Talk:United States Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) thing(s).

Origins

Mitch McConnell introduced the idea, didn't he?

He very well could have. I don't currently know, based on the specific sentences I read in the article I got the information from, or else I would have included those details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.133.1 (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article

The news reports I've heard from several sources indicate that what the article describes as "Super Congress" is, in fact, a "Super Committee". As such, under the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure for both the Senate and House, it would still report to the separate Houses of Congress, not the other way around. If someone's heard different, I'd like to see the references to support it. Otherwise, I'm proposing the article's name be changed. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the recommendations the "Super" body of members makes will ultimately have to forward any recommendations it arrives upon concerning further budget cuts, revenue increases or other measures to the full Congress. However, if the Congress does not approve them, automatic cuts to various programs will be made automatically (the trigger mechanism)- and the provisions, in their final legislative form when they are forwarded to Congress, cannot be amended and must be put to a yes or no vote. It would be a better phrase to call it a Super Committee, it is not a separate supreme legislative body like the Communist Soviet Politburo was, because the members are all democratically elected members of Congress and the piece of the emergency legislation establishing the committee may or may not end up being permanent once the debt ceiling and related economic issues are no longer considered by much of America to be an issue (although that will likely take a few decades given the economic problems affecting America and various countries, the potential difficulties surrounding the fiscal health of American government programs, and the American trade imbalances with certain nations holding significant amounts of our debt- China comes to mind, as well as other global crises beyond our control). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.133.1 (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The actual and proper name of the committee is the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, and per WP article naming conventions should be called the United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. I've moved it to the first and will move it to the second once a redirect is deleted out of the way. "Supercommittee" is the informal term used by political observers and "Super Congress" is hyperbole used by a few worked-up commentators. I've going to work on straightening out this article ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good choice renaming the article (although Joint Select Committee sounds like a task force to explore the legalization of marijuana.) I had searched for the term "Super Congress" in newspapers and did not find many hits in mainstream publications like the NY Times -- likely problem was the title, so fixing it will help lead to more references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps adding Super Congress back in. No one in the main stream politics or media uses this term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.103.254.98 (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutionality

The Constitutionality section has absolutely no sources. Since there probably are sources out there for these argument, I've added the Refimprove template instead of claiming that this article is original research. Hierocles (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some debate about the constitutionality of this committee worth including in the article, but the existing text was a hopeless place to start, since it was designed and written around the hyperbolic notion of a "Super Congress" and ended with the dread conclusion "With the creation of the super Congress, the United States will have its own Central Committee, similar in structure to the former Soviet Union." I've removed the whole thing, as it would be better to start over fresh. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, good choice.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Bias in the Media Sources (Again)

I think it's a pretty big problem that the only major news outlets that you sourced were radically liberal: The New york Times, The Huffington Post and MoveOn.org. I don't think the Huffington Post can be used as a source, ever since they printed that editorial stating that they would essentially be happy of Sarah Palin was shot in the face on a hunting trip (written by Aaron Sokrin). The Huffinton Post is a liberal hate speech publication, and is far less reliabl and far less balanced than Fox News. A quote from them would have been far more scientific and reliable. Are you saying that MoveOn.org and The New York Times aren't radically liberal? These quotes are contributing to the fact that wikipedia has a liberal bias. ~CaptainNicodemus

While MoveOn.org and Huffington Post are decidedly slanted to the left, I would never call NYT "radically liberal". Nor would I call Huffington Post a "hate speech" publication, unless you intend to add Fox News to that category as well, based on their ideological slant to the hard right as evidenced by their complete and utter lack of coverage regarding the NewsCorp phone-spying scandal and hard-line stance against reporting anything positive about President Obama. And before anyone else steps in and screams about how out-of-balance my comments are, my point is that one person's bias is another person's neutrality, and it behooves Wikipedia's contributors to examine ALL aspects to determine where the true neutral point lies. Please keep that in mind. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MoveOn.org is useless as a source, except for its own opinion. HuffPo is largely the same, except for a few cases where it does legitimate reporting (Sam Stein is a good example of that, similar in kind to Byron York with National Review). The New York Times is always great as a source. (I also use FoxNews.com a lot as a source, as it generally presents few problems.) I think the sourcing of the substantive sections of this article is fine. However, I think the sourcing of the "Debate over merit" section is weak, and the section as currently written is slanted against the committee, partly due to the nature of the sources chosen. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It actually looks to me like the original commenter was hoping to WP:SOAPBOX a bit about the alleged "inherent liberal bias" in American journalism. I'm hoping they've decided to take it elsewhere. The Free Republic website might prove a more receptive audience, yes? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you about the motivations of the original poster, but I also think there is reason for legitimate concern about the "Debate" section. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such as what? It wouldn't make sense to complain that the debate section notes opinions from biased sources since that is the whole point of discussing the debate, so is the problem the inclusion of the section altogether? Could we have a full treatment of the topic without it? -Rrius (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the elephant in the room (no political pun intended) is that a great deal of the criticism being included in the "Debate" section is coming from either leftist or relatively neutral sources, with not inclusion of commentary from right-leaning sources. But is that, in point of fact, because there's just not that much criticism coming from the right? This is the trap anyone working on the article is going to fall into, as I see it. If all the material, reliably sourced or not, is coming from one side, and someone from the other side cries foul, where does that leave WP:NPOV as a policy? It's very hard to present both sides in order to balance an article when only one side is saying anything. In short, if there's material to balance out the section, it needs to be found and included. Otherwise, I think WP:NPOV pushes for removing the section. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are three possibilities for us having more left-wing criticism than right-wing: the Right has for one reason or another not been outspoken in airing its misgivings, the Right supports it, or editors are simply failing to bring forward right-wing objections. If it's the first, we can't do a lot about it. If all the criticism comes from one side, the most we can do is say that they are the ones doing criticizing. If it's the second, it is again only a question of presentation. But if it is the third, we need to fix it. As I see it, short of someone who already reads right-wing blogs on a regular basis deciding to be interested in this, some of us will have to go to the effort of finding right-wing opinion on the committee. I can help at some point tomorrow. -Rrius (talk) 07:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sensible. When I found material for this article, I looked for a section for it to go in, and somehow the "support" vs "criticism" structure seemed to fit, but I was uncomfortable with it. And I was even more uncomfortable when I saw how little the first paragraph was and how big the second one was. And I had been thinking about including a section on "predictions" but I didn't want to call it that -- basically, commentators (like Zakaria) weighing in on what they thought would be the likely outcome. What I'm saying is there may be a way to reduce or eliminate the "support vs criticism" section with new subheads? One other thing: I don't so much see this as a left vs right battle but rather as a partisan vs bipartisan battle, and everybody knows the US is highly partisan.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated "by August 16" to last member appointed 8/10

I haven't been following this topic, so I don't have sources at my fingertips, but we still have "The committee, which must be appointed by August 16, 2011, will consist of twelve members of Congress". I will change this in a few days if nobody beats me to it. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Be bold!—Markles 19:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be even incredibly less bolder. I'll fix it by March of 2012 unless somebody beats me to it!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Jo3sampl (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey what is going on with the constant re-naming of this article?

Looks like a lot of fuss for nothing. The name of this article has been changed perhaps four or five times now within a few weeks. Does it really matter whether it's called the United States Congress Joint Select Committee or the United States congressional Joint Select .... Is this a big deal? Can we please stick to one article name? --Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The change I just made was consistent with all joint committees. It was not about this specific committee. I'm sorry if it's confusing.—Markles 14:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thanks for explaining, and I can see a clear benefit for choosing a name consistent with similar articles, so I thank you for doing this, but I hope everybody will agree that this will be the permanent name from now on? Like maybe affixing a message in the article text saying "No more article name changes please". Just trying to help.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but there's no way to stop future name changes. I don't know why it would be a problem, anyway. Editors who mark a page on their watchlists will automatically also have the newly named page added to their watchlists. Wikipedia is not static. —Markles 15:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, you're right. Wikipedia changes. It's not static. Static sucks; fluidity is good. In that case, could we rename the article United States congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction of 2011? Just kidding. :)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you changed all the joint committees together, based on a discussion I cannot find. What is wrong with United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction? It is slightly shorter and easier to read visually, because everything is capitalized. It parallels longtime usage for the non-joint committees, such as United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. Or do you think that should be "United States senatorial Committee ..."? I don't get this change. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry. I was Being bold. Perhaps too much so. I think it sounds better as a "congressional joint committee" than a "Congress Joint Committee," but I'm not entirely convinced.—Markles 03:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - This committee doesn't have a web page yet, but some of the other joint committees do. Look at this page, where it self-identifies in its press releases as "the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee". The other web pages generally self-identify just as for example "The Joint Committee on Taxation: Congress of the United States". In which case the article title could be Joint Committee on Taxation (United States Congress). But that makes joint committees have a different title format from regular House and Senate committees. I've never seen anyone refer to a joint committee as "the U.S. congressional Joint Something". Bold is okay, but I think this was bold for the worse. The prior name was the best. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you're right, Wasted Time R, but the prior name wasn't the best, it was the least bad. I acted too hastily, so now I'm going to revert all the name changes (Sorry, Tomwsulcer!)13:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
        OK, thanks. And I agree, sometimes 'least bad' is all you can do.... Wasted Time R (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Hey I wasn't complaining about the article title changes, I was just wondering, so no need to apologize, and I think that people here have done a good job in doing what they think is for the best. I've come to appreciate that the back-and-forth stuff works out for the best in the long run since it all makes us think about things. And, now that everybody seems to have agreed (?) on an article title, may I propose changing the article title to Fred? Just kidding, obviously.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name

I eliminated that the Committee is known as Super Congress from the article. I've only seen this name used in mocking or by partisan groups. There are many names the Committee is known by in common talk, but the Joint Committee is the formal name and the "Super Committee" is the name used most commonly in casual discussions or publications. If you include Super Congress, you would also have to include, for example, Catfood Commission II, as Daily Kos writers often refer to it as. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.103.254.98 (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supercommittee approaching deadline

..."The committee has until Wednesday to propose a mix of spending cuts and tax increases that would trim the nation's $15 trillion in debt by $1.2 trillion over the next decade." http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/stocks/story/2011-11-17/markets-supercommittee/51275668/1 Ottawahitech (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make comments about what's missing, change the article yourself. That's how it works ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with this topic, and didn't have the time to familiarize myself with the article (I am not American). I looked at the history and it seemed that no one else was updating the article, so I left my previous comment above. However, if there is consensus that this type of comment is not welcome, I will not do it again in future. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think what the other editor was implying was that your comment would do well in the article. Go for it! Be Bold!—GoldRingChip 01:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK I see, thanks. I will try to do this next time I happen to be visiting here. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting source: $$$ behind the legislators

FYI -- Open Secrets accounting of money behind the Supercommittee legislators.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added it to the links section. We could mine their database for a section profiling the members (add their relative partisanship scores, and similar data), but that gets awfully close to original research. FiveColourMap (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Reporters can mine the information, however, and if they do (if it hasn't been done already) and it gets printed, then we can mine the newspaper & media reports. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and sorry if I implied you meant anything different :). A quick search of the internet did not turn up anything relevant (unless it was on Face the Nation, I confess that I only listened with half an ear the other day), but maybe later. FiveColourMap (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need for apologies, and yes, maybe later, something will turn up. and yes, agree about how we can contribute here. If there are any reporters reading this, hey, please check out that link above and write something, okay? :) And then post something here, okay, specifically showing us Wikipedians where to find your story? :) I just came across this stuff while in the process of collecting material to revamp Lobbying in the United States, and I thought it was interesting, and a sharp idea of yours to put it as an external link.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]