Rating: 
Summary: A fiscal utopia .
Review: Mr. Miller is very creative, innovative, and what have you. But, he is totally unrealistic. His book is just an interesting utopia of what we could do with our money if it grew on trees, and if political considerations were irrelevant. The truth of the matter is that we have a structural Budget Deficit of 5% of GDP. In other words, day in day out our Federal government expenditures exceed our Federal tax receipts by 5% of GDP (about 21% to 16% respectively). In Miller's utopic language, we would call this the 5% Problem, or the 5 pennies on the Dollar problem. Additionally, if we look at the Federal Government as an insurance company offering retirement annuity policies (Social Security) and health care insurance policies (Medicare, and Medicaid) for which it charges a premium (payroll taxes); the Federal Government is deemed insolvent. The net present value of the cost of those policies exceeds the premiums received by $72 trillion. This stresses that we actually have far more than a 5% Problem (in Miller's language) when we consider our tsunami of unfunded liabilities. To resolve our fiscal crisis, we should think like libertarians on the expense side (cut the cost of government programs, restructure Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) and think like socialists on the revenues side (increase taxation to near European style levels). Miller does the reverse (think like a socialist on the expense side and like a libertarian on the tax side). Thus, none of the ideas he comes up with pay for themselves. Instead, they would dig us deeper in the hole. Also, Miller's creative "grand bargains" amount to various voucher schemes to ultimately insure more people, increase the pay of teachers, and other most laudable social goals. Unfortunately, most of these "grand bargains" have already proven to be political nonstarters. School vouchers have already been turned down many times by voters at the State level. If you want to read good books on the future outlook of the U.S. better grounded in reality, I recommend: Laurence Kotlikoff's "The Coming Generational Storm" that describes the impact of our aging society on our fiscal position. I also strongly recommend two excellent books by Robert Stowe England: "The Fiscal Challenge of an Aging Industrial World" and "Global Aging and Financial Markets." These books make extensive comparison between the U.S. and other developed countries' fiscal position. Also, Paul Krugman's "The Great Unraveling" covers well our deteriorating fiscal position.
Rating:
Summary: A fiscal utopia .
Review: Mr. Miller is very creative, innovative, and what have you. But, he is totally unrealistic. His book is just an interesting utopia of what we could do with our money if it grew on trees, and if political considerations were irrelevant. The truth of the matter is that we have a structural Budget Deficit of 5% of GDP. In other words, day in day out our Federal government expenditures exceed our Federal tax receipts by 5% of GDP (about 21% to 16% respectively). In Miller's utopic language, we would call this the 5% Problem, or the 5 pennies on the Dollar problem. Additionally, if we look at the Federal Government as an insurance company offering retirement annuity policies (Social Security) and health care insurance policies (Medicare, and Medicaid) for which it charges a premium (payroll taxes); the Federal Government is deemed insolvent. The net present value of the cost of those policies exceeds the premiums received by $72 trillion. This stresses that we actually have far more than a 5% Problem (in Miller's language) when we consider our tsunami of unfunded liabilities. To resolve our fiscal crisis, we should think like libertarians on the expense side (cut the cost of government programs, restructure Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) and think like socialists on the revenues side (increase taxation to near European style levels). Miller does the reverse (think like a socialist on the expense side and like a libertarian on the tax side). Thus, none of the ideas he comes up with pay for themselves. Instead, they would dig us deeper in the hole. Also, Miller's creative "grand bargains" amount to various voucher schemes to ultimately insure more people, increase the pay of teachers, and other most laudable social goals. Unfortunately, most of these "grand bargains" have already proven to be political nonstarters. School vouchers have already been turned down many times by voters at the State level. If you want to read good books on the future outlook of the U.S. better grounded in reality, I recommend: Laurence Kotlikoff's "The Coming Generational Storm" that describes the impact of our aging society on our fiscal position. I also strongly recommend two excellent books by Robert Stowe England: "The Fiscal Challenge of an Aging Industrial World" and "Global Aging and Financial Markets." These books make extensive comparison between the U.S. and other developed countries' fiscal position. Also, Paul Krugman's "The Great Unraveling" covers well our deteriorating fiscal position.
Rating: 
Summary: Profound Book Concerning Contemporary Socioeconomic Issues!
Review: 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!
Rating: 
Summary: Sensible and Perhaps Do-Able but Probably Unlikely
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: A must read for any conservative republican
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Pretty Good, Even Handed
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: A little naive
Review: What struck me was how tries to sound sensible, while coming across (to me at least) as incredibly naive. He just had the innocent attitude of "Can't we all just get along (and solve our problems)"? There is a reason that lobbyists are the fastest growing thing in the Washington swamp (read The Power Game). There is a reason that special interest groups are able to mold the debate, (read Demosclerosis). There is a reason that the media push an agenda (read The Gods of Antenna). All three are great books. The Spending Interests all migrate to Washington, or your state capitol or courthouse, each with his own sob story. Why? Because like an old bank robber once said, "That's where the money is." Every year, brings another "crisis", another "problem", another agency that won't go away, another unkillable program. Layer upon layer upon layer, more paperwork, and paid-off constituents, and more sclerosis. Of course old liberals and new compassionate conservatives are just willing to hand over the money, as long as its YOURS, and not their own. Listening to Mr. Miller, and knowing just a little about the policy debates, surely he knows the Law of Unintended Consequences, especially when government programs come along. Once we install the programs he advocates, what is to prevent them from mushrooming like previous programs? Go see what the original projections were for Medicare for example, and just look at it now. Mr. Miller sensibly said there would be caps. Oh sure, I believe him. But in a few years, those caps just happen to disappear!! Amazing to see this magic act, but it happens all the time in government. The benefitted class squawks the loudest, and gets the most grease. Mr. Miller said that "two cents on the dollar" means two percent of our $11 trillion national income (gross domestic product, or GDP), which is $220 billion a year. And that this could solve our health insurance problem, end poverty, etc. I hate to break it to Mr. Miller, but $220 billion is just about 10% of our federal budget, and he thinks he can solve those problems with that little amount. Trust me, it will take more, much more. We all know about the Social Security/Medicare/Unfunded Liability problems. We are very good at ignoring problems, or just put them on the credit card. Nothing happens until there is a crisis, until you hit rock bottom. But even here, at this point in time, I am not so sure. To give a perfect, current, example about this: When 9/11 occurred, everyone said how it changed "everything". On this topic alone, I look around and I see no unity on anything. And this is with NYC attacked, the Pentagon attacked, and only some brave souls saving the final target of the US Capitol. In terms of the policy debate, what exactly has changed? We have done little about our borders, and our pilots are still undefended. We have "serious" candidates for President who cannot say what they would do about terrorism, and even equivocate about what to do about terrorist supporting nations such as Afghanistan and Iraq. Remember, WE were attacked. And our response to this is . . . .? They hit NYC and the Pentagon!! I shudder to think what our response would be if they target Upper Podunk in flyover country. Now Mr. Miller says we should all agree on schools? on healthcare? ROFLMAO.
|
