Talk:United States fiscal cliff

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)

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.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Organization of lead

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 [1] 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 for now: 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.[2] 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:[3]

"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 [4] and reworked the rest of the lead to include most of the above [5]. 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)

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.

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.

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: [6] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)