Nibley

The passing of Hugh Nibley, at age 94, was hardly unexpected. It's difficult to know what to say about him--his life being the source of inspiration and argumentation to so many, and his works being so prolific. I am not academically competent (and few are) to judge his scholarship, but his works are still notable in many ways.

• Approaching Zion's themes of antimaterialism and consecration are life-changing. A must-read.
• Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass is an excellent antidote to anti in all kinds. When I first read it, reading some of the charges he discussed was somewhat uncomfortable. Coming back to it having seem much more anti, I was struck by how much anti is simply the same tired charges, strung together over and over. It's hard to be unprepared for it if you've read TCSB.
• Virtually all of the works on the Book of Mormon are interesting and give fresh perspective on familiar scripture.
• Finally, virtually all of his work gives a sense of enthusiasm and intellectual joy in the gospel that I much appreciate.

It's Good to Be In DC!

A few observations:

Working in a Congressional Office:

*It can be pretty overwhelming to be working within sight of (and occasionally within) the Capitol. Yet as with anything else one does on a daily basis, one gets used to it.

*The Capitol is an entertaining study in contrasts. Most of the public spaces have high ceilings, ornate decorations, and statuary and such everywhere. When you go down to the basement, you get exposed plumbing and a cramped catacomb feel. (You have to go to the basement to go through the Secret Tunnels back to the office buildings).

*Walking through metal detectors to get to work (and through more if going to the Capitol) is another thing one gets used to, to the point where it feels weird going to a public building without them. Not frightening, just weird--as if something is missing.

*A more paranoia-inspiring experience is opening the mail. Fortunately, it's irradiated and opened in a lab somewhere long before we see it. Unfortunately, this means physical mail is delayed for an unspecified period of time.

*Adding a sense of excitement to otherwise dull days are the periodic buzzers/bells going off indicating quorum calls/roll-call votes, etc. Even though routine staff are not particularly affected by what's going on on the floor, it still makes one feel connected to the rhythms of Congress (as well as meaning certain elevators are off-limits).

Living in DC:

*DC is a lot more urban than Provo. High population density and tall buildings give a very different feel to an area. Peak-hour metro rides make even crowded UTA busses seem spacious. However, DC-ites seem to handle themselves in pedestrian traffic much better than the average BYU-ite (the lack of impromtu mission reunions in the middle of a crowded sidewalk is not considered a Bad Thing here).

*DC also has a lot more homeless than Provo. This raises troubling theological problems, given BYU's discouragement of giving money to panhandlers near the Barlow Center.

*Speaking of the Barlow Center, the wall of the Great Room has several pictures on it, including a prominent one of the Savior and the rich young man. That seems especially fitting, in a city where so many come seeking fame, power, riches, and the things of the world.

What Part of Voluntary Don't You Understand?

One of the dumbest arguments against Social Security reform that I've seen goes along the lines of "I don't want a personal account because I don't know how the stock market works/don't want to deal with another complex choice/etc." If vast majorities of Americans really feel this way, the opposition shouldn't bother trying to block reform--we could simply enact voluntary private accounts and watch as no one used them. One suspects, however, that the opponents of reform are so passionate because they realize exactly how many Americans (particularly young Americans) realize what a bad deal SS is, and how much some of us are willing to pay to even partially be able to get out and invest our retirement savings in a non-pyramid scheme.

Contradictions in an LDS view of politics

I find that I often have an emotional aversion to LDS politicians that makes it harder in some ways for me to like them compared to non-LDS politicians, all other things being equal. I think this may relate to the ecclesiastical anathema LDS feel toward campaigning for office. Seeking a Church calling is 'simply not done.' Today's candidate-centered politics, however, require office-seekers to thrust themselves forward. Given that we believe that the Gospel should affect all we do, it's hard not to bump up against contradictions. How can true humility exist in a person who considers himself the best choice for election?

This notion may explain some of the ambivalence I feel toward prominent LDS politicians such as Mitt Romney, Harry Reid, and even Michael Leavitt. I am uncomfortable with the notion that many people's primary source of information about the Church will come about because of or the prominence of these LDS politicians, rather than, say, LDS artists or even (shudder) businessmen.

Social Security Thoughts

The scope of the Social Security problem is partially masked by the government's accounting practices. Currently, the money that Social Security takes in goes into the "trust fund," which essentially means the government spends it, promising to pay back SS when it needs it. This means that the total federal budget deficit has, in recent years, looked much better than it actually is. The handful of surpluses, if I recall correctly, were actually deficits when SS is removed from the equation. This implies that as SS expenditures rise and receipts decline, the budget deficit will begin to get worse, all else being equal. It's not just a case of needing to start repaying the trust fund around 2018. The government is incapable of running a budget even close to balanced without relying on the Social Security receipts. This points to an ominous picture of significant tax increases or cuts in spending as the demographic crisis gets worse.

I also find it interesting that Social Security is one of the few programs at the federal level in which the revenue source is directly linked to the spending. I wonder how much more efficiently government might operate if all programs were directly linked to the taxes that funded them, making the tradeoffs in their creation and maintanence explicit. This connection suggests several interesting ideas about looking at the problem of Social Security in the context of broader tax reform.

UPDATE: "Link" changed to "connection." I should know better than to post while tired.

Quick Links--Commentary Later

Dems won't offer a Social Security plan.

Condi '08?

Article on Romney's faith.

Disturbing follow-up letters.

Cut Social Security benefits?

Of Note

CSED: $85.69 per South Dakota voter.

John Fund on the Gubernator's anti-gerrymandering initiative.

The Nauvoo Forums dicuss priestcraft. The BYU religion department is mentioned.

Voting

The sight of Iraqi voters celebrating their new freedom a week ago was inspiring and moving. I wonder if we would not do better to follow their example. American voting has followed trends toward absentee balloting, early balloting, easier registration, and generally making it easier and easier to vote, even as fewer eligible voters bother (2004 being an exception to this trend). The reasons for declining turnout are varied, and declining turnout in and of itself is not necessarily bad. However, I suspect our political culture would be strengthened if voting itself held more significance, and I suspect that actually going to the polls provides a more meaningful connection to the process, especially now that we've seen brave citizens of other nations risk their lives to excercise a right we take for granted.

Of course, American voting also faces significant problems with fraud. The Washington gubernatorial election had significant problems (Democrats also claim significant problems in Ohio, though they have considerably less evidence). Reports circulated before the 2004 election of high numbers of voters double-registered in two states, with no mechanism to catch cheaters. Regardless of how rarely election outcomes are actually changed by fraud, if voters see the system as easy to manipulate, confidence will decline.

I have a few suggestions:
*Require the ink. It's a quite simple method of making sure no one can vote more than once. One complaint is that this will make absentee balloting impossible, which brings me to:
*Require a physical appearance at the polls. You could still request an absentee ballot--but on Election Day, you'd have to find a polling place to drop it off at (and get your finger inked). This still enables out-of-state voters like myself to conveniently vote absentee, while ensuring that the person whose ballot it is actually filled it out. This may delay results in close elections, but that already happens anyway. Any voter in the U.S. should have little trouble finding a precinct at which to drop off an absentee ballot, and voters overseas could use embassies or military bases. States should be able to come up with an easy and secure way to ship all of the ballots dropped off to the appropriate states for counting.

Both of these suggestions would eliminate many problems, and not be too difficult to implement. We could even add same-day registration, since it would be impossible to vote twice. Democrats traditionally like same-day, but Republicans mistrust it because of the potential for easy fraud.

Eliminating gerrymandering and lifting limits on political speech would also invigorate the electoral process, but these would be more complicated to implement. Making voting more secure and more meaningful shouldn't be.

Social Security Notes

To the best I can recall, I have not ever heard anyone of my age cohort say confidently that Social Security is certain to provide for his or her retirement needs. On the other hand, I've lost count of how many times someone about my age has doubted that the system would be there for him in forty years. To the best of my observation (which is admittedly biased toward the upper-middle-class and more-educated), the implications of the demographic time bomb are taken for granted among young adults--and I suspect that the open disdain most of us have toward Social Security's role in our retirement is in large part the responsibility of the Democratic party.

After all, Democrats have been campaigning on themes of fear with respect to Social Security for longer than I've been alive. I don't think my generation thinks some evil Republicans (or Democrats, or anyone) is out to gut the program--I think we just assume that the program is obviously unsustainable in its current form, and thus don't count on it. And we're also d*mn resentful that the most popular "solution" involves raising taxes on us to subsidize fat monthly checks for seniors who probably don't need them.

I thus find it ironic that many of the same Democrats who for years argued that the system must be strengthened are now passionately arguing against any changes whatsoever. It is interesting to look at where we've been. For instance, Clinton mentioned social security in his SOTUs:

1998:

Now if we balance the budget for next year, it is projected that we'll then have a sizable surplus in the years that immediately follow. What should we do with this projected surplus? I have a simple, four-word answer: Save Social Security first.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
Tonight I propose that we reserve 100 percent of the surplus, that's every penny of any surplus, until we have taken all the necessary measures to strengthen the Social Security system for the 21st century.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: Let us say -- let us say to all Americans watching tonight -- whether you're 70 or 50 or whether you just started paying into the system -- Social Security will be there when you need it.
(APPLAUSE)
Let us make this commitment... ... Social Security first. Let's do that -- together.
(APPLAUSE)
I also want to say that all the American people who are watching us tonight should be invited to join in this discussion. In facing these issues squarely. In forming a true consensus on how we should proceed. We'll start by conducting nonpartisan forums in every region of the country. And I hope that lawmakers of both parties will participate. We'll hold the White House conference on Social Security in December. And one year from now, I will convene the leaders of Congress to craft historic, bipartisan legislation to achieve a landmark for our generation: A Social Security system that is strong in the 21st century.

1999:

With the number of elderly Americans set to double by 2030, the baby boom will become a "senior boom." So first and above all, we must save Social Security for the 21st century. (Applause.)
Early in this century, being old meant being poor. When President Roosevelt created Social Security, thousands wrote to thank him for eliminating what one woman called the "stark terror of penniless, helpless old age." Even today, without Social Security, half our nation's elderly would be forced into poverty. Today, Social Security is strong. But by 2013, payroll taxes will no longer be sufficient to cover monthly payments. And by 2032, the trust fund will be exhausted, and Social Security will be unable to pay out the full benefits older Americans have been promised.
The best way to keep Social Security a rock-solid guarantee is not to make drastic cuts in benefits; not to raise payroll tax rates; and not to drain resources from Social Security in the name of saving it. Instead, I propose that we make the historic decision to invest the surplus to save Social Security. Specifically, I propose that we commit 60 percent of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector just as any private or state government pension would do. This will earn a higher return and keep Social Security sound for 55 years. But we must aim higher. We should put Social Security on a sound footing for the next 75 years. We should reduce poverty among elderly women, who are nearly twice as likely to be poor as our other seniors -- and we should eliminate the limits on what seniors on Social Security can earn. Now, these changes will require difficult but fully achievable choices over and above the dedication of the surplus. They must be made on a bipartisan basis. They should be made this year. So let me say to you tonight, I reach out my hand to all of you in both houses and both parties and ask that we join together in saying to the American people: We will save Social Security now. Now, last year, we wisely reserved all of the surplus until we knew what it would take to save Social Security. Again, I say, we shouldn't spend any of it, not any of it, until after Social Security is truly saved. First things first.