I have come to respect market systems above command and control systems -- to support privatization and competition in the provision of services, and to oppose governmental monopoly -- from a political, rather than an economic perspective. It is not the search for efficiency which leads me to value markets, but rather the search for social justice.

When I think back on my early adult life, two experiences in particular shaped my feelings on this fundamental issue. First, when I was in college I became acquainted with an organization called `Bread For the World' which raised money to combat hunger in the Third World. Its members convinced me that America's tariff policies had destructive consequences both here and abroad. For example, the United States would give the Dominican Republic credits to establish a shoemaking industry, but after they borrowed a lot of money to build production facilities, we wouldn't let them export shoes into the United States. As a result of this contradictory policy, our domestic capital equipment manufacturers and bankers would benefit handsomely, but the Dominicans still couldn't generate enough wealth to feed their people. By protecting our domestic industry, we not only hurt American consumers and made our economy less efficient, but we also prevented the poor from becoming prosperous producers.

The second experience which helped reaffirm my faith in markets occurred when I visited relatives in the former East Germany before the Wall came down. During my visit, I had the opportunity to drive a Trabant, the automobile produced by East Germany's government-owned factories. Driving a Trabant is a worldview-changing experience. In fact, I would encourage everyone to drive a Trabant for just one day. There is simply no better way to personally come to appreciate free markets and to experience the disastrous and inevitable consequences of a government monopoly. Even though the Trabant is a dangerous, ugly, and environmentally destructive automobile, my relatives had to save their money for years and wait on a long list to have the privilege to buy one. Compare the government manufactured Trabant to the automobiles produced by West Germany's two premier auto manufacturers, Mercedes-Benz and BMW, and you immediately understand the value of competition and market accountability. You immediately understand that a monopoly, regardless of whether its public or private, will inevitably lead to reduced quality and higher costs to consumers.

Both of these experiences have taught me to reject anti-market privilege -- of which tariffs are a mild sort and government monopolies in the provision of essential services are the cruelest sort. I support free markets and privatization so that the poor, not just the privileged, have an opportunity to create and obtain wealth. I support privatization and free markets so that consumers can obtain quality goods and services at the best possible price. I support privatization and free markets so that prosperity can replace poverty, and opportunity can replace oppression. To me, the privatization of government monopolies is more than a matter of economic efficiency or political ideology. It is, once again, a matter of justice.

I do believe that there is a positive role for government to play in the world. There is a mid-point between laissez-faire and government monopoly. That mid-point is empowerment. In contrast to laissez-faire thinking, a philosophy of empowerment does recognize that some people are born with disadvantages, and it proactively seeks to ensure that they are granted true opportunity. But in stark contrast to socialism, empowerment does not disenfranchise the individual citizen. It does not build a government monopoly that serves primarily government special interest groups, but not the people. Rather, it keeps power in the hands of the intended beneficiaries, and through choice strives to create a competitive market in the provision of essential services.

As the Mayor of Jersey City, I want to use the philosophy of empowerment to guide my administration's efforts to reform the way in which government provides safe and clean streets, quality schools, and economic opportunity for every member of our community. I want to establish policies that will reinvigorate our sense of community, and make our residents feel that they have the power, not only to make their immediate lives better, but to lay the groundwork for their children's future.

It is not surprising that residents in my economically distressed city sometimes have despair for the future, since they frequently question their own immediate physical safety. So I decided early that one of the top priorities of my administration would be to reduce crime by increasing the number of police officers patrolling our streets. Rather than have our police officers simply respond to crime by patrol car after the fact, our police officers would be assigned to foot patrol in small, manageable neighborhood districts so that they could prevent crime from happening.

Additionally, we decided we would help neighborhood residents organize into neighborhood-police committees that will work cooperatively with the community police officers assigned to patrol in their area. These committees will have routine contact with the Police Director's office so that residents can help establish the policing priorities in their neighborhood, and so that the police officers assigned to foot patrol in a given neighborhood will begin to feel accountable to the people they serve. In fact, we hope to have different members of each neighborhood police committee actually walk for an hour everyday in their neighborhood with their community officer so that the officer can be introduced to the residents and have an opportunity to learn about the problems and trouble spots on his beat.

In order to man this new force of community police officers without further burdening our taxpayers, we are decreasing the size of our non-patrol specialist units, civilianizing station house desk jobs, and petitioning the Governor and State Legislature to reform binding arbitration statutes so that the city can secure a more cost-effective labor contract. As increased police presence on the streets begins to re-establish order and deter crime, we believe that there will be less need for special investigative units who respond after a crime has been committed. In addition, we believe that officers assigned to patrol specific neighborhoods, who have the opportunity to get to know the people that live and work in their district, will be able to gather information and solve crimes better than detectives sent in from the outside.

Moving police officers from desk jobs to street patrol, and bringing in civilians to replace them, will obviously increase the overall budget of the police department, but it need not result in an overall increase in the city budget. That's because many of these new police department civilian employees will be transferred from our other municipal departments.

Obviously, our community policing program will require substantial changes in the internal organizational culture of our police department, and it will require community groups to take a more pro-active role in providing for the safety of their neighborhood. But I am confident that once our police officer and residents begin to see the benefits of community policing -- once they realize that there is less crime because of their cooperation -- they will look for creative ways to expand and strengthen their working relationship.

I would also like to give each neighborhood direct power to contract for supplemental security and sanitation services from a private manager, similar to the business improvement district that operates at Grand Central Station in New York City. These neighborhood improvement districts would give the residents of each district direct control over a portion of their tax dollars. In order to insure that the supplemental services provided by a private manager were of the highest quality and lowest cost, residents would have the opportunity to hire or fire their managers at an annual vendors' convention, where private and not-for-profit firms could compete for contracts in each neighborhood improvement district. Under this system, vendors would be directly accountable to the residents of each district because the citizens who live in the district would have the sole power to renew or terminate their contract.

Therefore, in addition to having a community police officer patrolling every neighborhood, each neighborhood improvement district would also have two or three additional private security and/or sanitation workers to help insure that the streets are both safe and clean. Private managers would also have the authority to hire supplemental workers to remove graffiti from buildings and clear vacant lots of debris. This intensive security presence will most certainly prevent crimes from occurring and improve the physical appearance of each neighborhood. It will also allow us to reduce taxes as competition helps us stretch each dollar to the limit. Perhaps just as importantly, it will give every resident an incentive to strengthen their ties with their neighbors.

In addition to safe and clean streets, our residents are concerned about the deteriorating quality of our public schools. Jersey City has the unfortunate distinction of having been the first city in America where the local school board was abolished and the State took control of our public schools. The Department of Education took this extraordinary action because our school system had a long history of endemic corruption and poor academic performance.

When the local school board was abolished we were spending $170 million per year on education, and only 45% of our children were graduating high school. Now, after five years of state control, with education spending increasing to $270 million per year, still less than half our children graduate from high school and student test scores remain far below the state average, barely having budged. Based on these results, I would argue that money and administrative mismanagement has never been the fundamental reason why Jersey City's public schools have failed. Rather, the problem is that our education system is a bureaucratically rigid monopoly which lacks the flexibility to respond to the needs of our heterogenous and disadvantaged population of children.

I would like to see the current bureaucracy replaced by a system that lets parents, teachers, and students benefit from the creativity of a market. For example, in East Harlem, teachers are encouraged to join together and develop specialized programs of study that operate as separate "schools within a school," and parents have the power to choose the alternative school their child attends. As a result of these market-oriented reforms, East Harlem's test scores have risen from being the worst of New York's 32 school districts to becoming the 15th best. The East Harlem experience shows that once teachers are freed to create a range of alternative programs, and parents are given the power to choose the program that will best help their child, that even disadvantaged and challenged children can learn.

That's is why I have drafted education legislation which, when passed by the State Legislature, will revolutionize Jersey City's education system. My legislation will give every child the opportunity to attend any school in the city, alternative public schools, charter schools, or private schools (with the help of a voucher). My legislation also requires every school to administer standardized examinations and to report their results to a parental information center so that parents can determine how well their children are learning. When armed with this valuable information, parents will finally be able to hold schools accountable for their children's' academic performance.

Finally, I want to use the philosophy of empowerment to create an economic climate in Jersey City that attracts businesses, creates jobs, and helps those on welfare become contributing members of society. Rather than offer abatements and special tax breaks to individual firms that express an interest in operating in Jersey City (which just transfers the city's tax burden from commercial properties to one and two family homes), I want to reduce taxes in a way that benefits all our property owners. I know that government can't create jobs, but it can create a climate that is conducive to business growth. I know that if I can show the business community that Jersey City has safe and clean streets, a well educated work force, good infrastructure, and a low tax rate, then I won't need to offer special incentives to entice businesses to relocate to my city. The facts will simply show that Jersey City is a place where businesses succeed.

In addition to creating a positive business climate, as public officials, we also have a responsibility to help those who are experiencing economic difficulty. However, we have to make sure that in our effort to provide these troubled individuals with the essentials of life -- food, shelter, and health care -- that we do not discourage them from working. I think it would be prudent for government, rather than continuing the destructive policies of the current welfare system, to give every American adult a tax credit for these essentials. If an individual is unemployed, or does not make enough money to take full advantage of these food, shelter, and health care tax credits, then we would give him vouchers of equal value to purchase these essentials. This arrangement is preferable to the current welfare system because it doesn't punish recipients for taking a part-time or entry level job by removing the benefits which they receive on welfare. Instead they are able to retain their health care coverage or housing subsidy, either in the form of a voucher or refundable tax credit, and yet still be able to work towards their independence.

Our society values work and independence, and for this reason, I also believe government should help the unem ployed find jobs. However, rather than have government operate job placement centers, we should contract for this service with private and non-profit vendors who can be paid based on how many welfare applicants they successfully place in permanent jobs. Such performance based contracts would create an economic incentive for placement firms to find jobs for welfare recipients, which is in direct contrast with workers in government job placement monopolies who typically get paid whether any unemployed people get placed or not. The State of New York has had such a contract with America Works since 1988, where the State pay $5,300 for every welfare recipient that is successfully placed in a permanent full-time job after they have been there for at least six months. Given that the average benefit package for a welfare family in New York City is over $23,000, I think everyone would agree that contracting a private firm to provide job placement assistance for welfare recipients is a wise investment.

The principles we are trying to establish in Jersey City are very clear -- we want to give authority to the people we say we are trying to help; we want to give local communities more control over how their tax dollars are spent; and we want to create a market for essential goods and services so that no one monopoly forces our citizens to accept poor quality services at a premium price.

"Power corrupts," Lord Acton said, "and absolute power corrupts absolutely." These are wise words indeed. Mankind will never be able to build a government which is better than the imperfect human beings who will make it up. That's why there is no such thing as benevolent dictators, only dictators. If we want our government to serve rather than to oppress the people then we must not put power in the hands of government -- we must keep it in the hands of the people. We should use government to expand the choices available to people, but we must never allow government to restrict our choices.

If we follow the principles of empowerment, then we can make government a force for progress, instead of making it a source of oppression, as it increasingly is becoming today. We can have safe and clean streets. We can ensure that every child has access to good schools and recreational opportunities. We can have low taxes and a strong economy that creates enough jobs for everyone. And we can have a much happier society than we have today.

I am convinced that all of this will come true because I am convinced that empowerment is gradually becoming the dominant paradigm throughout the world.

Far from being at the twilight of civilization, our best days are ahead!