bad things about money, even if he doesn't know exactly what they are. He certainly does understand taxes.

But the last sentence starts off talking about "non-defense discretionary spending". I'll bet that less than 1 out of 10 readers know what discretionary means. I had to look it up myself: it's those programs that have to come up before 12 of the 13 appropriation committees every year (the 13th is defense) as opposed to programs that have their spending written into the act that created them.

The sentence then continues talking about "the 2013-2022 period relative to the current trajectory". Joe-blow is going to say "What in the world are they talking about?" and close the page, except he won't use the word "world" as his explicative.

For the sentence in question, I have found a series of possible substitutes, based on a great new source that I discovered -- BPC's "Indefensible" white paper here.

Currently, we have:

• Both defense and non-defense discretionary spending (i.e., for Cabinet Departments and Agencies) would be significantly reduced over the 2013-2022 period relative to the current trajectory; major mandatory programs such as Medicare and Social Security would not be significantly affected.
  • No citation.

These are four possible replacements:

• The United States might loose an additional two million jobs over the next two years. OR

The Bipartisan Policy Center has predicted that the United States might loose an additional two million jobs over the next two years.

• Citation for either: Task Force on Defense Budget and Strategy (June 7, 2012). "Indefensible: The Sequester's Mechanics and Adverse Effects on National and Economic Security". Bipartisan Policy Center. pp. 5, 25. Retrieved August 5, 2012.

• Also, the public debt will reach 100% of GDP in just another two years: 2028 instead of 2026. OR

Also, the Bipartisan Policy Center has estimated that the public debt will reach 100% of GDP in just another two years: 2028 instead of 2026.

• Citation for either (pages are different): Task Force on Defense Budget and Strategy (June 7, 2012). "Indefensible: The Sequester's Mechanics and Adverse Effects on National and Economic Security". Bipartisan Policy Center. pp. 5, 28. Retrieved August 5, 2012.

• Domestic expenditures will be affected as well. For example, both disease control and all scientfic research will be cut by 12% in 2013. OR

Domestic expenditures will be affected as well. For example, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, both disease control and all scientfic research will be cut by 12% in 2013.

• Citation for either (pages are different): Task Force on Defense Budget and Strategy (June 7, 2012). "Indefensible: The Sequester's Mechanics and Adverse Effects on National and Economic Security". Bipartisan Policy Center. p. 27ff. Retrieved August 5, 2012.

• Defense and domestic discretionary spending will be cut to historic lows two years earlier. OR

The Bipartisan Policy Center has projected that defense and domestic discretionary spending will be cut to historic lows two years earlier.

• Citation for either (pages are different): Task Force on Defense Budget and Strategy (June 7, 2012). "Indefensible: The Sequester's Mechanics and Adverse Effects on National and Economic Security". Bipartisan Policy Center. p. 30. Retrieved August 5, 2012.

Does any one of these (or two or three) meet your fancy? (They all have essentially the same citation.) Can you think of any others, possibly from the same white paper or possibly from a different source? Or can you revise the current sentence to make it more understandable and meaningful to the average lead reader?

Please talk to me. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I like what we already have better than the options presented. I would try to avoid isolated facts or statistics in the lead, as they tend to be one-sided. If you want to add some drama in the lead, I would suggest the statistics about potential job losses (your first option) or tax rates increasing as an addition, not a replacement. If someone is going to understand this article, they have to be able to handle discretionary spending cuts and we define that simply in the lead.Farcaster (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the sentence tells the reader much. Too many "significantlys"; not enough data. Time periods where nobody knows whether sequestration will last that long. How about this:

• The Defense Department would be reduced by across-the-board sequestrations of 15%. Other cabinet departments and federal agencies would be similarly cut by 12%.^[1] Major domestic programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, would not be appreciably affected.

References

1. Task Force on Defense Budget and Strategy (June 7, 2012). "Indefensible: The Sequester's Mechanics and Adverse Effects on National and Economic Security". Bipartisan Policy Center. pp. 14ff, 24, 27ff. Retrieved August 5, 2012.

(The two percentages are for 2013 and are confirmed by the reference. If you think that the year is significant, we can prepend "In 2013,". Or, if you can find similar figures for a wider range, say 2012-2022, we can use them instead. We could substitute "Separately-funded programs" for "Major domestic programs" in the final sentence. Do we really need the word "appreciably" there? Someone can teach the reader all about discretionary vs. mandatory later in the article.)

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Any comments about my last alternate above? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Still like the original better. Specifics are difficult in the intro because they distort what is happening. Defense won't be cut much in dollar terms over time, just slowing the increases or cutting relative to the present policy trajectory. CBO has a statistic later in the article about how big the defense cuts are relative to the present trajectory; if you intend to change the paragraph, I would use that. Putting in specifics makes things look precise that are not. Hence the "significantly." If you don't want to use that word twice in proximity, we can find a synonym that works.Farcaster (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess this is one we disagree on. First, in my opinion, the majority of the article is based on "specific" estimations, like $7.1 trillion or $2200. If the sources supply a given number, like 12 or 15%, then making up a range or using wishy-washy phrases like "significantly reduced" when we have a source who puts a number on the reduction is wrong, even in the lead. I believe that the phrase "would be reduced" implies prediction which implies estimation, for which we have a reliable citation. I also think it's too early to devise a lead that correctly summarizes the rest of the article, giving due weight to each subtopic.

If we had another source that gave another estimate then we would be justified in either including both numbers (with appropriate different in-cites) or dropping the matter from the lead entirely because of space limitations. (In this case, the limitations are due to what the average reader, new to the subject, can retain.)

However, I'm willing to work with you until we get a lead acceptable to all of us. First, can you show me one case in which a reliable source says that SocSec or Mcare would be reduced under current law? Second, which CBO article has statistics about defense cuts relative to the present trajectory?

And the sentence is still too jargony for the lead. Wouldn't it be better to say "Spending for the federal agencies and cabinet departments, including defense, would be reduced significantly through 2022 due to the budget sequestration. Major domestic programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, would not be appreciably affected"? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Question about CBO diagrams

In the diagram accompanying the lead section, we have a baseline that goes up but always stays negative; that is, deficits, rather than surpluses. Now, if you have deficit in any given year, even for one dollar, the federal debt should go up by the amount of the deficit, right?

Approximately. Supplemental appropriations and earmarks are spending that is outside the budget computation entirely. Under Bush, the Iraq & Afghanistan spending was also excluded from the deficit; you can see the true deficit by how much the debt changed in a year. Further, if you are talking about public debt that excludes the "intragovernmental" debt (e.g., the Social Security Trust Fund). See the U.S. public debt article for a reconciliation of debt and deficits for 2008. Then take two Tylenol.Farcaster (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Now look at the Historic Federal Debt diagram accompanying the Congressional Budget Office projections. It shows a baseline public debt that increases for a short period past 2012 but then goes down, from about 80% to 65% or so.

What's going on? One graph says the debt should go up but the other says it should go down, significantly, after, say, 2015. Both graphs are in percent of GDP so it's not just a matter of different scales. Both extend to 2022 so it's not a matter of different years. Did the CBO slip in another baseline and not tell anyone? I am confused. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Debt is going up under both scenarios, but less under the baseline scenario. So the Debt/GDP is different. You can add to the debt but if GDP is growing fast enough the ratio improves. Hope that helps. Farcaster (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Example: Let's say a country's debt to GDP ratio in year 1 is 110% = 110 Debt / 100 GDP. Then, debt rises by 8 but GDP rises by 10 from year 1 to year 2. The year 2 debt to GDP ratio is 118 / 110 = 107%, an improvement. Using the same starting point, if debt increased by 12 but GDP rose by 10, the new debt to GDP ratio is 122/110 or 111%. Farcaster (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Effects of sequestration section

I don't really understand the bulk of this section, probably because I'm not an economic expert. Forgive my verboseness.

Fortunately, you are much less verbose in the article.Farcaster (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

First, a minor point. The hatnote template {{main}} should be replaced by {{further}}. Main implies that this article is merely expanded material from the Budget Control Act of 2011, usually created when the main article has grown too big; see WP:Summary Style.

OKFarcaster (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, the first paragraph seems to be a rehashing of material that appears earlier in the acticle. I don't know if this was intended to remind the reader of the salient points before diving into the rest of the section or it was added to the front of the section because, this early in the life of the article, the order of sections may change. In my opinion, the reader reading from the top of the article will find it redundant.

I'm OK with a repeat. The earlier parts are a summary while this is the body.Farcaster (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Now for the sources of my ignorance:

• In the second paragraph, the section says "The effect on both defense and non-defense discretionary spending will be significant if the cliff is not avoided. Cuts totaling $110 billion per year will be applied from 2013 to 2022, split evenly ($55 billion each) to defense and non-defense discretionary spending. For scale, discretionary funding for 2011 totaled $1,277 billion: budget authority of $712 billion for defense and funding totaling $566 billion for non-defense activities."

• My interpretation: the sequestrations only amount to approximately negative 10% of total discretionary spending (and even less than that of the total budget).

Correct, but bear in mind the out years had much higher spending prior to sequestration.Farcaster (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Third paragraph: "During 2013, defense and non-defense discretionary spending would be maintained around 2012 levels due to the sequester. However, the spending begins to rise thereafter, but not at the pace projected prior to the sequester. In other words, the trajectory of spending increases is reduced, but spending is not frozen at 2012 levels. Defense and non-defense discretionary spending increases from 2013-2021 would be about 1.5% annually, significantly below the prior decade."

• This paragraph seems to be saying that defense and non-defense discretionary spending (I'll abbreviate it as DANDDS from now on) will increase by 1.5% (compared to the previous year's budget, not GDP). I think you mean that DANDDS will fall by -10% but then be increased (by the normal appropriation process) by 1.5%, leaving a net of -8.5%. Is this right? I assume that DANDDS means the part of the budget susceptible to sequestrations. Remember that all of this was envisioned in the United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2011. The BCA wants the total deficit to go down by $1.2T. The only way to increase DANDDS from -10% to -8.5% is to decrease the non-DANDDS funding (like MCare and SocSec) and I know that Congress doesn't want to do that. What am I missing?

The trick is that projected spending was much higher pre-sequester in the future years. By applying the sequester, spending growth is a very slow 1.5% annually per year over the next decade. It was a much higher rate before.Farcaster (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Fourth and fifth paragraphs: "For example, according to the CBO Historical Tables, defense spending (including overseas contingency operations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) grew from $295 billion in 2000 to $700 billion in 2011, an annual growth rate of 8.2%. Non-defense discretionary spending grew at a 6.6% annual rate during that time, from $511 billion to $597 billion.
  The austerity represented by the sequester is not unprecedented; from 1990-1999, defense spending actually declined by about 1% annually, from $300 billion to $276 billion, although non-defense discretionary spending grew by 4.5% annually, rising from $200 to $297 billion."

• These two paragraphs do not seem to relate to paragraphs two and three above. In fact, they seem to be a mismash of semi-randomly extacted facts. In addition, they conflict with the 2011 estimates in 'graph two: $712B vs. $700B, $566B vs. $511B. What are you trying to say here?

They show that the 1.5% annual rate is much lower than recent history, but not unprecedented historically. We could carve this out into a historical perspective sub-section perhaps.Farcaster (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• The rest of the section consists of two, long quotations from the October 2011 CBO Testimony. Firstly, these quotes should be speedily paraphased and, to whatever extent possible, eliminated (along with the paranthetical Tables and Figures, which don't exist in the article). If not, they should be sequestered (via cut-and-paste, nothing to do with fiscal sequestrations) to the Talk: United States fiscal cliff/sandbox, which I have just created.

Agree. But tough to improve on the precision of CBO language when explaining this stuff. Give it a shot and I'll pitch in.Farcaster (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. After paragraphs two and three (see below). --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The other thing I would say is to specify expicitly (even for one sentence) which tack you're taking: Under current law or avoiding the fiscal cliff. My reading says it's very confused. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The sequester being applied means under current law; please specify where you deem appropriate so the section stands alone.Farcaster (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. Now that I have your permission (I hate interfering with someone else's work), I'll try to improve paragraphs 2 and 3. I'm going to check the source(s) but do you mean that spending will increase by 1.5% compared to the previous year? Then what is the 10% in paragraph two?

Also, can you tell me what you expect to accomplish with the Effects of sequestrations section? What is your aim? For example, I could say about the Background section that (a) it lays out the legistrative history of the fiscal cliff, telling how we became involved with all this and (b) gives a brief explanation of the various positions that various people may take. What's the goal of Effects of sequestrations? What criteria do you use to decide which statements and even which sources are important enough to include in the section and which are not? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

We should describe what the sequester will do and how. 1.5% is the average annual rate of increase to get from the first year to the last year (CAGR; see the wikilink for the formula). I think its important to show that the sequester will cut the spending increase rate far below the past decade. I use judgment in determining what is analytically useful or interesting; perspective on that varies but I think the various rates of spending increase in recent history is fascinating.Farcaster (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I just discovered that, according to pages 15 and 16 (Table 2) of the CBO's Testimony on Discretionary Spending, (a) mandatory non-defense spending will be reduced by $16B in 2013 ($170B thru 2021) and (b) Medicare benefits will be reduced by 2% under sequestrations. I therefore believe that the article, including the lead, has been wrong but I don't know quite where to insert this new information. Any ideas? (I did add it to Budget Control Act of 2011.) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Now you know why I like the word "significantly" so much. These are tiny amounts in the scheme of things so we can ignore or use the hedging language. Or create a subsection under the sequester section for "Mandatory program reductions"Farcaster (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO, these are not "tiny amounts". Two percent isn't significant when compared against 100% but a 2% reduction is significant versus a 10% reduction and $11B is significant against $55B (Table 2, 2% Medicare vs. total nondefense sequestration). We can't state something like "programs such as Medicare...would not be significantly affected" that we know to be false. I am changing the lead, slightly. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK: Remember to cite sources

It looks like we may have a shot at DYK after all (nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/United States fiscal cliff), but we'll need to add references to the Background section in order to satisfy the rule of thumb that each paragraph should have at least once citation. I think the CBO report can be used to fill most of them; for the first couple of paragraphs we can pull references from other articles on those bills, such as 2012 United States federal budget. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 10:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If I have a single citation (like here) that verifies most statements in the entire Background section, should I insert the same inline citation after each paragraph (that is, 6 or 7 times)? Or will one in-cite at the end of the section be sufficient? Also, does this rule apply to other paragraphs; for example, the third 'graph under CBO Scenarios starting with "These paint..."?

Where is this DYK rule anyway? Does it really say every paragraph? What about a paragraph that was inserted for "paraphased and summerized" explainations and really doesn't have a single source, like the last 'graph in Background? Maybe the reason why government finance articles so rarely appear in DYK is that they're also Current Events articles and thus they allow more flexibility while they are current. For example, last year's United States debt-ceiling crisis doesn't have a citation for every paragraph. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The rule is D2 on Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines, which states: The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content. The general idea, as I see it, is that the article should not contain content that has no indication of a source. (DYK review does not involve verifying every fact in an article; only the hook fact requires verification.)

When I reviewed this article, there were no footnotes in the entire "Background" section, leaving the reader without any indication of where to go to verify the information or find additional details. That needs to be changed in order for this to be featured in DYK.

I strongly agree that it's wrong to cite just one source when the content is derived from many different sources. Rule D2 should be understood to mean "at least one footnote", not "exactly one footnote." The idea is to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, which often does mean more than one source. However, as Antony-22 notes, multiple published sources have documented the background to the current situation, so it should be possible to find one or two sources that support essentially all of the content in this section. --Orlady (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Background sections are supposed to be an extention of the lead. Just because your rule D2 doesn't list "background" or "context" or any other of the half a dozen introduction headings in its exceptions doesn't mean they're not "lead material". See United States debt-ceiling crisis. I would rather loose the DYK nomination than make the article worse by following DYK rules too strictly. There are many sources that start off by summarizing the fiscal cliff and, therefore, cover the overwhelming majority of the factual statements in Background; that's why it's called Background.

That said, OK. Sometime in the next day or two, I'll insert one inline citation in the article's Background section. (I don't guarantee that this one citation will cover every fact in Background: the AMT reversion, say -- or anything else -- may or may not be covered in that particular source.) In addition, I'll list several citations here in this section of the talk page down below. (Basically, any one of the 4 or 5 CBO reports on the fiscal cliff will contain essentially the same information.) It will be up to other people (you?) to distribute these citations among whatever paragraphs you like. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead section doesn't need citations because it summarizes key information from the article body, and the citations are provided in the article body. In contrast, a "background" section that presents content not provided elsewhere in the article needs citations.

Sourcing isn't needed only for DYK. Because this article is about current events, and you and I live in the United States and follow current events, we may have difficulty seeing the need for reference citations to support the background section of this article -- we know a lot of what it says. However, the articles we create now will still be in the encyclopedia 10 years from now, when memories of 2012 have dimmed, and it may be difficult for editors to reconstruct the basis for our articles. Think about it: By providing reference citations, you are helping to protect the integrity of your contributions for posterity. --Orlady (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I do provide references and I do follow the 10 year rule. It's just that the Background section does summarize other sections below it and these sections do contain the inline citations. Please, use some common sense.

If you like, you can insert CN tags wherever you want and these will be taken care of eventually. Please don't stick in CN's if you personally don't have any doubt about a given statement. The article is not a BLP and does not require that level of verification.

Here is my list of references:

• <ref NAME="CBOOutlook1208" /> references "CBO Staff (August 22, 2012). An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022"
• <ref NAME="CBOBaseline" /> references "Christina Hawley Anthony (March 13, 2012). Updated Budget Projections: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022"
• <ref NAME="CBO Discretionary1" /> references "CBO (October 26, 2011). "CBO Testimony Discretionary Spending"
• <ref NAME="CBOFiscal" /> references "Page, Benjamin (May 22, 2012). Economic Effects of Reducing the Fiscal Restraint That Is Scheduled to Occur in 2013"

Any of these will verify the bulk of the statements in the Background section.

These are specifically for the first three paragraphs:

• <ref NAME="at-sum">{{cite news | url= http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/Tax-Cut-Extension-Bill-Wends-Way-White-House-56664-1.html | title=Tax Cut Extension Bill Wends Its Way to White House | magazine=[[Accounting Today]] | date=December 17, 2010 }}</ref> references "Tax Cut Extension Bill Wends Its Way to White House". Accounting Today" for the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010
• <ref NAME="cp-score">{{cite news|url=http://www.christianpost.com/news/keeping-score-debt-limit-winners-and-losers-53299/|title=Keeping Score: Debt Limit Winners and Losers| first=Napp|last=Nazworth|newspaper=[[The Christian Post]]|date=August 3, 2011}}</ref> references "Nazworth, Napp (August 3, 2011). Keeping Score: Debt Limit Winners and Losers" for the Budget Control Act of 2011

You or anyone can insert these in-cites anywhere within Background and thus "verify" the article by DYK rules. Which, by the way, are not Wikipedia policy. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added the references you mentioned. You're right that having one citation per paragraph isn't policy, but it is considered good practice to do so, even in background sections. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit to United States fiscal cliff#Background

I have moved this discussion from Orlady's talk page to here because it seemed to require a greater audience. We are talking about one or two sentences starting with "The following provisions of current law...". Please enter your comments at the end. Thank you. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The edit history says "edited so that the article no longer misrepresents CBO as having reviewed the subject focus of different discussions of the fiscal cliff".

I don't understand. The two paragraphs that you changed involved discussions or debates of the fiscal cliff, by Congress, newscasters, pundits or two guys having a beer. They had nothing to do with the CBO, except that its reports are one out of many reliable sources of the various provisions themselves, not that the CBO had reviewed the discussions. We do not know if the "two provisions of current law are the key elements of the fiscal cliff" but we can say that the two provisions are key to the discussions, at least so far.

Since CBO only occurs in a footnote, I can't see why a reader would be confused. Please explain here; I will be watching this page. (Or transfer this section to the article's talk page.) Thanks. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I was concerned about two statements with footnotes that identified CBO as the source. The first of the statements said: "The following two provisions of current law are almost always included in any discussions of the fiscal cliff." The wording of that sentence indicates to me that the cited source provided some sort of review of discussions of the fiscal cliff, and identified these two topics as prevalent themes. In fact, however, the cited source is exactly one discussion of the fiscal cliff, and it does not provide any perspective on other discussions of the topic (indeed, it doesn't even include the term "fiscal cliff"). The statement about what is "almost always included in any discussions" is undoubtedly true, but regrettably it looks like original research. The same issue existed for the second statement ("In addition, some or all of the other provisions listed below may also be incorporated in the debate"), but it is less acute there because the assertion is less strong. IMO, if you want the article to identify the provisions of law that have created the fiscal cliff, the CBO reference is acceptable (even though it doesn't use the term "fiscal cliff"), but it is not an appropriate source for statements about "discussions of the fiscal cliff" or "the debate". Accordingly, I reworded the two statements to remove the suggestion that the source described discussions or debate.

I assume that someone other than Wikipedia (for example, National Journal, Columbia Journalism Review, On the Media, one of the national newspapers, a national news magazine, PBS, or NPR) has documented the discussion/debate on the fiscal cliff in a manner that would support these statements, but it's not the CBO. --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Another way to get around the original research problem is to quote or paraphrase one or more specific identified authorities/pundits regarding the meaning of the "fiscal cliff". For example, this blog post might be helpful. --Orlady (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've not done an in-depth search for sources for this content. However, this Christian Science Monitor piece may have possibilities. I found some good articles on the Wikipedia-blacklisted site moneymorning.com that looked useful (particularly moneymorning.com/2012/06/19/what-is-the-fiscal-cliff/); I haven't yet investigated why it is blacklisted to see if we could justify a whitelisting for a specific link. --Orlady (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The "cited source" was meant to reference the provisions listed below it, NOT the sentence in front of it. I know because I added the footnote at 01:53 on Aug 25. Where else would you place such a footnote? Other sources in the article's Reference section for provisions of current law that make up the fiscal cliff are:

• Romans (CNN), What is the Fiscal Cliff?
• Calmes (NYT), Recession Possible...
• Page (CBO), Economic Effects of Reducing...

All of these (and probably more in the current References) mention explicitly "the fiscal cliff". You can substitute any or all of them for the current footnote. But I think it's important to indicate that the provisions are "key elements in any discussions (or debates) of the fiscal cliff", rather than simply "key elements of the fiscal cliff" itself. Why would "any discussions" be OR but "key elements" would not? If you take WP:NOR to extremes (as in What reliable source said that the provisions listed are "key"?), you are precluding any paraphrasing. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you intended for the footnote to support the list and not your introductory statement, but the effect of the footnote placement was to indicate that the source supported both the introductory statement and the list. Because it was clear to me that the source did not in fact support the introductory statement, I edited the introductory statement so it would be consistent with the cited source. If you are determined to retain your introductory statement, you need to produce a source that supports it. --Orlady (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Archive?

I think it's about time to start archiving this talk page. Unless there is some objection, I will start the MiszaBot archiving software here in the next day or two. It will archive any section that doesn't have a timestamp within the last two weeks. I'll also stick in a few standard headers, like {{talk header}} and {{pbneutral}}. OK? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've set up Mizabot to auto-archive these sections after 14 days. Let's hope we don't find the entire page destroyed when we come in tomorrow. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Static vs. Dynamic Scoring

I removed some text placed as a caveat on the estimate of the Bush tax cuts. Here is a good summary of research that shows the Bush tax cuts have about the same loss of revenue impact under static or dynamic scoring. Further, my suggestion is we don't clutter the article with a dynamic vs. static scoring debate. This would go in the "Debates about the U.S. Federal Budget" article.Farcaster (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• CBPP - A Short Guide to Dynamic Scoring

Traffic / Page Views

Thought you guys would like to know there is amazing volume going to this page--over 60,000 page views per day, which means this is one of the highest traffic articles on Wikipedia, I believe. 332,347 views this month; even better than Kim Kardashian's 295,000 (66th) but not yet to the Bieb's 427,000 (29th). Farcaster (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia page traffic

That is amazing, especially considering the usually dry subject of the U.S. budget. I guess the media can lead the masses anywhere when they make a concerted effort. The edit volume is relatively low considering that amount of traffic. I'm not sure if that means that they're completely confused or if the article is in good shape. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Political strategy

It occurred to me that if President Obama were to veto any attempt to extend the Bush tax cuts, they would expire at all levels. Then Republicans could pass a tax cut to lower the taxes for the middle class and Obama could agree to it. This would allow the Republicans to avoid breaking their pledge to Grover Norquist, while Obama gets want he wants. Have you guys seen this scenario anyplace? Can we include in the article?Farcaster (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Except I don't believe that would keep the promise to Mr. Norquist. However, this is perilously close to discussing the subject and not the article, so I would reccommend findind a really good (preferably several really good) source(s) before trying to gain consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazerdadog (talk • contribs) 17:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The article wouldn't be complete without a well-sourced discussion of the political environment which led to and surrounds the issue. Potential outcomes which drive the decisions of policy makers should be part of that narrative. Don't put it in the lead, though -- it should be included elsewhere in the article.

I'll go try to find a source that discusses it. Yesterday, I heard a talking head on one of the Sunday morning shows in Washington discussing that scenario, so there must be sources for it. Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I remember the show that discussed that scenario, it was Meet the Press, Nov. 18, 2012, but I forget who was discussing it. I think it was one of the columnists. Unfortunately, MSNBC's website is such a mess it's impossible to find anything. They don't even have a list of guests on their previous shows. If someone has a list of the guests on their 11/18/12 show, post it here and I'm sure I can determine who said it from that.

Here is a short segment about Buffet's statement on going passed the 1/1/13 deadline: [1] Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Missing info in this article?

I saw this chart in another form on Nov 14, 2012 on a hard copy of USAtoday, but the paper did not include the chart in their web coverage. Anyway, shouldn't the article provide this info in chart form? - Seems to me it would clarify the picture a tad. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Problem is that it's copyrighted by the Tax Policy Center so we can't use it. Sorry. Unless someone wants to redraw it themselves. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Adding balance to Commentary section

{{request edit}} I've written a very short addition to this article's Commentary section that I would like reviewed by other editors before it's added. I've noticed that the current Commentary section doesn't present commentary from a conservative viewpoint and I think including this is important to the article's balance and presenting a range of viewpoints.

The sentences I've prepared draw on a commentary piece from The Detroit News that was written by Patrick Knudsen, an established expert on the federal budget and a fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Given the other financial experts mentioned in this section I believe it would be appropriate to include Knudsen's commentary as well. However, I am also an employee of The Heritage Foundation and I understand how important it is to exercise caution when a conflict of interest exists.

Below is the sentence I've written. I'd like to add this to the end of the first paragraph in this section. Can an editor here review this and add it to the article if it looks ok? Thanks. Thurmant (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Conservative budget experts have opposed calls to raise taxes or to allow defense sequestration, and have called on congressional leaders to return to normal budgetary process. Patrick Knudsen, a Heritage Foundation fellow, argued that lawmakers should seek long-term stability by rejecting short-term fixes and "grand bargains".

References

OKFarcaster (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Farcaster, I appreciate the quick response. Thurmant (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree because it is a good edit. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

The sentence "The Budget Control Act of 2011 was enacted due to the failure of the 111th Congress to pass a Federal Budget and therefore..." does not make sense. Congress passed the last part of the 2011 United States federal budget for the rest of the fiscal year (which lasts until September 30) on April 15, 2011. The Budget Control Act of 2011 was passed much later on August 2, 2011, at which time there was a current and complete budget. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Didn't much care for that cause/effect analysis anyway. It's gone.Farcaster (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Nature of disputes

So what are the open questions or points of contention on this article at this stage?Farcaster (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not see any currently existing points of contention but I suggest the page be put into semi-protected status because of the possibility of vandalism and that this page now has been viewed 863,574 times in the last 30 days.Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the article is pretty much incomprehensible.

QUOTE:The United States fiscal cliff refers to a large predicted reduction in the budget deficit[1] and a corresponding projected slowdown of the economy if specific laws are allowed to automatically expire or go into effect at the beginning of 2013.[2] These laws include tax increases due to the expiration of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 and the spending reductions ("sequestrations") under the Budget Control Act of 2011.

COMMENT: Say what? This paragraph is so confusing and misleading I do not even know where to start. The biggest problem is that it puts the cart before the horse in terms of which law is the important one.

First of all, the fiscal cliff is a LAW. It is the Budget Control Act of 2011 (and not the other laws mentioned) that is at the center of the fiscal cliff concept. This is the law that prescribes automatic spending cuts IF the other cited laws are not renewed (or stricken down, as the case may be).

No. It's a series of laws. The bigger impact from the fiscal cliff are tax hikes due to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the expiration of the Obama payroll tax cuts.Farcaster (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The sentence "large predicted reduction in the budget deficit[1]" is especially egregious. It should say something like "a large PRESCRIBED reduction in government SPENDING". There is no "prediction". The "reduction in budget deficit" is the consequence of a PRESCRIBED reduction in spending.

See above. It's revenue increases and spending cuts.Farcaster (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the problems with the first paragraph, there is also the problem that the article does not clearly explain the reason for enacting the fiscal cliff as LAW in the first place: Basically, it occurred because the Republicans refused to increase the debt ceiling unless Obama agreed to their demand of CREATING the fiscal cliff. Basically, the Republicans agreed only because there would be another and bigger fight to come later, after the 2012 election.

True for BCA, not true for tax hikes.Farcaster (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Derkire (talk • contribs) 03:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC) 

I took a rough cut at a rewrite for the lead (including the 1st paragraph) per the outline discussed in the previous section (Revenue and spending in lead). Sparkie82 (t•c) 09:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The point about the debt ceiling is introduced later in the article. The introductory section, however, not only omits the information about the debt ceiling dispute, but affirmatively misstates the origin of the Budget Control Act: "The Budget Control Act of 2011 was passed under the political environment of a partisan stalemate, in which Democrats and Republicans could not agree on how to reduce the deficit." What actually happened was that Congress (including members of both parties) had approved bills concerning taxes and spending, which collectively put the federal budget into deficit, but the Republicans refused to authorize the additional borrowing needed to pay for the bills that they had voted for. The Budget Control Act was the compromise that resulted. The introductory section should summarize what's in the body of the article, including the role of the 2011 debt-ceiling dispute in bringing the government to what some call a "fiscal cliff". JamesMLane t c 01:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

"Incomprehensible" is a good word for this whole article. I had hoped that I would find an orientation to the American financial situation, but I am completely over my head. Please provide enough context so that a non-economist may find it informative. Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps read United States Federal Budget first. Or try these links:

• PGPF-Citizen's Guide
• CBPP-Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go?Farcaster (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Specificity is always welcome. Where are the rough spots? Sparkie82 (t•c) 06:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Current version of first paragraph is also incomprehensible and grammatically incorrect, lacking proper punctuation, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.72.22 (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That was a vandalized revision -- it's been fixed now. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sparkie82 for the fast anti-vandlism patrol. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is very much pro Federal Reserve as written. It completely ignores the inflation tax cuts. When the Fed raises the money supply by 10% a 100k house will now cost 110k, resulting in an immediate capitol gains tax that must be paid on the 10k. GrEp (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, it's not immediately due, but to address your point this is an observation that may be appropriate to an article about taxation and inflation (which is generally controlled by the Federal Reserve). It's not clear how this is relevant to the "fiscal cliff". --Brian Dell (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear GrEp, See the Instructions for Schedule D (Form 1040). Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Placement of the "Proposals" section

I propose that:

• First, the second section named "Congressional Budget Office projections" be split up into two sections: "Congressional Budget Office scenarios" (containing all of the first subsection) and "Projected overall effects" (containing the last three subsections). This is for:
• The section named "Proposals to mitigate the fiscal cliff" be moved up to just below "Congressional Budget Office scenarios", making it Section 3 followed by "Projected overall effects", the renamed "Projected effects of sequestration" and "Projected effects of tax increases" and the "Commentary" section.
• The name of the moved third section be changed to "Proposals to mitigate or avoid the fiscal cliff".
• And the subsections of this Section 3 be named:
  • "Democratic proposals", containing what is now the senate paragraph in "Congress" and "President Obama's position",
  • "Republican proposals", containing what is now the Republican paragraph in "Congress" and the "Republican proposal" and
  • "Other proposals", containing what is now the Gang of Eight and the finance committees paragraphs in "Congress" and the "IRS" subsection (unless you think that IRS belongs in the Democratic proposals).

Comments? Questions? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I like the split for the proposals part (Dem, Repub, Other). Not sure I interpret the above correctly regarding the CBO; I think the CBO views should be in its own section(s).Farcaster (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Spliting the proposals is a good idea. Put CBO, Gang of Eight, and IRS with the other poroposals. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, in the timeline, on November 16, there are two entries for the same event. The first entry was created by me, then it was deleted and the second entry was created by another editor. Someone, other than me, added it back. I am personally partial to the first entry and I think it should be kept because it is an accurate reflection of the article's description of the meeting. It shows the tentative stages of the planning. The second entry hides the tentativeness and implies there is planning. Please would other editors decide which to keep and which to delete? Thank you in advance. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I reformated the proposals. Farcaster, RoyGoldsmith, or Famspear please take a look at it and edit if necessary. Thanks.Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason I wanted to split apart the CBO subsections is that I believed that the proposals should be reported on earlier than the analysis but the CBO scanarios had to be defined first. Now that we're in true "news" mode, I figured that more readers would be visiting the article to get info on whats happening now (that is, politics), rather than to soak up technical facts and opinions about the cliff.

Anyway, I made my changes to just the Proposals section; please review. Would you prefer moving the Proposals section between Background and CBO projections, without spliting? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Geraldshields11, on the two timeline entries: I notice that both entries are referenced by the same non-internet source. The first entry includes quotes, presumably from that source. However, this meeting must have been reported by a wealth of other news sources. Whatever we do, can't we cite a better, web-accessible reference, especially if you're going to use quotations (see WP:CITE)? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear RoyGoldsmith, I understand your concern and am working on it. Tax Notes Today is a respected NPOV third party source that is accessed on paper or through a subscription service on the internet. It is just like citing a paper book. If there is a better cite, then please add it. Just because editors do not get newspapers, such as Tax Notes Today or The Pyongyang Times, does not mean the reference is invalid. Let us work together to create great articles with good cites. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear RoyGoldsmith, , Please just pick one of the November 16 items in the timeline to delete. I trust your decision. Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Geraldshields11, I agree with you. Books and university library periodicals are the best, dare I say only, way of getting secondary sources. (All news articles, except "thought pieces", are primary sources, in the sense that paper enclyclopedias use the term; that is, they're the first published accounts of the events.) However, the bulk of wiki-editors have only access to the web. You're taking a chance of someone six months from now deleting the timeline entry because they can't find the reference to the quotations. One way of mitigating that deletion is to insert full sentences containing your quotes inside your citation (with Cite journal, the quote= parameter).

However, I've chosen another reliable source for the Nov 16th entry. I feel that your quotes (not necessarily Tax Analysts opinion) express in themselves an opinion, however subtly, and the Timeline section is intended for straight reporting of events. If you wish to expand your entry in the Commentary section (possibly starting with something like "Tax Analysts, a nonprofit publisher on tax policy and adminitration, reported on November 16 that..."), I think that would be a better place for it. But check your conscience to see if your selecting the quotes isn't a subtle attempt at violating WP:OR. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear RoyGoldsmith, Thank you for the suggestion about cites. I trust the tomes of weighty paper. (humor) As to your second point, I will watch my conscience but I am distant enough to not OR. But, I do appreciate to heads-up on the second point. Geraldshields11 (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

CBO doesn't make proposals, it only scores them, so we should be clear about that.Farcaster (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Under Proposals to mitigate the fiscal cliff

Under Proposals to mitigate the fiscal cliff, add:

IRS

In a three-page letter, Steven Miller, acting IRS Commissioner, outlined the effects of the fiscal cliff and said that IRS is working under the assumption that Congress would patch the AMT, similar to how Congress has done in previous years.

Please would an admin add this section or change the page to semi-protected status. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Why are all these other references poping up in this section? Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the change. I appreciate it. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Under this section I propose to add the text listed below. I used mutiple cites because it shows WP:Weight and I was worried no one would beleive the IRS computers would take until March to reprogram.Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The IRS has programmed its computer systems based on a reset or "patch" of the alternative minimum tax (AMT). According to Steven Miller, "the IRS would, at a minimum, need to instruct more than 60 million taxpayers that they may not file their tax returns or receive a refund until the IRS completes the necessary systems changes", which will be about March 2013. Without the "patch" of the AMT, an estmated 28 million families will have to pay AMT.

I propose to add, under Proposals to mitigate the fiscal cliff, a section about the Department of Defense plans to mitigate the fiscal cliff. I used mutiple cites to show WP:Weight. Also, if the DOD is planning to go over the fiscal cliff, it might show the seriousness of the posibility of going over the cliff. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Department of Defense

Department of Defense

On December 5, 2012, the Department of Defense announced it was planning for automatic spending cuts, which include $500 billion and an additional $487 billion due to the 2011 Budget Control Act, due to the "fiscal cliff". According the newspaper Politico, Department of Defense declined to explain to House of Representatives Appropriations Committee, which controls federal spending, what its plans were regarding the fiscal cliff planning.

Now, I am having second thoughts about adding the DoD text. It is one organization's actions to mitigate its hardship. It is not the about the financial costs or general effect-at-large. Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

A better home is Military budget of the United States. Geraldshields11 (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Archiving this talk page

I changed the archiving setting on MiszaBot so that it archives threads older than 180 days rather than the quick 30 days it was set at. There are only a few threads on this page and 30 days is way too aggressive. Sparkie82 (t•c) 14:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

MiszaBot, with the current parameter "algo = old(180d)", now sends talk sections to the archive only if they are untouched for 180 days. This means that the archived section hasn't received any messages in six months. When I set up MiszaBot, I figured that 30 days without a single reply was enough. Do you really want it longer? Active sections, such as we've now become, tend to reduce the parameter to 7 or 14 days until the crisis is over.

If you really want to leave sections in the active talk page for six months past their last message, please change auto archiving notice from age=1 to age=6. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that when I changed it. I'll fix it. Sparkie82 (t•c) 01:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I really think the archive period should be reduced to 30 days, unless there's a new message. If not, this space is bound to grow to an enormous size. The talk page is already significantly larger the the main article (92K vs. 70K). --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

With the irony of this discussion in mind, let's split the difference: 100 days? Sparkie82 (t•c) 11:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Some more ideas for the lead

This is a continuation of the Organization of lead section up above.

In no particular order (and, of course, in my opinion):

• The {{In use}} or {{Under construction}} template should be substituted for the "needs consensus" banner. Or the banner should just be removed.
• It should be emphasized more strongly the the fiscal cliff only results if the laws are unchanged. The parenthetical "(if unchanged)" in the first sentence may not highlight this fact enough for new readers. Even at the cost of repetition, I would append "is expected to be reduced by roughly half in 2013, if the current laws are not changed by the end of 2012" to the second sentence.
• In the second paragraph, the phrase "due to the failure of the 111th Congress to pass a Federal Budget" gives the wrong impression. Congress hasn't passed a budget in years; we exist on continuing resolutions.
• Furthermore, except for its first sentence, the second paragraph talks about the BCA and spending cuts. The expiring Bush-era and payroll tax cuts are much larger than sequestration: by about 50% vs. 10% in 2013. (See the pie chart here.) The whole paragraph may be giving too much emphasis too early to the BCA. It is covered in the first section below the lead in the subsection Legislative history.
• In the third paragraph, I'd change "a 19.63% increase in tax revenue and 0.25% reduction in spending" to "a 19.63% increase in tax revenue and a 0.25% reduction in spending outlays".
• The reason that that 0.25% is so small compared to 19.63% is that (a) FY 2013 only exists for nine months in calander year 2013, (b) contracts signed in 2011 and 2012 that entail spending in 2013 won't be affected by the sequestration and (c) the goverment is already signing FY 2013 spending contracts before any CY 2013 sequestrations kicks in. However, the spending cuts will hit us full force in 2014, if they're allowed to remain. Does anyone have a better example of a YOY change in deficit?
• The rest of the lead seems to be a mishmash of ideas:
  • the historical average,
  • which programs do and don't get hit,
  • reasons for and against reducing the deficits,
  • the debt-ceiling and
  • common to proposals to avoid the cliff.

These should be better organized and, where possible, divided into separate paragraphs.

Just some suggestions. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's where the previous thread left off:

Things to include in the lead (in no particular order) based on consensus/proposals offered above (in the previous thread):

• First paragraph per consensus above,
• the composition of the tax increases and spending cuts, including sequestration
• the various laws and the political environment leading to the fiscal cliff,
• the range of various projections, including CBO's
• the range of proposed changes to existing law effecting the fiscal cliff
• Commentary

Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with bullets 1 {{Under construction}}, 2, 3 but will let someone else do the heavy lifting. (humor) Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Points 1 and 3 done (by someone else). Regarding point 2, this is the current version:

The fiscal cliff is a newly coined term referring to the effect of a number of laws that (if unchanged) could result in tax increases, spending cuts, and a corresponding reduction in the US budget deficit beginning in 2013. The deficit — the difference between what the government takes in and what it spends — is expected to be reduced by roughly half in 2013. That sharp reduction in the deficit is the cliff. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the sudden reduction will probably lead to a recession in early 2013 with the pace of economic activity picking up after 2013.

And this is my rendering (changes in italics):

The fiscal cliff is a recently coined term referring to the effects that could result in tax increases, spending cuts and a corresponding reduction in the US budget deficit beginning in 2013 if existing laws are not changed by the end of 2012. The deficit — the difference between what the government takes in and what it spends — is expected to be reduced by roughly half beginning in the first days of 2013. This sharp decrease in the deficit in such a short period of time is known as the fiscal cliff. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the sudden reduction will probably lead to a recession in early 2013 with the pace of economic activity picking up by 2014.

Any comments? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You know, all this will have to be rewritten in a few days anyway. My suggestion is to either wait until the President and Congress get it figured out: or discuss here how the thing should read in the past tense (starting next month). Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Skarkie82, I agree that this article will have to be rewitten everyday. Since so many article views are happening then we owe it to readers to keep it updated. I understand the issue of recentism. Also, this update will likely encourge readers to take a look at other Wikipedia articles and increase the utility of Wikipedia. After all that is what Wikipedia is about. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear RoyGoldsmith, I like your changes. I suggest adding a cite for the comment about 2014. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If I understand what you mean, you're suggesting an inline citation to the "by 2014" clause. The entire CBO sentence is referenced by the Page-May22 citation in the CBO scenarios subsection. I try not to cite references in the lead, unless it's necessary (per WP:WHYCITE, 4th 'graph). However, upon examaning the source, I will change it to "by late 2013". Good enough? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I meant an inline cite but since you explained that the CBO subsection then if the text of the cite supports "by 2014" then keep it. Consensus achieved.Geraldshields11 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Recently coined?

I'm a little confused about one specific thing in the lead. Why are we using, "recently-coined term" as opposed to actually giving a year for when it was coined? Recently-coined makes this seem like a news report, rather than an encyclopedic entry. 99.184.242.112 (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

For reference, I'm suggesting that we go with something closer to what has been used here or here. My specific suggestion is a change to, "The fiscal cliff is a term coined in 2010, referring to..."

99.184.242.112 (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the claim that it is a newly coined term is wrong. It's been around for decades, usually referring to some fiscal problem or other. See this google news search:[2]. I'm going to remove the claim from the lead as it's just wrong. FurrySings (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Year-over-year projections in lead

The article says in the third paragraph:

The year-over-year projected changes for fiscal years 2012–2013 include a 19.63% increase in tax revenue and 0.25% reduction in spending. These changes would return tax revenue to approximately its historical average of 18% GDP, while continuing to spend at approximately 24% of GDP, above the 21% GDP historical average.[1]

What does this mean? I ask in three senses:

1. The article says "historical average of 18% GDP" and "21% GDP historical average". Which is correct? (The citation leads to a table of individual GDP percentages (including state and local receipts) from 1948 to 2011. Did someone average them? If so, did they get 18 or 21? Does the other figure mean some other range was taken as "historical" or does average mean without non-federal revenues? I say again, which percentage is correct?)
2. I assume that "year-over-year projected changes for fiscal years 2012–2013" is the diffences between FY2012 and FY2013. Is this with going off the cliff or without it? If with the cliff, does it include both tax increases and spending cuts or just one of them? If without, does it include every one of the seven provisions listed in the Background?
3. Also I think these are relatively unimportant figures for the lead. Can't we find something else more pressing? Something about what taxes we'd pay and the employment rate we could expect versus what, in real people terms, would happen in 10 years if we don't get our deficit under control.

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The quantifying of the fiscal cliff (YOY changes) came out of the discussion at #Revenue and spending in lead. The "historical average" addition was made here [3] by Farcaster, but I don't remember how it came about. All projections mentioned in the article, unless otherwise specified, are based on current law, thus the "(if unchanged)" language in the first sentence. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I included another source to show the averages; its the same chart we have in the main budget template. The historical average of revenue is 18% GDP and spending is 21% GDP. I think the impact of the cliff is important relative to these historical amounts. Spending relative to GDP doesn't change but revenue jumps a couple of percent back to 18% GDP. In terms of other statistics, I'm open to those. We talk in generalities about how in the long-run the debt to GDP ratio will be a lot lower if we go over the cliff but we could use the amounts in the CBO infographic shown lower in the article.Farcaster (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

First, remember that the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. I can't find 19.6 in the rest of the article. Can someone point out to me the detail upon which this paragraph is based?

Second, I still don't understand why we're including a paragraph on year-over-year changes in the lead; that is, why the deficit/GDP ratio for one year is important enough for the lead. Maybe I don't understand the phrase "the year-over-year projected changes for fiscal years 2012–2013". This does imply that the 19.63% and 0.25% are only for one year, right?

Could someone explain, as if to a child: "year-over-year", "fiscal years 2012–2013" and, in particular, "changes"? What is being changed and why is it important (as opposed to, say, a 10-year change)? I think you're saying something but this is the only paragraph in the lead that I don't understand. Please define those three terms in simple language. Thanks. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Politics?

Do you think that the politics of the fiscal cliff should be more extensively covered in the article? If I just read the article for the first time, it seems to me that my outlook would be skewed, at least from the way it's currently being reported.

For example, there have been two polls in the last day or so about the fiscal cliff: one about the need to compromise and the other about who the public will blame. Should these polls (or others) be included in the article in some way, say in a new section called Public opinion (see the Tea Party movement)? The precise polls would change as the story progresses and, at the end, would mostly be replaced by a Resolution section (see the United States debt-ceiling crisis). But they could give context to current readers.

For another example, the following table contains where I think that Obama and Boehner stand publically on each of the major provisions as of yesterday.

Provision	Baseline (current law)	CBO Alternative	Latest Democratic Proposal	Latest Republican Proposal
Bush tax cut extension	No	Yes	Yes (except >$250K)	Yes
Sequestration	Yes	No	No (implied)	No (implied)
AMT patch extension	No	Yes	Yes?	Yes?
Medicare SGR extension	No	Yes	Yes?	Yes?
2% payroll tax extension	No	No	Yes	?
Unemployment extension	No	No	?	No?
Affordable Care Act tax	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes?

According to 90%-plus of the news stories I'm aware of, only the tax cuts, and possibly the automatic spending cuts, are germane to resolving the fiscal cliff. Once they've gotten the tax cuts (and therefore, the sequestrations) taken care of, they'll make a decision on the other matters fairly quickly. If you just read our article, you'd get the impression that all the provisions are equally relavent.

Should our article reflect this or not? The article about the fiscal cliff in about.com here shows you more of what I'm talking about. Now you can say that this is only news and what we're developing is an enclopedia. But because of the volume of traffic our article is generating, we should perhaps think of our "current events" readers too. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think a "Politics of the cliff debate" section makes sense. Democrats want to tax the rich more, as poll after poll says folks would rather tax the rich to cut the deficit than cut spending on specific programs. Republicans want to cut/maintain taxes and cut spending on things other than defense. Republicans didn't suddenly become Keynesians worried about a deficit reduction causing a recession; they are using the risk of a recession as an excuse to avoid the big tax hikes. Recall they've been arguing for deficit reduction for years, regardless of economic conditions.Farcaster (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your paragraph after the table, not sure that makes sense. Read it out loud. The cliff is about the tax hikes and spending cuts (sequester).Farcaster (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Recentism as recruitment is important. However, I am worried if we focus on politics of the cliff and not the more dry stuff (taxation and sequestration) then I foresee flamebaiting and edit warring from IP users, so let's not go down that path. Then, I worry this article will lose some of its punch as a neutral point of view in a sea of Mother Jones and Fox News articles. However, in my opinion, the current path is appropriate for the current event readers.

I do not see how public opinion reporting would add to the article. Public opinion is by nature fickle and which poll do we use as a baseline. Should we add a section on Reaction from foreign leaders, such as Christine Lagarde, who would more likely have the ear of the power players in DC than the mass of men on the mizzen. After all, there are other countries on Earth besides the US that will likely be affected if the US goes over or close to the fiscal cliff. Perhaps we can add more items to the timeline or something else to make this article more user-friendly to a "current events" reader? Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Modified by Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Disputed cliff provision

I have marked the new "Expiration of federal renewable energy..." provision in this subsection with a {{disputed-inline}} tag.

• First, I have examined the referenced document and I can't find where it says the wind power production credit will expire at the end of 2012.
• Second and much more important, even if it does expire at the end of 2012, I can't see where it impacts the fiscal cliff. Many laws expire at the end of 2012; the seven listed before are mentioned in various CBO reports. What is the cost of this wind power provision and how does it affect the cliff substantially? Unless some reputable think tank or a national politician makes this an issue, we can't have every expiring law become a topic of the fiscal cliff.

I will remove this provision in a few days unless someone comes up with a reliable source that says explicitly that this provision is tied in some way to the fiscal cliff. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

To your first point, did you examine the link closely? It clearly says in the chart at the center of the page:

 Resource Type____In-Service Deadline_____Credit Amount

 Wind	          December 31, 2012	2.2¢/kWh

As for your second point, there are many sources which clearly state the wind energy production tax credit is an integral part of the fiscal cliff. For example, see: this page, and this page. -Brian Everlasting (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Brian Everlasting,

• First point - a better cite is this because it has a wonderful title and chart. In the text, the 2.2 cents, adjusted for inflation, is mentioned. There are times when editors do not see cites/text that is buried, such as when I did not see a CBO item in an earlier discussion about the first paragraph of this article.

Accepted. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Second point - Even though in 2012, the credit will not be renewed and potentially cause 50% unemployment in the wind industry, it is not integral to the fiscal cliff but its renewal is dependent on the negotiations about the fiscal cliff. (based on your cites). Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC) modifed by Geraldshields11 (talk) on 16:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Geraldshields11 although I do think, in a perfect world, there would be room for provisions like expiring wind power tax credits.

Now we do have the following list at the bottom of the subsection:

Changes to other provisions are also sometimes included in such proposals; for example, changing the original caps on discretionary appropriations contained in 2011's Budget Control Act, indexing the AMT exemptions for inflation (rather than capping them for one year at a time) or the wholesale or partial reform of the tax laws and/or the entitlement programs (sometimes called "the grand bargain").

but, in my opinion, these are options that, if discussed, would provide real money and so might be a factor in deciding whether the cliff was avoided or not.

Unless I'm missing something, your provision is merely a rider that certain Congressmen, basically in wind-power states, hope to attach to whatever bill is eventually passed. If we had three or four of these add-on options, we could start a new section named something like "Riders that may be passed" but, right now, I don't see any way of fitting your entries in with the appropriate WP:WEIGHT. Brian, do you agree? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

No I don't agree. I don't see this piece of legislation as merely a "rider". The wind energy production tax credit is an important piece of legislation that greatly affects the energy industry in the United States. Tens of thousands of jobs are at stake in the wind power industry. Perhaps using Geraldshields11 link instead of the one provided would be an improvement. I'm not saying we need to fossil-fuel phase-out over night. Wind power is the best option for new energy development in the United States and it's time the government supports it. Also the tax credit was actually established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and subsequently extended by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Brian Everlasting (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Brian Everlasting, I suggest adding the text to the article Wind power in the United States under Other government involvement. The discussion would provide needed information and balance to the article. After all, tax considerations are an important part of the wind power industry. See 1980s wind rush and the additional cites you provided. It would be more appropriate and I have already started a talk page discussion on the subject. Even with my cite, I do not see wind power as part of this article (at this time).Geraldshields11 (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Brian, I didn't mean a rider in the sense of having little connection with the subject matter of the bill but in the sense of having little connection with the outcome of whether the bill is passed before the end of the year and in what form. The subsection heading for the list of provisions is "Key laws leading to the fiscal cliff". How did wind power credits lead to the fiscal cliff? How many other provisions of the ARRA are expiring as of the end of the year? What makes wind power so different that it should be listed as leading to the fiscal cliff?

For example, can you tell me what would be the total wind power tax credit in 2013 (either fiscal or calander year) assuming the credit is extended? For FY2013, the effects of the Bush-era taxes and AMT are $221B and the Medicare SGR is $11B, according to the pie chart in Effects of sequestration. If the wind power credit is anywhere close to $11B then, in my opinion, that would be a strong point in favor of keeping it on the list.

(Until this, I've never heard of wind power in relation to the fiscal cliff since I started the article back in July and I doubt that Bernanke was thinking about it when he invented the term. Personally I think the list might be smaller; the Bush tax cuts and the sequestration seem to be all the current debate is about. But the list was derived from a CBO report back in August so I guess we'll have to stick to it for now.) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Any more comments? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"If the wind power credit is anywhere close to $11B then, in my opinion, that would be a strong point in favor of keeping it on the list." Yes the wind power credit is close to $11B. For example, (2cents/kWh)*(119747000000kWh wind power generated in 2011 in US (See Wind power in the United States) = $2,394,940,000). So the tax credit was worth $2.4 billion in 2011. Brian Everlasting (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Brian Everlasting, For a double E major, you should know $2.4 billion is not close to $ 11 billion. It is not even half of $11 billion. I understand the need for a consistant tax policy, since wind power is so depended on tax considerations, but I beleive that a better location for this discussion is on the Wind power in the United States article and not in this article. But, feel free to add to and edit this article and the wind power articles. My opinion for the wind power credit text is a Weak Delete.Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the provision down to its own paragraph and (I hope) given it context. (Brian, according to the USA Today article, the cost is about $1.3B, not $2.4B.) If someone could find an equivalent article about increasing spending (!) as a part of fixing the fiscal cliff, that would give the paragraph balance. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Brian Everylasting,

In Tax Notes Today, there is an article dicussing the end of the wind power tax credit. See COALITION URGES EXPIRATION OF WIND ENERGY TAX CREDIT at 2012 TNT 246-24 on December 20, 2012. It is very information. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Aren't the fossil fuel tax credit changes much larger and more notable?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/2013-Eliminate-Fossil-Fuel-Tax-Preferences.cfm

Hcobb (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Title

Is having "United States" in the title really necessary? I'm not aware of the term "fiscal cliff" being used to refer to situations in other countries. The media often just refer to it as the "fiscal cliff", so per WP:Commonname, shouldn't Wikipedia do that as well?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree in part with FutureTrillionaire that, currently, the "fiscal cliff" issue is only in the United States. However, I suspect that several other countries are in a similar postion and the media will then compare their situation to the US "fiscal cliff" and then we will have aticles about the Greece "fiscal cliff", Portgual "fiscal cliff", and Iceland "fiscal cliff". So, I vote to keep the "United States fiscal cliff" name. But, the name change is a valid point.Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I originally named the article "United States fiscal cliff crisis" after working on the "United States debt-ceiling crisis". But, before the election, no one was treating it like a crisis so I shortened it to "United States fiscal cliff". My guess is that 95%-plus of readers using the search box enter simply "fiscal cliff" and are redirected here. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors,

As of December 27, 2012, the suffix -cliff is being used, such as the milk cliff in relation to expiring provisions to the United States farm bill. It seems it is now similar to the use of "-gate" suffix with scandals. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It's probably temporary, due to the extreme use of "fiscal cliff" on news programs (which leads to attempted comedy by late-night TV hosts).

Also, in terms of grammer: the hyphen in fiscal-cliff should only be used as a compound modifier followed by a noun, as in fiscal-cliff debate or fiscal-cliff crisis or even fiscal-cliff debacle. When used as a compound noun, it should be separated into two words: the adjective fiscal and the noun cliff. This is similar to United States debt ceiling (a compound noun defining "debt ceiling", with the adjective debt describing the noun, ceiling) vs. United States debt-ceiling crisis (about the 2011 debate, with the adjective debt-ceiling describing the noun, crisis). See MOS:HYPHEN for more info, if you like. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Debt ceiling

The debt ceiling is becoming more and more intertwined with the fiscal cliff.

To be proactive, I've just added a hatnote to United States debt-ceiling crisis in 2011, advising readers who want information about the 2013 debt ceiling debate to come here (actually to the subsection on Negotiations->Treasury). I've also added a few redirects to the more common "2013 debt ceiling" titles.

Do you think that this iteration of the debt-ceiling debate should be given its own article, say 2013 United States debt-ceiling debate? (Or crisis, if things heat up sufficiently.) Should we move United States debt-ceiling crisis to 2011 United States debt-ceiling crisis? Or maybe we should combine both the 2011 and the 2013 debates into one article???

I'm taking the position (right now and very tentatively) that, if the debt ceiling is resolved by the same measures that resolve the fiscal cliff, then the two topics should be combined into one article. On the other hand, if the fiscal cliff (ie, the deficit reduction) is resolved fairly quickly and without too much effect on the immediate $16.4B deficit, then we can give new debt ceiling predicament its own article and title. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear RoyGoldsmith,

The hat note is fine because of the parallel reporting with the fiscal cliff. If both are resolved at the same time, even then, it should be separate articles with links to each other not merged into one article because what would be the title of the merged article, United States fiscal cliff and 2013 debt-ceiling debate? It would be easier for casual reader to search for the article's title separately and then click on a see also link or a wikilink inside of the article. Also, the short title will likely appear higher on a search list for the casual reader.

As for the title of the article about the 2013 period of the United States debt-ceiling crisis, the 2011 period and 2013 period debates should be rolled into one article under two subsections and use the title you originally created. However, I will defer to you and other editors of the United States debt-ceiling crisis article.Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is there a cliff?

Someone looking this up is probably wondering why the cliff exists. There's lots of talk in the intro about what the cliff is, but no why it's there. So this reader is asking is the cliff part of the Constitution? A law voted in last year? A lie to build up news ratings? Why it's there needs to be right up front. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

For how the cliff got it's name, see United_States_fiscal_cliff#Etymology, especially the Bernanke paragraph. For why the cliff exists, see United_States_fiscal_cliff#Legislative history. For why we're covering it in Wikipedia, see WP:Notability#General notability guideline. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite post-cliff

I rewrote the lead to address issues of recentism so it would have more permanence down the road. Tried to keep it short because I assume it will grow as folks add to it. [Here is my edit.] Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Eliminated or avoided

We've got "partially resolved" in the Act article and "eliminated" here. I like "partially addressed" and "partially avoided" better than "eliminated."Farcaster (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Deferred is a much closer match to the facts. Hcobb (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Avoid is clearly not the correct term because they technically went over it on the first of January. It was a holiday then so the impact had yet to be felt before the vote but they did go go over.--70.49.80.250 (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, at this very moment, about 10:38 pm Eastern time (9:38 pm Central time, where I am) on Wednesday, January 2, 2012, the infamous fiscal cliff technically has not quite yet been "avoided", since the President has not yet (as far as we know) signed the bill into law. That presidential action is expected to happen tonight (unless he's already signed it and the media just hasn't reported it yet). Until the President actually signs the bill, the "old" law is technically still in effect, and under the old law, the various tax rates went up immediately on January 1st. Once he signs the bill, the relevant provisions become effective retroactively. Famspear (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Correction - I'm not sure whether it's today (Wednesday) or tomorrow (Thursday) that he's expected to sign it. Famspear (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe he wants to read it first. :) Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There are two separate problems here: 1) the fiscal cliff (i.e. sharp reduction in the deficit) and 2) the budget issues. The fiscal cliff was eliminated and then some with the legislation (a few $100B reduction in the deficit with the cliff in 2013 --> a few $100B increase in the deficit with the legislation). The budget issues remain to be resolved. I picked "eliminated" in reference to the subject of this article. The article on the legislation itself may use different language as to what the law does since it's scope is different. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

We might consider something more specific, like: "The projected adverse economic effects of the fiscal cliff were substantially avoided by the American Taxpayer Relief Act."Farcaster (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the short-term ones. The proximity of that sentence, after a discussion of the potential recession is probably confusing. Maybe it would be better to explain what the Act did to the deficit as well as what it did to the economy. Sparkie82 (t•c) 06:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This might be continuous but, in the timeline, I think we should mention that the deadline was missed on January 1, 2013 and the US actually went over the fiscal cliff but then did a course correction with the signing of the bill later. The reason is that casual readers might miss the point that 1) the cliff deadline was passed 2) with no ill effects. Please discuss. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Specify law about automatic cuts

In the United States, the fiscal cliff is the sharp decline in the budget deficit that could have occurred beginning in 2013 due to increased taxes and reduced spending as required by previously enacted laws.

What previous enacted laws? Is there a tag I should place here?--Quacod (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Or you could read the next paragraph. Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the specific statutes - particularly the 2001 Act and the 2003 Act constituting the "Bush tax cut" statutes -- are cited later in the article.

There is still a problem, though, with some parts of the article. With the enactment of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 signed on January 2, 2013 (and already mentioned in the article), some of the remaining material is at least partially obsolete at this point, or the material needs to be reworked. I will try to look at this later. Famspear (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I started on that, too. I'll try to make more edits as time permits. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I made a few edits to the section on "Key laws leading to the fiscal cliff." Hopefully, this preserves usefulness of this otherwise partially obsolete material. Some of the edits involved just changing verb tenses.

It's important to understand that the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was not signed into law until January 2, 2013, and that its provisions were generally effective retroactively to the beginning of the year 2013. This means that the Bush tax cuts actually did expire immediately upon the ringing in of the new year on January 1, 2013. Many in the news media (of which I am a former member, I hasten to add) are confused about an essential point. This essential point is that The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 did not raise the highest marginal federal income tax rate for individuals. That rate was raised by the expiration provision, the sunset provision (specifically, Title IX, consisting of section 901) of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 -- the original component of the Bush tax cuts.

On January 2, 2013, the 2012 Act repealed the sunset provision (section 901 of the 2001 Act), effective retroactively to January 1. The 2012 Act also continued the 39.6% high marginal tax rate for certain high-income individuals that had been imposed under the 2001 Act. Thus, the 2012 Act did not raise the tax rate to 39.6% for the year 2013; the 2001 Act did that. Grover Norquist is correct when he says (or at least I believe he is quoted as saying) that the 2012 Act actually decreased tax rates for some of the so-called "wealthiest" Americans. The 2012 Act was not a tax rate increase; it was a tax rate decrease when compared to the 2001 Act. Indeed, the 2012 Act actually increased the dollar amount of the taxable income threshold for certain taxpayers in the 39.6% bracket (when compared to the brackets under the 2001 Act which had again become effective on January 1st), which means that fewer taxpayers are subject to the 39.6% rate for the year 2013 under the 2012 Act than would otherwise have been the case under the 2001 Act.

The 2012 Act is actually a hidden victory for Republicans or conservatives in the sense that the Bush tax cuts on most taxpayers have now been made "permanent" (or at least as "permanent" as a statutory provision can be). Some Democrats are now realizing this, and are upset.

Part of the reason that Republicans feel they have been defeated is that what they see as the main problem -- the government spending side of the equation -- has not been substantially addressed.

If there are any Republicans who believe that the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 increased the highest marginal tax rate to 39.6%, they are mistaken. The 2001 Act -- passed by a Congress in which the House was controlled by Republicans -- did that. Republicans in Congress in 2001 painted themselves into a corner when they included a sunset provision (section 901) for the tax cuts in the 2001 Act. The existence of that sunset provision gave the Democrats in November and December of 2012 a huge advantage in the negotiations over what eventually became the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. Democrats, however, must now deal with the reality that most of the Bush tax cuts have now been made "permanent" (in the sense that most of the tax rate cuts no longer have an expiration date).

Sorry to go on what may appear to be a tangent, fellow editors, but I think these concepts are important to our understanding when approaching the edits in this article. Famspear (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It went down exactly as you had predicted! (p.s. - the article was nom'd for current events on the main page, but I guess it didn't make the cut. Would have been nice to get more editors here to help update.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Famspear, I believe you're a little too obsessed with the date the legislation passed making this a tax cut rather than a tax increase. Of course Republicans can legitimately claim success, and many are, but it's because (i) they made the vast majority of the Bush tax cuts permanent and (ii) they avoided the higher taxes that would have had to be paid if there had been no legislative fix. This issue about the ATRA technically being a tax cut rather than a tax increase merely because it was passed two days after the new year is really, really, really minor. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The 2013 GOP proposal

From The Wall Street Journal (and other sources) we learn of a novel GOP idea: to cave again and kick the can down the road for three months (as if we don't have a 'debt ceiling') the GOP proposes that leadership of the nation finalize a budget as required by the Constitution (and not done since Obama took office.) This can be written on a more Wikipedia-style manner, but those are the ideas from the GOP just now: (1) rather than just agree to delay, (2) add the requirement that the Constitution be followed (formalize a budget each year starting again, NOW!)

Here are the first two paragraphs: [4] By JANET HOOK

House Republican leaders Friday proposed extending the federal debt limit by three months, marking a significant shift in GOP strategy that could reduce the market-rattling risk of the U.S. running out of cash to pay its bills.

The GOP proposal, which is expected to go before the House next week, includes a requirement that the House and Senate pass formal budgets by mid-April, but it does not include specific spending cuts. That marks a retreat from Republicans' long-standing insistence that any debt-level increase be accompanied by comparable spending cuts.

Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC) PS: This is BIG! "How can you meet a budget, . . . if you don't have a US Budget?", I ask.

Democrats want credit for the idea of balancing the budget: [5] and say we will have a budget, including additional taxation. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Good material but I think it belongs in another article. If Congress keeps kicking the can down the road, are we going to include all of this can-kicking in an article about an event that is already over? It seems like this material would fit better in an article about the debt ceiling. (Btw, as an aside, your POV-pushing is coming through. If you keep your comments politically neutral then you'll get more traction.) --Nstrauss (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know; however, I leave it to others (as the obvious sets in.) — Good Luck, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Revenue and spending in lead

I recently moved the statement "[Under current law...] total federal revenues would increase 11.33% and total federal spending would decrease 1.89% for fiscal year 2013" out of the lead and into the subsection Estimated deficit for the first year, where I said "Revenues would be greater by 11.33% over the Alternative Scenario; outlays would be less by 1.89%.^[9](p66)". My change has been reverted.

When you say "revenues would increase", you have to say increase against what: The previous year? The current year without sequestrations but with the tax cuts restored? What are you increasing or decreasing by 11.33% or -1.89%? As near as I can figure, the two percents were calculated by dividing the 2013 CBO Baseline Projections for Revenue and Outlays by the 2013 Alternative Fiscal Scenario amounts on page 66 of the refererced source.

I felt that, in the lead, this was not the time to get into the CBO baseline and the Alternative scenario and what was the difference between them. That is done in the first part of the subsection CBO Scenarios and takes several paragraphs. Without understanding both of the two projections, I felt that readers, at best, would be confused and, at worst, would assume the wrong amounts. See ^[note2] in the article for more infomation about the two scenarios.

I also used the word "outlays" instead of "spending". These have different meanings when we talk about the federal budget. (For example, if the Navy rents a warehouse for two years at $10,000 per month, then spending increases by $240,000 this year, when they signed the contract, and nothing next year. Outlays are $120,000 for each of the two years.) In addition, I merged the two citations into one, using ref name= for the reference and {{rp}} for the page. Right now, references 3 and 9 point to the same document.

By definition, the Alternative Fiscal Scenario is not "under current law" (which starts the lead's entire second paragraph) and should not be used until it's defined, which would take too long in the lead section. If you wish to say that the deficit for 2013 is projected to be [under current law] "$641 million, down from $1,128 million" (using the same source) instead of "reduced by roughly half", that might be OK.

Under WP:10YT I'm waiting for replies before I "fix" the lead. I don't want to get into an edit war. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. After considering those points and rereading the lead, I now think that the intro should be completely rewritten. In addition to the points you mentioned, the lead confuses fiscal cliff with macro economic cliff, the former possibly causing the latter but not being the same. I would suggest the follow general structure for the intro:

• para1 -Define what the fiscal cliff is, mentioning the applicable laws.
• para2 -Quantify YOY changes for 2012, 2013 and maybe longer term (Although I don't see how changes that occur over 10 years can be referred to as "cliff")
• para3 -A little more detail on exempted portions of the budget
• para4 -The range of projected macroeconomic effects
• para5 -Political context, why the applicable laws were passed

I believe the year-over-year changes should be expressed as percentages because it is difficult for many people to grasps such large numbers. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Did it. Sparkie82 (t•c) 09:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the percentages are accurate. Page 66, baseline scenario 2012-2013 revenue rises 19.6% (2,435 to 2,913) while spending is flat. If you compare the alternate and baseline (2,583 vs. 2,913) the difference is 12.8%. The change in the baseline scenario is closest to the fiscal cliff I believe. Can you clarify what figures you are using? Otherwise, 20% and 0% would be the right figures I think.Farcaster (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to compare the baseline and alternate scenarios, however, as RoyGoldsmith explained above that's a little too messy to adequately explain in the lead, so it's best to just use the 2012-2013 YOY comparisons, which are +19.63% revenue and -0.25% spending. (We go to two decimal places on the percentages because the sources are four significant digits.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I moved a recently added phrase by FurrySings from the first sentence to para4 (covering the range of macroeconomic effects) to comply with the consensus outline above. I also gave it a citation tag as it indicates a predicted economic slowdown rather than a possible recession as sourced to the Congressional Budget Office. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I liked how the person had worked the economic effect into the first line in a prior version. And the line about "some economists" with the citation pending can go away; CBO covers that just fine.Farcaster (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your edit. My concern about including macroeconomic effects in the first paragraph is that people will confuse fiscal cliff (a sharp decline in the deficit) with macroeconomic cliff (a sharp recession).

Here are some excepts from the CBO report:

From page 5: The sharp drop in the deficit in 2013, which amounts to $487 billion, will have significant short-term economic consequences. CBO expects that such fiscal tightening

would lead to what will probably be deemed a recession, with growth in GDP declining

in 2013 and the unemployment rate staying above 8 percent through 2014.

From page 3: With those and other policy changes contained in current law, the deficit will shrink to an estimated $641 billion in fiscal year 2013 (or 4.0 percent of GDP), almost $500 billion less than the shortfall in 2012 (see Summary Table 1). Such fiscal tightening will lead to economic conditions in 2013 that will probably be considered a recession, with real GDP declining by 0.5 percent between the fourth quarter of 2012 and

the fourth quarter of 2013 and the unemployment rate rising to about 9 percent in the

second half of calendar year 2013 (see Summary Table 2).

None of that indicates a macroeconomic cliff -- maybe a shallow recession at most -- although I doubt the CBO was anticipating that the media would be scaring us into a recession as they currently are. I'm not sure how we can properly characterize that in the article, especially in the lead, since the facts from the CBO are in stark contrast to the apocalypse that the media is currently pushing on the masses. Yesterday I heard a Washington correspondent from a well-known financial news organisation report that existing law would cause $900 billion in spending cuts in 2013!

Maybe we need a section on media coverage of the issue. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Organization of lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was: Consensus on the first paragraph, more discussion needed on the balance of the lead. (See: #Some more ideas for the lead below.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Beeblebrox, you page-protected a non-consensus version of the article, and the editor whose edits you locked in refuses to talk here. So please feel free to discuss the proposed changes here, yourself. In the interim, since the article is currently experiencing high traffic volume, I'm requesting that the content be reverted to the consensus at [6] while we discuss how to improve it further. Thank you. Sparkie82 (t•c) 21:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

See WP:WRONG and WP:INVOLVED. I can either act in an administrative capacity (which is what you seemed to be asking for) or I can get involved in the content dispute. There is pretty much no middle ground there. However in the interest of impartiality I will leave your request for another admin to review. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I should also add that "I believe consensus is on my side" is not an excuse for edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

There are no excuses for edit warring. The intervention request was made in order to prevent it. Sparkie82 (t•c) 14:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, Sparkie is acting a little silly. All I did was reorganize the lead from 7 paragraphs (a few one sentence paragraphs) into 3 paragraphs like what MOS:LEAD says to do. I'm pasting the version as it stands into a section below. Let's edit it into a consensus version before the 3 days expire. FurrySings (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

FurrySing, welcome to the talk page. Please make sure you sign all your edits here to avoid confusion, e.g., the edit above makes it look like Stradivarius is accusing me of acting silly. Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

In a previous discussion, a rough outline of the lead was hashed out (see Talk:United States fiscal cliff#Revenue and spending in lead and this is what I was working from, however, I understand there is always room for improvement. The outline, without specifying paragraphs breaks at the moment, simply the chronological order of presentation, looks like this:

• Define what the fiscal cliff is, mentioning the applicable laws.
• Quantify YOY budget changes for 2012, 2013 (quantify the cliff)
• A little more detail on exempted portions of the budget
• The range of projected macroeconomic effects
• Political context, why the applicable laws were passed

There are two primary elements driving this outline: 1) Explain what the cliff is first before discussing it's effects; 2) Present the information so that the reader will not confuse fiscal cliff with macroeconomic cliff. Many readers coming to the article have heard about the fiscal cliff from mainstream media sources, many of which have done a poor job at explaining what the cliff is or differentiating the fiscal cliff and macroeconomic consequences. I don't want to make that mistake here.

Does that chronology of information make sense? Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The lead is not a separate article that we have to decide separately what should be in it and how to order it. We should refer to the guidelines and the body of the article for how to construct the lead. (In any case, I disagree with you, chronological order is not usually good order for either a lead or an article.) MOS:LEAD gives guidance about what the lead should look like. The first sentence should describe the topic of the article. (See WP:LEADSENTENCE) The first paragraph should outline the topics that the article covers, and include all the relevant information about what makes the topic notable. (See WP:MOSBEGIN) As for the rest of the lead, it should be a summary of the article, and so it should include what's in the article with about the same weight as in the article, and present the topics in the manner that it is presented in the article. Following the article presentation, topics presented should be:

1. Description of what is leading to the fiscal cliff

2. Congressional Budget Office projections
3. Effects of sequestration
4. Commentary

5. Proposals to mitigate the fiscal cliff

FurrySings (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's closely follow the guideline in constructing the lead. It has been a long while since I've thoroughly read the whole thing. I found the following especially useful:

• The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.
• Provide an accessible overview...
• The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is...
• ...the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist.

After rereading the guidelines, I see that all of our previous attempts have been too specific at the expense of accessibility and clarity. With that in mind, a proposed first sentence:

• The fiscal cliff is a newly coined term referring to the effect of a number of laws which, if unchanged, could result in tax increases, spending cuts, and a corresponding reduction in the budget deficit beginning in 2013.

Here's the main part of the guideline for the first paragraph:

• The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic...

A proposed first paragraph:

• The fiscal cliff is a newly coined term referring to the effect of a number of laws which, if unchanged, could result in tax increases, spending cuts, and a corresponding reduction in the budget deficit beginning in 2013. The deficit -- the difference between all the money the government receives and all the spending -- is expected to be reduced by roughly half in 2013, thus the "cliff". Most experts believe that the effect on the general economy will be a reduction in economic activity in the short term while benefiting long-term economic growth.

The rest of the lead, can briefly cover more specifics about:

• the composition of the tax increases and spending cuts,
• the various laws and the political environment leading to the fiscal cliff,
• the range of various projections,
• and the range of proposed changes to existing law.

Exactly what is, or is not included, can be discussed.

(I didn't include sources in the above proposed text -- they can be added later.)

(Ottawahitech, after rereading the guidelines, I removed the term neologism entirely from the lead for accessability and to avoid redundancy. If you feel strongly about it, we can discuss it further.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that neologism can be linked to from 'newly coined'. Also, most of the article (and what commentary I've read) focuses on the short term effect on the economy. There is little about long term effects, and little certainty about long term growth. I would change the above to:

The fiscal cliff is a newly coined term referring to the effect of a number of laws which (if unchanged) could result in tax increases, spending cuts, and a corresponding reduction in the budget deficit beginning in 2013. The deficit—the difference between government revenue and government spending—is expected to be reduced by roughly half in 2013. Most economists believe that the effect on the general economy will be an increased risk of recession in the short term while improving the long term outlook for US government debt.

FurrySings (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I like what you guys are doing and the spirit in which you're doing it. I like it all except the last sentence and would say "while improving the long term economic and debt outlook." CBO has laid out the economic risk factors if we stay on the current policy path.Farcaster (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The neologism link is a good idea, FurrySings. When I was drafting the second sentence, I originally used the terms revenue and spending, but changed the word "revenue" to "money...receives" because some readers will not understand what revenue means. I thought about using "taxes", however, revenue is more than taxes alone. Also, I think we should explicitly say that cutting of the deficit in half is the cliff, rather than simply having it implied. In the last sentence, the word "risk" is kind of a charged word, as is the word "recession". Some predict there will be a recession and some don't, that's why I went with "reduction in economic activity."

Farcaster, we need to be careful about relying on CBO as an unbiased source. Although they are supposed to be unbiased, when there are spending cuts, federal employees can get fired, and the folks at CBO are federal employees.

FurrySings is right about the emphasis on short-term vs. long-term. After all, a cliff by definition is a short term effect. However, the reason they are even working on deficit reduction is to avoid long-term consequences, so maybe we should at least mention something about long-term debt reduction later in the lead. Sparkie82 (t•c) 06:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we have to worry about words like 'revenue', after all, we're not writing for Simple English Wikipedia. We're writing for someone who is literate in English, just without specialized knowledge in economics or politics. The CBO is treated as unbiased by reliable sources like the the New York Times, the Guardian and the Washington Post, so we should treat it as unbiased as well. Also, I don't think there's much disagreement among economists that a $600 billion cut in the deficit in 2013 (that's about the total amount of the 2008 stimulus) will likely trigger a recession. Ben Bernanke has said the same as well.[7] FurrySings (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the terms "revenue" vs. "all the money..", I just figured out a way to phrase it that avoids the debate entirely (please see below). Re CBO -- yeah, they are a reliable source and should be used in this article, I just wanted to mention a caveat to keep in mind. I pulled some phrases from the recent CBO report and dropped them into the first paragraph almost unchanged. How does this sound?

• The fiscal cliff is a newly coined term referring to the effect of a number of laws which (if unchanged) could result in tax increases, spending cuts, and a corresponding reduction in the budget deficit beginning in 2013. The deficit -- the difference between what the government takes in and what it spends -- is expected to be reduced by roughly half in 2013. That sharp reduction is the cliff. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) believes the sudden reduction will probably lead to a mild recession in early 2013 with the pace of economic activity picking up after 2013. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Cam04, regarding the use of the word "will" in place of "could" when talking about projections, yes, revenue and spending is more predictable than general macroeconomic activity, however, an unforeseen event could trigger increased spending under current law which would change the prediction. (Or a large, unexpected economic downturn could significantly reduce revenues.) So we have to use words like could, might, may, etc. (In a few months a lot of that language will have to be revised to past tense anyway.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 01:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I made a couple of changes. "Neologism" throws off most readers so I wikified it with "term." Revenue is going back to about 18% GDP and spending is remaining around the $3.5T average of the past 4 fiscal years (2009-2012). I've split out the revenue statistics paragraph from the one about the debt ceiling debate.Farcaster (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we should try to remain close in spirit to the introduction of this recent CBO report:[8]

"Under current law, a sharp reduction in the federal budget deficit between 2012 and 2013 will cause the economy to contract, ... but will also put federal debt on a path more likely to be sustainable over time."

I've struck out the term 'mild' in the proposed 1st paragraph above, per WP:PEACOCK. I haven't seen that term 'mild recession' used by the CBO. Also, I think there should be something in the first paragraph about how not changing current law will improve the debt position in the long run. FurrySings (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Compared to all the previous recessions, the short, .5% decline predicted by the CBO is modest. I was looking for a single word to characterize the dip, without being overly specific in the first paragraph. If we have a consensus without that word, then fine, let's post the new first paragraph and move on to work on the rest of the lead. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with including Farcaster's shortened Neologism wikification, too. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with what's there now too. FurrySings (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay then, this is the consensus for the first paragraph:

• The fiscal cliff is a term referring to the effect of a number of laws which (if unchanged) could result in tax increases, spending cuts, and a corresponding reduction in the budget deficit beginning in 2013. The deficit -- the difference between what the government takes in and what it spends -- is expected to be reduced by roughly half in 2013. That sharp reduction is the cliff. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) believes the sudden reduction will probably lead to a recession in early 2013 with the pace of economic activity picking up after 2013.

I'll post that version. Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

As to the rest of the lead, here is a summary of things to include based on proposals offered above:

• the composition of the tax increases and spending cuts, including sequestration
• the various laws and the political environment leading to the fiscal cliff,
• the range of various projections, including CBO's
• and the range of proposed changes to existing law effecting the fiscal cliff

FurrySings also suggested "Commentary" as an item to include in the rest of the lead, however, I'm not sure what that means. Commentary is not normally included in WP, only facts, so I left that off the list for now. Sparkie82 (t•c) 21:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Please disregard my commentary about "Commentary" above. :)

Things to include in the lead based on consensus/proposals offered above:

• First paragraph per consensus above,
• the composition of the tax increases and spending cuts, including sequestration
• the various laws and the political environment leading to the fiscal cliff,
• the range of various projections, including CBO's
• the range of proposed changes to existing law effecting the fiscal cliff
• Commentary

This discussion is slowing down, so maybe I'll take a shot at the rest of the lead when I post the consensus first paragraph... Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I posted the consensus first paragraph [9] and reworked the rest of the lead to include most of the above [10]. The lead still doesn't discuss the range of projected effects, only the CBO's, so if someone wants to add those in, go ahead. Sparkie82 (t•c) 16:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm closing this thread because RoyGoldsmith started a new section below: See #Some more ideas for the lead Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit this please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion has been closed because the article is no longer protected and a consensus is being pursued in a preceding section, #Organization of lead. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Let's edit the lead here while the article is locked: FurrySings (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

In the United States, the fiscal cliff is a neologism referring to the effect of a number of laws which (if unchanged) could result in tax increases, spending cuts, and a corresponding reduction in the budget deficit beginning in 2013. These laws include tax increases due to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and spending cuts under the Budget Control Act of 2011. The Congressional Budget Office reported an increased risk of recession during 2013 if the deficit is reduced suddenly, while indicating that lower deficits and debt would in time improve long-term economic growth. The deficit for 2013 is projected to be reduced by roughly half, and over the next ten years, the United States public debt lowered by as much as $7.1 trillion or about 70% of the expected cumulative deficit over those ten years.

The Budget Control Act of 2011 was passed under the political environment of a partisan stalemate, in which Democrats and Republicans could not agree on how to reduce the deficit. It was thought that the blunt cuts of budget sequestration and sharp revenue increases would be mutually undesirable to both parties and provide an impetus and deadline to bring the sides together to solve the deficit problem. The year-over-year changes for fiscal years 2012–2013 include a 19.63% increase in tax revenue and 0.25% reduction in spending. Some major domestic programs, like Social Security, federal pensions and veterans' benefits, are exempted from the spending cuts. Spending for federal agencies and cabinet departments would be reduced through broad, shallow cuts (referred to as budget sequestration).

The projected effects of these changes have led to calls both inside and outside of Congress to extend some or all of the tax cuts, and to replace the across-the-board reductions with more targeted cutbacks. It has been speculated that any change is unlikely to come until the period roughly between the 2012 federal elections and the end of the year. Additionally, the debate may be exacerbated by the expectation that the debt ceiling is expected to be reached before the end of 2012, unless "extraordinary measures" are used. Nearly all proposals to avoid the fiscal cliff involve extending certain parts of the 2010 Tax Relief Act or changing the 2011 Budget Control Act or both—increasing the deficit through reducing taxes or increasing spending., thus making the deficit larger by reducing taxes and/or increasing spending.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user

I'd like to discuss changes on this talk page in a transparent manner. I've just laid out a proposed outline for the lead in the preceding section. Do you agree with that outline, FurrySings? Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm making this suggestion in the wrong spot, but in the first sentence shouldn't "could result in tax increases, spending cuts, and a corresponding" be WILL result in...? Everything I've read/heard on the subject seems to suggest that the consequences are pretty certain unless the laws are changed. I didn't want to go ahead and make the change since the introduction has been so disputed, but I figured I should throw it out there. Cam04 (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's in the wrong spot. But you can join in the discussion above at #Organization of lead. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of consensus warning tag

The consensus warning tag was removed by Gueat2625 yesterday and a few edits were made by people who may not have known that the lead is currently being reworked at Talk:United_States_fiscal_cliff#Organization of lead. I've reverted to the version before Guest2625 removed the tag. Don't remove that tag again. If you want to participate in the reworking of the lead, you can comment at Talk:United_States_fiscal_cliff#Organization of lead. Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions for 2013

A couple of very broad-brush questions from someone who hasn't contributed a whit to this article:

1. Should we merge this article into the Legislative History section of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012?
2. Should we cut down major portions of this content, regardless of where it ends up? Much of it strikes me as WP:RECENTISM. You just don't see this level of detail for articles about passed legislation. And sections such as Effects and CBO Projections seem kind of moot at this point. --Nstrauss (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• No and no, in my view. This article has a much broader scope than does American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which is just about the law itself. This article contains the history of the whole debate regarding the cliff, whereas that article just contains the history around the day or two of its passage. Furthermore, the cliff debate goes on, and more legislation will have to be passed - the bill just passed only addresses the tax side of the equation, with the spending and debt side still to be dealt with. And while alternate proposals may seem moot now, they were part of the history around the debate, so in general I am not in favor of a major cut-down. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

All good points, I would just note that the fact that the ATRA article only contains "the history around the day or two of its passage" shouldn't be a justification for changing anything except broadening the scope of the legislative history section of that article. It's way too narrow at the moment. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that WP:Recentism is an issues but it is also a recruitment tool for casual readers, who are looking at this article in large numbers. But, I agree with the assessment of Wasted Time R and the two articles should be separate. Also, the cliff is only delayed so it is still very recent and the timeline will have to be expanded. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It strikes me that it won't be long (a few months, perhaps?) before readers are coming to the subject matter more by way of the ATRA and other future legislation than by way of the fiscal cliff. For comparison, look at what happened during the 2010 lame duck session. It appears that our main account of what happened there is in the legislative history section of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. Yes, there are sections on this over at the Bush tax cuts, but they're not nearly as extensive as what we have here. (By the way, if anyone wants to take a crack at it, the fiscal cliff section of that article needs major updating to reflect recent events; it looks like it hasn't been touched since August.) --Nstrauss (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The United States fiscal cliff is a major article about US federal politics and Obama's first major political act of his second term. Over the next few weeks, we'll be converting the text of various articles (including the fiscal cliff section) to bring them in line with WP:Recentism. There's no rush; remember WP:10YT.

I'm more interested in what should be the name of the next major US political article in Wikipedia. Do you think that the new debt-ceiling debate and the new sequestration debate will be fought separately or together? If separate, the two articles can be named something like "2013 Debt-ceiling crisis" and "Sequestration debate". But, if they are intertwined, what will we call the combined article? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

My gut reaction is that we should combine the upcoming debt ceiling crisis with the last one. Call it something like "Debt ceiling crises (2011 and 2013)". --Nstrauss (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

So rename under the Barack Hussein Obama Debt Crisis of 20XX with a page per year? Hcobb (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Is that intended as a snark or as a good faith proposal? --Nstrauss (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

His election seems to be well documented as the only reason for the sudden concern for the debt amongst a majority of GOP lawmakers. Hcobb (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any alternative than to tie his name to it. The same trends were happening before him, but it didn't become a crisis until the buck stopped at his desk. If we went all ORy, then we'd have to draw the arc of the debt bubble starting from 2001. Hcobb (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You still didn't answer my question. Until you do I'm going to stop assuming good faith. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)