Talk:Pledge to America

Where was it unveiled?

The MSNBC article referenced states that it was a hardware store, while the CNN article here states that it was a lumber company. LewisWasGenius (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing the "background" section

Most of the background section was irrelevant, and most of it was uncited. The fact that Democrats passed legislation that the Republicans disliked is not really an explanation for why they wrote the Pledge to America. The fact that Scott Brown gained a Senate seat was irrelevant, because Republicans filibustered legislation in the Senate before Al Franken was seated; the Pledge to America is a House document, not a Senate document; and there has been little actually filibustered post-Brown by a 59-41 party-line vote (and none cited). There is no citation that the Pledge to America was written as an "attempt to counter th[e] criticism" that the President and Democrats have called the Republican Party the "party of no." Lacking an actual "background" on the document, rather than a series of disjointed, ad hoc statements about politics of the 2009 and 2010, I removed it. --Abidjan227 (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Which summary to keep?

I moved this from the main article. The two summaries are confusing and largely redundant. We should pick one or reconcile these into a combined version. The existing one is easy to read, but this one is more in-depth. Which is better? LewisWasGenius (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I like the current, shorter version. The Contract with America has a fairly short summary, and much of the article ends up focusing on actual implementation. In the future, if the Republicans take control of the House and begin enacting legislation, items enacted pursuant to the Pledge to America can be added to give the article some depth. But that's just one opinion, I suppose. --Abidjan227 (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, I hadn't thought to compare it with the Contract article. Make it two opinions. LewisWasGenius (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As the author of the summary that was removed, perhaps I am biased... However, in my mind, the article as it now exists is biased -- My understanding of the Pledge from the current Wiki Article is totally different from my understanding of the Pledge after I read the source document.

Based on the current Wiki article, the Pledge would seem to be an irresponsible Republican ploy to reduce taxes and will cause further disruption to the economy. In actuality, a substantial number of ideas (between 1/3 and 1/4) are procedural changes to House and Senate rules, with zero cost, and will probably decrease the growth in the federal budget.

Another substantial number of proposals are single sentences that describe significant changes whose impact could only be analyzed by a substantial study by the Congressional Budget Office. Consequently, these suggestions seem to be largely ignored.

In general, it is my observation that the current Wiki Article focuses on a small number of easily quantifiable suggestions and berates them, ignoring other more significant and less costly changes. This, in my opinnion, does not present a fair and unbiased analysis of the article.

Gbbinning (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The current list seems fairly neutral to me. It might be good to add some of the missing points to the current list, but the average reader of this article doesn't want an exhaustive breakdown. For that, they can just read the pledge itself. As I read down the list, I do not get the same feeling of bias that you do. What specific things do you think are missing or poorly worded? LewisWasGenius (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Before point out a few specific cases that I think bias the article, I would like to speak to several observations about Wiki Culture, and what I believe to be the improper use of an encyclopedic methodology for new concepts. The comments are to be taken as a general observation of Wiki Culture and Methodology, and then specifically applied to the article.

A) I would submit that it is not logical for the Wiki Encyclopedia methodology to be used for new topics. While the Encyclopedia methodology may be useful for a topic such as Elizabeth I of England (there has been sufficient time for a body of knowledge on the topic to be established), it does not make sense to use the methodology to describe something new, for example a newly signed legislative law or the “Pledge to America.”

B) I would submit that the Wiki Article Czar (the person in charge of the page’s content) has allowed the creation of a biased article. I based this statement on my own observation; my understanding of the “Pledge to America” from the Wiki article is substantially different from my understanding after reading the “Pledge to America” document. I suspect there are at least two features of Wiki culture that allow this situation to exist

1) The existence of Wiki Bots, (applications that seem to be created to automatically delete changes that are made to the webpage) are extensively used by the Wiki community (in the form of a Wiki Article Czar) to control the content of a Wiki article.

2) The use of the encyclopedic methodology, using only quotes that have appeared in other printed publications. For a new topic, with a biased press, the Wiki Article Czar may pick and choose what is included. Just as the producer of a call-in radio talk show can make editorial judgments on what listener-calls should be aired, so the Wiki Article Czar (who should be an unbiased content expert) may slant the content of the article to meet the Article Czar’s opinion.

C) I would submit that the Wiki Article Czar should be a content expert in the filed. Because of the complexities of the rules and regulations for editing articles, and the extensive use of Bots to provide editorial control of the contents of articles, it appears that only computer geeks have the knowledge and skill to be an Article Czar. Based on personal experience, I have tried to identify those who seem to be Wiki Article Czars for three or four articles and have observed that that most Wiki Article Czars are volunteers who are 20 something college students majoring in some form of computer technology field. In particular, a “content expert” for an article with a philosophical foundation, was a student at a local community college, in his late 20’s, starting a family, and seemed to be working towards an AB in computer technology (based on information from his Facebook page). Somehow, I have a hard time thinking that this Wiki Article Czar had the knowledge and experience to be a content expert for something that some people with PhD’s have a hard time explaining.

D) In a paradigm shift, the concepts and relationships are new and changing. This means that what has happened in the past is not a predictor of what will happen in the future. This means that the content experts of the past are not necessarily the content experts of the future. This means that relying on what others have said about a topic is not a valid way to summarize an issue, because what people have said in the past is not valid in the future.

1) I would submit that a new piece of legislation, or this Pledge to America, is the equivalent to a paradigm shift. I would submit that a complete summary of the legislation (or this pledge) is a more appropriate way to describe the new idea.

As to reasons why this specific article is biased, I go back to my original post:

1) a substantial number of ideas (between 1/3 and 1/4) are procedural changes to House and Senate rules, with zero cost, and will probably decrease the growth in the federal budget. In the current articles post, there are only two procedural changes listed: posting bills three days before voting, and cite constitutional authority in enabling legislation, ignoring other rule change proposals such as

a) Require congressional approval of any new federal regulation that may add to deficits

b) advance legislative issues one at a time – end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with “must-pass” legislation

c) allow any member to offer amendments to reduce spending

d) military funding bills do not contain policy, extraneous domestic funding or pork-barrel projects – most political pundits I have heard and read when discussing the Pledge incorrectly say that the Pledge does not address pork-barrel projects.

2) One of the major overarching principles of the pledge is to do things to create jobs; a concept totally missing from the article

3) Discussions about TARP are superfluous as written because the program expires in October; such prejudice should be identified

4) The spending freeze discussed in the article is actually a spending freeze on all discretionary programs, not on “some” programs as specified in the article

5) Several proposals will not have any impact on the federal budget, but will impact state budgets by and/or reduce consumer spending, such as:

a) Preventing expansion of unfunded liabilities

b) Enact medical liability reform

c) allow Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines

d) empower small businesses with greater purchasing power

e) Create new incentives to save for future health needs such as Expand Health Savings Accounts

6) Establish Operational Control of the Border - missing from the article

7) Pledge contains a description of five Plans (which are described in terms similar to principles), with each Plan containing specific legislative proposals. The concept of these five overarching principles is totally missing from the article.

The following are recommendations that I suggest the Wiki Community consider

Recommendation 1: Once an article has been stabilized, if a Wiki bot is to be used to maintain control of the article, make notice of that fact and provide instructions on how to submit changes through the Talk page.

Recommendation 2: If an article is to have a Wiki Bot that maintains control of the article’s content, there should be a “Content Expert” for the article. On the article’s Talk page there should be provided credentials for this Content Expert so that others may have confidence in the ability of the Content Expert to provide a neutral perspective on the subject – for me, I will no longer use Wikipedia as a content source for information on current materials.

Recommendation 3: For articles on legislation and other new proclamations of thought, the Wiki Article should be based on an accurate and unbiased summary of the document being analyzed. I would submit that to be unbiased, the current rules describing Wiki’s encyclopedic methodology are ineffective. Rather, I would suggest that these rules promote bias.

Gbbinning (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. There's no such thing as an "Article Czar". Anyone is welcome to contribute constructively, and where there is disagreement it is resolved by discussion and consensus. Bots are not used to "maintain control of an article". they perform routine tasks and revert edits which they consider to have a high probability of being unconstructive. Anything removed by a bot can be restored by a human.

Wikipedia does not revere "experts in the field". While editors who are knowledgable on the subject matter are welcomed and can be very valuable contributors, they are expected to cite reliable outside sources just like everyone else.

As for you specific concerns about the article, I agree that the list of main points is probably missing some items, but disagree that an exhaustive anaylisis is needed. LewisWasGenius (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with LewisWasGenius. I'll add that, if you want articles to be supervised by subject-matter experts whose credentials have been vetted and who are then given greater control than the average user, you might want to consider contributing to Citizendium -- as I understand it, that's their model. JamesMLane t c 04:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Main Points

More specifically, the Pledge contains a description of five Plans (which are described in terms similar to principles), with each Plan containing specific legislative proposals

• A plan to create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make America more competitive
  • Repealing job-killing policies
    • Stop tax hikes
  • Encourage small business to create jobs by allowing them to take a 20% tax deduction against income
  • Require congressional approval of any new federal regulation that may add to deficits
  • Repeal small business mandates contained in health care law
• A plan to stop out-of control spending and reduce the size of government.
  • Roll back spending to pre-stimulus levels
  • Establish budget caps to limit discretionary federal spending
  • Cut Congresses’ budget
  • Holding weekly votes on spending cuts
  • Impose net hiring freeze on non-security federal employees
  • Review current programs to eliminate duplicative programs
  • Cancel TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program)
  • Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
  • Reform the budget process by:
    • Requiring a full accounting of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid
    • Setting benchmarks for the entitlement programs and reviewing them regularly
    • Preventing expansion of unfunded liabilities
• A plan to repeal and replace the government takeover of health care
  • Repeal 2010 health care law and replace it with:
    • Enact medical liability reform
    • Strengthen the doctor-patient relationship
  • allow Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines
  • empower small businesses with greater purchasing power
  • Create new incentives to save for future health needs
    • Expand Health Savings Accounts
  • Prevent those with pre-existing conditions from gaining access to coverage
  • End taxpayer funding of abortion and codify the Hyde amendment
• A plan to reform Congress and restore trust
  • require every bill contain a citation of Constitutional authority
  • give all Representatives and citizens at least three days to read a bill before a vote
  • floor schedules and operations reflect the priority of revitalizing the economy
    • advance legislative issues one at a time – end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with “must-pass” legislation
    • allow any member to offer amendments to reduce spending
• A plan to keep our nation secure at home and abroad
  • provide resources, authority, and support our deployed military
    • military funding bills do not contain policy, extraneous domestic funding or pork-barrel projects
  • fully fund missile defense
  • enforce sanctions against Iran
  • Keep terrorist combatants in Guantanamo
    • Foreign terrorists tried in military not civilian courts
    • Oppose efforts to force military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel operating overseas to extend “Miranda Rights” to foreign terrorists.
  • Establish Operational Control of the Border
    • Prohibit Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture from interfering with Border Patrol enforcement activities on federal lands
    • Reaffirm the authority of state and local law enforcement to assist the enforcement of all federal immigration laws
    • Require Department of Homeland Security to review all visa applications at high-risk consular posts
    • Prevent aliens from attempting to avoid deportation after having their visa revoked

Tax cuts and deficit

Critiques of the Pledge include the figure that extending the Bush tax cuts would add $3.7T to the deficit. That's a fair critique, but it's unfair citing it isolated. The pledge includes budget freezes, revocations of funding, and other items that also affect the deficit. If an opinion column cites the figure as an effect, that's one thing, and it should stay with the critique; if there's a whole-sale evaluation of the net effect of the Pledge on the deficit (including proposed tax cuts, spending changes, and everything), then that should fall under "estimated effects." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abidjan227 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The nature of a wiki is that we don't necessarily do everything at once before publishing an article, the way a print encyclopedia would. I'm restoring the "effects" information about the tax cuts, cited to a news report if you have a problem with opinion pieces (although, AFAIK, there is no good-faith dispute about this particular figure). I'd be justified in stopping there and leaving it to other editors to add in information about spending cuts. As it happens, I have some information about spending cuts, which I'll add, but there certainly is no doctrine that the section must remain blank until it can be made perfect. Feel free to add any properly sourced information that you think is necessary to give the complete picture. JamesMLane t c 17:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: I see that Gbbinning added a huge chunk of text in the "Effects" section. Much of it seems like a rehash of the plan rather than an analysis of the effects. For now, I've added the $4 trillion figure to this presentation, but I think the overall format is unhelpful to the reader of this section. I suggest we move it to the "Main points" section, after the summary that's now there, and reserve the "Effects" section for aspects of the Pledge where there's enough specific information available to provide useful information beyond what's in the document itself. JamesMLane t c 18:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

See "Which summary to keep?" above. While interesting to some people, these long fact-lists are confusing to most and add little to the article. In my opinion the "effects" section is unneccesary, as few credible facts exist and the opinions are covered under "reactions". Compare with the article Contract with America. LewisWasGenius (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the format is more complete but unhelpful, but I don't have a terribly wise input into what would make it better. --Abidjan227 (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Effects section

Rather than edit war over this, let's state the reasons to have or not have the "effects" section. In my personal opinion, it is unnecessary. Would those who want it kept please explain why? LewisWasGenius (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In the First point for Main Points how can something cost money when it's already being done, i think the correct statement should be the government, at current spending levels, would have to borrow $4 trillion more than it would without the extension of the tax cuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BUCK3Y3 4991 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll just take that point off. We already have the Reactions section. The Main Points section should address the main points made in the document, not outside assessments of them. If anyone objects to this feel free to put it back, just give a reason here if you do. LewisWasGenius (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Results Section is off topic

The Results sections does not seem to have anything to do with the Pledge to America. It is a comment on the campaign and results of the 2010 election. Unless somebody can tie is to the pledge, I would like to remove it. --Bertrc (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)