Rating: 
Summary: Re-Opens the Door to a Bright Future for America
Review:
This book is politically and economically *explosive*. It joins "The Radical Center" (Halstead & Lind) and "Cultural Creatives" (Ray & Anderson) as one of my "top three" in domestic US political economics, and it *also* joins "The Soul of Capitalism" (William Greider) and "Rogue Nation" (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.
Rating:
Summary: Re-Opens the Door to a Bright Future for America
Review:
This book is politically and economically *explosive*. It joins "The Radical Center" (Halstead & Lind) and "Cultural Creatives" (Ray & Anderson) as one of my "top three" in domestic US political economics, and it *also* joins "The Soul of Capitalism" (William Greider) and "Rogue Nation" (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.
Rating: 
Summary: More Problems than Solutions
Review: Books that promise to fix big problems remind me of the time I sat behind two little old ladies on a bus. Noticing an empty bus go by in mid-afternoon, one said to the other, "They should use smaller buses during rush hour." Of course, the ladies hadn't considered the cost of operating two fleets of different types of equipment! But their naïve approach isn't that different from what we see in most "what we need to do" books. Miller's is better than most. Miller's ideas are sound and well-thought-out. The book is worth reading, if only because Miller has a knack for pinpointing issues and gaining access to knowledgeable sources. The book also forms a basis for thought-provoking discussion. However, many systems are not working because they were designed for another era. What's needed is an overhaul, not a quick fix. Miller's contribution is to find "solutions" that are not only economically feasible but also acceptable to both conservatives and liberals. To this end, he focuses on specific elements of large systems. For example, education depends on teacher quality, and teacher quality is compromised by low teachers' salaries. Vouchers make sense for everyone. And we need to finance some form of universal health insurance. Raising teacher salaries may be a start, but I would encourage research into real reasons teachers leave and potential teachers fail to enter the profession. Aside from money, teaching K-12 means coming to a workplace that's almost as rigid as a factory. A college graduate might become an engineer not only because of the salary differential, but also because she'll have more freedom and flexibility in her workday. She'll travel to conferences, take an afternoon off, and probably have a phone on her desk. Miller brings up a key point: State-based teacher certification means that teachers who move must pay for expensive, useless updates. He's right -- but I think we need to look at all certification processes. In a world where a local and long-distance calls blend together, maybe it's time to question all state-based programs. But there's a more fundamental concern here. Teaching, like career systems, assumes the 1950's model: enter a career at twenty-one and remain till you retire. Many people would enjoy a stint at teaching -- but this choice can create obstacles to future choice. Some states have separate retirement systems for teachers. And, as Miller notes, education courses are so stultifying that the best-and-brightest drop out early. We need to see teaching in the context of changing career patterns-- and the context of education itself. Increasingly parents opt for home schooling. Anstead of funding teachers for inner city schools, maybe we need to focus on inner cities themselves. As he implies, if you're afraid to leave your car on the street, no amount of money will motivate someone to teach in a neighborhood. To take another example, anyone who urges universal health coverage should spend time in Canada. Waiting lists are long and I have heard several first-hand stories of a black market: people who jumped the queue because they knew someone, served on hospital boards and/or simply paid a doctor a lump sum under the table. Additionally, Canada uses the US as their backup plan. Many corporations send executives to the US for physicals and care and wealthy people bypass the local system entirely, heading for the US. Middle and upper income residents bear the burden of universal health coverage. For many, the higher Canadian taxes come to more than a high-quality insurance premium in the US. Lower-income and poor residents come out way ahead. While Miller makes some excellent points, we need to focus on the way medical care is delivered and chosen in the twenty-first century. A huge amount of money goes to end-of-life care, which often is neither wanted nor useful. Nearly every week the New York Times reports the uselessness of yet another expensive, invasive procedure. We also base coverage on values. Should we fund fertility treatments, abortions or both? Should insurance support therapy for someone who is functioning well but wants to know himself better -- for a year two? Additionally, care choices will be influenced by insurance. After changing employers, one manager told me, "I have to pay more for my insurance now, so my wife and I make sure we get our money's worth. We go to the clinic even for colds." Another said, "My elderly parents visit the doctor once a week, probably because they're bored. He can't refuse to see them and of course he bills Medicare for their visits." We all know horror stories of unnecessary surgery and medication. And often a high-tech solution works no better than a lower-cost, low-tech option. Massage, for instance, can cost considerably less than medication for certain conditions. Meditation remains an effective way to lower blood pressure and reduce stress. I'm suspicious of band-aids, but that's all we're likely to get in the next fifty years or so. At least Miller's solutions will hurt less than many of the alternatives and may even help us get to the longer-term benefits, one step at a time.
Rating:
Summary: More Problems than Solutions
Review: Books that promise to fix big problems remind me of the time I sat behind two little old ladies on a bus. Noticing an empty bus go by in mid-afternoon, one said to the other, "They should use smaller buses during rush hour." Of course, the ladies hadn't considered the cost of operating two fleets of different types of equipment! But their naïve approach isn't that different from what we see in most "what we need to do" books. Miller's is better than most. Miller's ideas are sound and well-thought-out. The book is worth reading, if only because Miller has a knack for pinpointing issues and gaining access to knowledgeable sources. The book also forms a basis for thought-provoking discussion. However, many systems are not working because they were designed for another era. What's needed is an overhaul, not a quick fix. Miller's contribution is to find "solutions" that are not only economically feasible but also acceptable to both conservatives and liberals. To this end, he focuses on specific elements of large systems. For example, education depends on teacher quality, and teacher quality is compromised by low teachers' salaries. Vouchers make sense for everyone. And we need to finance some form of universal health insurance. Raising teacher salaries may be a start, but I would encourage research into real reasons teachers leave and potential teachers fail to enter the profession. Aside from money, teaching K-12 means coming to a workplace that's almost as rigid as a factory. A college graduate might become an engineer not only because of the salary differential, but also because she'll have more freedom and flexibility in her workday. She'll travel to conferences, take an afternoon off, and probably have a phone on her desk. Miller brings up a key point: State-based teacher certification means that teachers who move must pay for expensive, useless updates. He's right -- but I think we need to look at all certification processes. In a world where a local and long-distance calls blend together, maybe it's time to question all state-based programs. But there's a more fundamental concern here. Teaching, like career systems, assumes the 1950's model: enter a career at twenty-one and remain till you retire. Many people would enjoy a stint at teaching -- but this choice can create obstacles to future choice. Some states have separate retirement systems for teachers. And, as Miller notes, education courses are so stultifying that the best-and-brightest drop out early. We need to see teaching in the context of changing career patterns-- and the context of education itself. Increasingly parents opt for home schooling. Anstead of funding teachers for inner city schools, maybe we need to focus on inner cities themselves. As he implies, if you're afraid to leave your car on the street, no amount of money will motivate someone to teach in a neighborhood. To take another example, anyone who urges universal health coverage should spend time in Canada. Waiting lists are long and I have heard several first-hand stories of a black market: people who jumped the queue because they knew someone, served on hospital boards and/or simply paid a doctor a lump sum under the table. Additionally, Canada uses the US as their backup plan. Many corporations send executives to the US for physicals and care and wealthy people bypass the local system entirely, heading for the US. Middle and upper income residents bear the burden of universal health coverage. For many, the higher Canadian taxes come to more than a high-quality insurance premium in the US. Lower-income and poor residents come out way ahead. While Miller makes some excellent points, we need to focus on the way medical care is delivered and chosen in the twenty-first century. A huge amount of money goes to end-of-life care, which often is neither wanted nor useful. Nearly every week the New York Times reports the uselessness of yet another expensive, invasive procedure. We also base coverage on values. Should we fund fertility treatments, abortions or both? Should insurance support therapy for someone who is functioning well but wants to know himself better -- for a year two? Additionally, care choices will be influenced by insurance. After changing employers, one manager told me, "I have to pay more for my insurance now, so my wife and I make sure we get our money's worth. We go to the clinic even for colds." Another said, "My elderly parents visit the doctor once a week, probably because they're bored. He can't refuse to see them and of course he bills Medicare for their visits." We all know horror stories of unnecessary surgery and medication. And often a high-tech solution works no better than a lower-cost, low-tech option. Massage, for instance, can cost considerably less than medication for certain conditions. Meditation remains an effective way to lower blood pressure and reduce stress. I'm suspicious of band-aids, but that's all we're likely to get in the next fifty years or so. At least Miller's solutions will hurt less than many of the alternatives and may even help us get to the longer-term benefits, one step at a time.
Rating:
Summary: An articulate and intelligent re-assessment
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Ambitious? Definitely. Too Ambitious? Probably.
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Ambitious? Definitely. Too Ambitious? Probably.
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: A Fantasy
Review: Matt Miller worked out a bunch of proposals on the back of an envelope, he's discussed them with a lot of people, and now he's written a book about them, and they're going to save America. Being a curmudgeon, all I can say is that this book is a fantasy. If it's made into a TV movie, it should be on either the SciFi or Playboy channel. Let's see. Let's cut corporate welfare, including farm subsidies. Then let's shift 1 out of every 6 dollars going to bureaucratic programs into new programs. What are the new programs? A new universal health program, and a well-funded national school voucher program. These programs cut equally against Democrats and Republicans, equally against conservatives and liberals, so everyone will go along with them. Oh, yeah. That's like saying that if we all loved each other and reasoned together, then there'd never be another war, forgetting that there are 20-40 wars going on every day of every year. It's just plain silly. Politics always has been and always will be the politics of hatred. Today, that means that anyone who likes Clinton (either one) hates Bush, and anyone who likes Bush (either one) hates Clinton. For the same reason, anyone who likes school vouchers hates universal health insurance, and vice versa. There IS something good that I can say about this book, and that's why I gave it four stars: It's a good reference source and kind of a complete list of ALL of the silly nonsense that we're hearing these days from politicians of both parties. In fact, this book could be really valuable to any politician running for office in 2004, since it contains, in one place, all you need to know to demagogue any issue from either side.
Rating: 
Summary: More liberal snakeoil
Review: Matthew Miller is an undisguised liberal, whose ideas of economic reality were formed in liberal and Marxist educational institutions, most notably the London School of Economics. He waves a magic wand and, suddenly, money appears from nowhere--free money--to the tune of "only" 2 percent of GDP. This magic, free money can now be used to fund everything that we think we want and need--education, housing, healthcare, a living wage, medicine, and all without any implications, costs, pain or headache. Why, Miller says, the only thing stopping us from tapping into this free money is imagination. Reality never ever creeps into liberalthink. Of course, when one starts from the premise that we should "have it all," that no one should ever be denied anything, then it is weasy to make simpleminded and delusional arguments. Why, Miller makes falsehood an art form in this book. The truth is that there is no free lunch. The truth is that this nation's Gross Domestic Product is not some naturally occurring phenomenon like rainwater that somehow belongs to everyone and no one simultaneously. Neither the poor, nor the government is entitled to any share of our GDP. Somehow the argument has become ingrained in the national discourse that productive Americans have the responsibility to take care of the nonproductive; whether or not the nonproductive make any attempt to improve their human capital and pull their fare share of the load. Screw Miller and his fantasies. Limited government, not unbridled government is the only hope for the future. Reversing the "money can cure anything" delusion is the only hope. Miller's book is pap, andleaves the reader dumber for having read it.
Rating:
Summary: Big picture blueprint: higher taxes for market programs
Review: 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).
| 
