Customer Reviews

The Two Percent Solution: Fixing America's Problems In Ways Liberals And Conservatives Can Love

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

One is always delighted to find such a thought-provoking and daring book as this one by noted author and NPR analyst Matthew Miller. It is thought-provoking along the lines of other recent tomes such as "Rogue Nation" in carefully delineating the manifest fashions in which the current Bush economic approach undermine some of the most deeply cherished aspects of American society, and daring in the sense that like other recent works such as "The Soul Of Capitalism", the author reaches beyond his grasp to attempt to find some answers of the most enduring and vexing problems facing contemporary society. And, by locating the fundamental malaise within the political and economic orbit of crony capitalism and its running dogs of politics, he illustrates how corrupted politicians serving the interests of the power elite repeatedly foist "cutting-edge" short term solutions which not only do not help, but instead makes matters terribly worse over the longer run.

Therefore, the author argues quite persuasively on behalf of the idea that we could dig our way out of this downward spiral we seem to be riding over the last dozen years or so, by simply dedicating two percent of the total tax revenue exclusively toward solving the most pressing and critical looming financial problems facing the polity over the next several decades; universal health care, equal education, and livable wages, by acting to avert the catastrophe of baby-boomer pensions, the social security debacle, and the profound loss of American working class jobs that both the Congress and President seem to be determine to not only ignore, but to exacerbate with their short-sighted political machinations. His basic solution amount to the following equation: fund all the bright young kids to ensure their full education and incorporation into the work force, and doing so will produce the kind of traditional American genius and sustained innovative capability the country needs to continue its economic expansion and the kind of substantial job growth we will need to fund the baby boomers in their retirement. And while one may not agree with the accuracy of the simple equation (I personally think it is necessary but not sufficient), it is indeed hard to argue with the well-documented arguments he foists against the kinds of mind-boggling perfidy that characterizes what passes for current economic policy.

One of the most straight-forward aspects of his argument is his plain-spoken assertion that the politicians of both the right and the left have dissembled and prevaricated with us about what is possible politically, or about to the degree to which they have been co-opted and corrupted by the extraordinary demands of funding for re-elections. And, in what is truly an argument one finds hard to assail or question based on its substantial documentation, Miller then proceeds to show us how the investment of just two percent of all this tax funding can right so many of the enduring and persistent social problems in this country. In addressing the patently cynical approach of the Bush administration toward education, the author illustrates just how flawed and failed a policy the "No Child Left Behind" notion truly is, and why it is certain to do exactly the opposite of what it states. The worst aspect of this is that with some intelligence and innovation, similar amounts of money correctly applied could help to turn the situation around. By centering on how mediocre teaching skills and practices are profoundly mortgaging the potential progress for our children, he shows just how indemnifying the current educational policy is for the future.

Similarly, he indicts the current approach toward both pensions and social security, which he cites a bevy of reasons for the current counterproductive and solipsistic world-view of the situation, and how everything from the petty political prerogatives undermine any serious attempt to correct the course of the ship of state in time to avoid a looming financial crash on the shoals of exponentially rising demands on the available financial capital. In all of this he repeatedly draws the lines to illustrate how the media has failed to inform and engage the public in discussions regarding these quite fundamental and increasingly critical issues. By striving more to entertain than to edify the public, they have acted in concert with the poltiical structure to obviate the truth, which the author is somehow quite optimistic about, given his belief that the public is becoming more interested and more sophisticated, and more able and more likely to begin much more serious active intervention in the poltiical end-game. This is indeed an important and worthwhile book, and one all of us should read and discuss for the benefit of the country and ourselves. Enjoy!

Edit of 21 Dec 07 to add links.

This book is politically and economically *explosive*. It joins The Radical Center: The Future of American Politics (Halstead & Lind) and The Cultural Creatives: How 50 Million People Are Changing the World (Ray & Anderson) as one of my "top three" in domestic US political economics, and it *also* joins The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to a Moral Economy (William Greider) and Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism and the Failure of Good Intentions (Clyde Prestowitz) is my "top three" for international political economics.

This is a cross-over, transformative book that should be meaningful to everyone in the world, but especially to those Americans who wish to break out of the vicious downward spiral caused by partisan politics and voodoo economics--by elected politicians corrupted by special interests and consistently selecting short-term fraudulent "solutions" at the expense of long-term *sustainable" solutions.

By "2% solution" the author means 2 cents of every dollar in the national budget, or roughly what we have already wasted or committed to waste on the misbegotten Iraq invasion and occupation. The author crafts a viable proposition for thinking really big and coming to grips, in time to avert the looming disaster of the baby boomer pensions and the collapse of health care and education, with the four biggest issues threatening the national security and prosperity of the United States of America: universal health care; equal education for all, a living wage for all, and sustainable reliable pensions for all.

He sums it up in a gripping fashion: if we don't fund smart well-educated kids across the entire country, then we will not have the productivity we need to expand our pension funds and care for the boomers when they hit retirement. Smart kids now, safe retirement for today's adults. Any questions?

He is candidly (but politely) blunt when he states, and then documents, that both the Republican and Democratic party leaders (less Howard Dean) are lying to us about the answers that are possible (Prologue, page xiii). His book is an earnest--and in my judgement, hugely successful--attempt to create what the author calls an "ideologically androgynous" agenda for achieving social and economic justice in America with a commitment of just two cents on the tax-revenue dollar.

On the issue of teaching, he documents the "teacher gap" as one of the primary reasons for varying levels of performance--a gap that is more important than genetics or environment, and that is also resolvable by sound educational policy and funding. He brutally undresses both the Bush Administration, which is leaving every child behind, and the Democrats, who are "more symbol than cure." Republican hypocrisy and Democratic timidity receive an equal thrashing.

On living wages, he documents the 25 million that are not covered; on pensions he documents the coming collapse of Social Security and other "off budget" and unprotected funds.

He provides four reasons why we have a dysfunctional debate (and one can surmise: why we need to change the Presidential election process in order to achieve truly open and substantive debates): 1) paralysis from political party parity; 2) old mind-sets and habits shared by *both* Republican and Democratic leaders (less Governor Dean); 3) the failure of the national press to be serious and critical and to contribute to the debates; and 4) the tyranny of charades funded by political contributions.

The book includes an excellent and understandable review of both economic and social justice theory. Of special interest is the author's discussion of the Rawls Rule for social justice, which is to imagine everyone in an "original position" behind a veil of ignorance where no one knows what their luck will be in the future--the design of the social safety net should provide for the amelioration of any injustice that might befall anyone, and a social promotion system that prevents wealth concentrations that are not beneficial to the larger society--to wit, we must "set some limits on the power of luck to deform human lives."

The author concludes the book by suggesting that the public is ready for a revolution in U.S. political economic affairs, and in so doing points out how ill-served the U.S. public is by surveys that confuse myopia with honesty--surveys that ask generic questions without revealing the scope of the problem (40 million affected, etc.) with the result that the public is not informed of the depth of the problem--or, as the author suggests--they would *want to do something about it."

This is a sensible, heartening book. It is a book that gives hope for the future and that displays a proper respect for the good intentions and ability to think of the average citizen. It is a book that, if adopted by any Presidential candidate--or by all of them--could radically alter the public debates that lie before the public in the period leading up to the 2004 election. Every American should read this book and the four books cited above. If Thomas Jefferson was correct when he said, "A Nation's best defense is an educated citizenry," then Matthew Miller just became the first tutor to the new Nation.

New Comment: Between a Tobin tax on every Federal Reserve transaction, an end of income taxes on individuals, and this author's idea, I am quite certain that we can find and apply a trillion a year against global and domestic high-level threats from poverty to transnational crime, while winding down the military, secret intelligence, prison, and hospital complexes. This is one of the books I would recommend the next President read sooner than later.

See also, with reviews:
One from Many: VISA and the Rise of Chaordic Organization
The Tao of Democracy: Using Co-Intelligence to Create a World That Works for All
Breaking the Real Axis of Evil: How to Oust the World's Last Dictators by 2025
The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits (Wharton School Publishing Paperbacks)
The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom
Revolutionary Wealth: How it will be created and how it will change our lives

Matthew Miller's book The Two Percent Solution: Fixing American's Problems in Ways Liberals and Conservatives Can Love is worth reading as an insightful explanation of the shortcomings in some of our publicly-supported industries and some remedies to these structural defects.

Matt is looking for a consensus on how to improve the health care and education industries to invest in working people much more than we do now. Currently, the U.S. has an employer-based health system where employers provide insurance to employees, subsidized at $125 billion by the federal government as tax-deductible expenses by the business and tax-free income to employees, and risk is spread over the diverse group of employees within each big company's pool of workers. The unemployed, part-time workers, full-time workers with cheap employers and small businesses all get screwed out of affordable coverage. Individual insurance is a cherry-picking industry where sick people with pre-existing conditions can't get any coverage while the healthy are profit centers for the insurance companies, brokers and other middlemen.

For the same money ($125 billion), Matt says we should subsidize individuals' purchase of insurance coverage. We'd treat insurance like a regulated utility so they'd have to offer the same price and product to everyone, regardless of health history (except for sex and age). The companies can still compete on innovation and price, while the public subsidy ensures that the coverage is affordable to all.

He was smart enough to get Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Seattle) and Rep. Jim McCrery (R-Louisiana) to talk through this together and agree on the parameters to legitimize the policy. The conversation between these two representatives is the strongest part of the book.

I don't know why the government shouldn't just buy insurance for everyone in a particular area like a county and let the different insurance companies compete for each jurisdiction's contract (kind of like the market for voting equipment). The government insurance would be rather basic - heavy on catastrophic and light on preventative. We'd all (as taxpayers) shoulder the burden of financing the very sick (10% of all patients consume 70% of all health care dollars, I read somewhere), which seems like the fairest way to do it, instead of sticking the bill with the unlucky families with a sick child.

One of his great big ideas is the millionaire teacher. Poor children in bad schools with shaky families need amazing teachers. We'll need to hire some ridiculously high number of teachers in the next decade. Instead of getting a lot of the low-percentile graduates, we ought to pay the best and the brightest a lot of money to recruit them into some of the toughest and most important jobs around. He'd take a voucher system in a heartbeat if the vouchers were worth a lot - another one of his `grand bargain' big ideas where conservatives agree to higher taxes so long as liberals let the conservatives invest it in students the way the conservatives want to. (This only makes sense if the higher tax is the marginal income tax rate so the wealthy pay the tax - if it's a regressive tax than liberals should get to decide how to spend the money since our people are paying the tax). Matt talks to a number of school administrators (including Chicago's own Arne Duncan) and makes a convincing case that we should pay teachers a lot more than we are if they are willing to be the pseudo-parent poor children need. And his take on "vouchers even liberals can love" basically sets the case that at some value ($10,000? $15,000? $20,000), a voucher system is entirely consistent with the highest calling of social justice, and progressives should be delighted by any attempt to get a well-funded voucher system in place. (Of course, liberals should be wary, as President Bush has been pretty good at sounding like he cares about schools but not taxing Republican voters enough to finance his education initiatives).

I shouldn't give the whole book away. Suffice to say, the Two Percent Solution is worth a read (even if it is extremely short on how to actually build that consensus without just wishing for philosopher-king leaders to emerge).

This is a pretty good and even handed look at a looming crisis. There is no need for scare tactics because it is a very real situation and one that is very likely to occur unless we change things (which is not looking too promising at the moment). Fortunately, and timely, last night's episode of "The West Wing" addressed the very same issues and hopefully will get people to start thinking about it, if only at a subconscious level.

The author is a Democrat, but does a good job of keeping things on the level (except for the several times that he complains about the problems that Clinton "inherited", while ignoring the ones that other Presidents have "inherited", like a trashed stock market and rapidly tanking economy). A bit more editing would have been much better. Still, open-minded individuals can appreciate it (by the way, I am Libertarian).

There are no easy solutions, but this one gives some good possibilities that could be acceptable from all sides.

I'd like to start by saying that this book is brilliant and a fresh take on politics that is so rarely heard today. By initially removing himself from bipartisan politics and attacking to current politics of both parties within the first part of the book, Miller convincingly overcomes possible accusations of bias, which would allow the book to be utterly dismissed as "conservative propaganda" by the left and "liberal propaganda" by the right. Instead, Miller calls for an agreement, a truce in the name of progress, between the two sides of American politics. As Miller himself puts it, "What if both sides came together and said, 'I'll get serious about teachers if you get serious about vouchers?' and vice versa." At least he admits that the current system of politics is a system of charades, conflicts, and no real action.

But are Miller's plans feasible? The Two Percent solution itself is not one monolithic plan, but four smaller but formidable ones tackling four of what Miller sees to be the biggest real-world issues today: universal health coverage, education reform, living-wage subsidies, and "Patriot Dollars", designed to tackle the problem of campaign finance. Each of these has its own pros and cons and will inevitably come under fire from both sides of the political spectrum.

This is why the book strikes me and others as naive. The issue of how, politically, these plans will come to be is underrepresented in this book. I'd fully support these ideas if Miller could actually propose how to bring everyone in modern politics out of their entrenched positions and to their non-reactionary senses long enough to consider his plans. He hopes for a grassroots campaign that will someday take over America, but this cannot be reconciled with another complaint of his. Namely, one of Miller's woes is the lack of interest and trust by the public in politics. Frankly, the Two Percent Solution will not generate interest in the ways that Miller wants. He calls for believers in the solution to tell their friends and acquaintances about the idea. However, the lack of interest in politics, as described by Miller himself -- the general political ennui -- means this isn't a feasible plan; personally, I can't imagine many people whom I'd tell about the plan actually believing in its power themselves. Even fewer would further spread the word.

The book has some wonderful, fresh ideas that I hadn't expected from a political book. However, the problem is its ambitiousness - perhaps too much ambition and not enough direction toward achieving practical solutions.

If nothing else, this book is an enlightening political discussion on several topics. The one I found most interesting was on the concept of fairness between the rivaling camps of Milton Friedman and John Rawls. Rawls' concept of the pre-birth lottery and decision making "behind a veil of ignorance" is a point too important to go unknown by the general public, as it is now. If you're looking for a new plan, ambitious as it might be, pick up this book just for this one breath of fresh air. Even if you're looking only for a relevant discussion of modern politics, read this book for Miller's discussion of the topic.

The title is explained by Miller's bold assertion that the most serious challenges in the United States could be solved if the federal government spent only 2% more than it does now. These challenges include providing health care for those unable to afford it, attracting the best teaching talent to the weakest schools, establishing a "universal" living wage, and reforming campaign financing. In 2004, the gross domestic product will be approximately $11-trillion. Based on that, a 2% increase would be $220-billion.

Immediately I have questions. Has Miller taken in full account that as much as 85% (if not more) of an annual federal budget is already committed by law to programs such as Social Security and Medicare? Even if the Congress and the President were in agreement about the 2% tax increase and dedicated expenditures Miller proposes, would -- indeed could -- they make them? Even then, where would the (no pun intended) proverbial "buck" stop in terms of ensuring that the increased expenditures achieve the intended objectives? Finally, given the well-established infrastructures of government at the federal, state, and local levels, will an increase (in whatever amount) in a single year be sufficient to solve problems which have developed during the last (let's say) 50 years?

No reasonable person can quarrel with Miller's assertion that such problems exist, and, that public officials need to collaborate much more effectively on solving them. I agree with Miller that "our two major political parties are organized around ideologies and interest groups that systematically ban the expression of common-sense ideas that blend the best of liberal and conservative thinking." Perhaps there is a consensus in 2004 on what the most serious problems are. Historically, however, there has always been disagreement as to HOW to solve such problems and my guess (only a guess) is that political divisions are wider and deeper now than they have been at least since the 1930s and perhaps since the Civil War.

For me, this book's greatest value is best measured in terms of the controversies and conversations it stimulates. Miller does not have all the right answers...and doesn't claim to. No one does. In fact, he doesn't ask all the right questions. However, he offers a series of quite specific proposals and then supports them. If you disagree, as many do, Amazon offers this opportunity to respond and I am grateful for it.

The title is explained by Miller's bold assertion that the most serious challenges in the United States could be solved if the federal government spent only 2% more than it does now. These challenges include providing health care for those unable to afford it, attracting the best teaching talent to the weakest schools, establishing a "universal" living wage, and reforming campaign financing. In 2004, the gross domestic product will be approximately $11-trillion. Based on that, a 2% increase would be $220-billion.

Immediately I have questions. Has Miller taken in full account that as much as 85% (if not more) of an annual federal budget is already committed by law to programs such as Social Security and Medicare? Even if the Congress and the President were in agreement about the 2% tax increase and dedicated expenditures Miller proposes, would -- indeed could -- they make them? Even then, where would the (no pun intended) proverbial "buck" stop in terms of ensuring that the increased expenditures achieve the intended objectives? Finally, given the well-established infrastructures of government at the federal, state, and local levels, will an increase (in whatever amount) in a single year be sufficient to solve problems which have developed during the last (let's say) 50 years?

No reasonable person can quarrel with Miller's assertion that such problems exist, and, that public officials need to collaborate much more effectively on solving them. I agree with Miller that "our two major political parties are organized around ideologies and interest groups that systematically ban the expression of common-sense ideas that blend the best of liberal and conservative thinking." Perhaps there is a consensus in 2004 on what the most serious problems are. Historically, however, there has always been disagreement as to HOW to solve such problems and my guess (only a guess) is that political divisions are wider and deeper now than they have been at least since the 1930s and perhaps since the Civil War.

For me, this book's greatest value is best measured in terms of the controversies and conversations it stimulates. Miller does not have all the right answers...and doesn't claim to. No one does. In fact, he doesn't ask all the right questions. However, he offers a series of quite specific proposals and then supports them. If you disagree, as many do, Amazon offers this opportunity to respond and I am grateful for it.

This book is a major eye opener. As a registered republican who believes G.W. wants a better future for the poor of america, I do not understand why his administration has not implemented, or at least attempted to implement the policies in this book. This book is simply amazing - a thought out argument for saving America from the teachers unions, rip-off corporations and bureaucrats.

Miller does the impossible in this book, thinking way outside the box to innovate solutions that address the concerns of liberals and conservatives alike and actually solve the intended problem.

Can universal health insurance, increased employment, reduction in poverty and political independence be achieved for just two cents on the national dollar? Matthew Miller challenges the country to change how we think about public responsibilities before the Boomer generation attacks the retirement system in The Two Percent Solution. Individual chapters provide an articulate and intelligent re-assessment which persuasively challenges traditional political and social mores.